[governance] Programme outline and schedule released

[George Sadowsky]

Estimado Carlos,

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  Each of the points in 
paragraph 72 can be addressed by a range of 
possible activities.  I'm proposing that how we 
choose which of those activities or processes to 
execute should depend crucially upon whether its 
execution will move toward desirable goals or not.

As a simple beginning to stating the goals, it's 
my belief that 99.99+% of the Internet community 
-- and here I refer to the Internet community in 
its broadest sense -- will be satisfied with a 
set of Internet governance arrangements that will:

- provide them with accessible, available and affordable Internet service;

- treat their communications as private and confidential; and

- not block in any way their access to 
communication or content or their ability to 
"speak" freely over the Internet.

In other words, they want unrestricted access, 
pure and simple, with guarantees of privacy, and 
that is both necessary and sufficient.

I suggest that governance arrangements that 
fulfill these three criteria belong in a set of 
good governance arrangements, while those 
violating any of these criteria are to be 
avoided.  I also suggest that how the elements of 
para. 72 are approached will determine whether 
the exercise promotes the above goals or not. 
The goals should drive the means for achieving 
them.

I hope that this helps.

Amitiés,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 9:24 AM -0300 5/2/07, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>Grande George,
>
>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>Carlos,
>>
>>I take as the overall objective of whatever the 
>>IGF does as focusing on issues relating to 
>>Internet governance, defined in the broad 
>>sense, to serve the purpose of economic and 
>>social development. Clearly there are multiple 
>>dimensions of IG, and reasonable people may 
>>differ in their assessment regarding how 
>>important the issues in each dimension are to 
>>accomplish that goal.
>
>I can live with this :)
>
>>
>>Within that scope, I could argue that each of 
>>the subparagraphs of para. 72 has the 
>>capability of meeting a set of overall long 
>>term goals.  However, I think that for most of 
>>the subparagraphs below, I could imagine 
>>activities that are believed (by someone) to be 
>>consistent with the Tunis agenda, but that I 
>>believe would not meet those goals and would be 
>>counterproductive.
>
>The use of the verb "believe" here is most 
>appropriate, but even Hegel would admit the 
>Tunis Agenda exists and cannot be dismissed, 
>independently of our beliefs or perceptions.
>
>>
>>The problem with the Tunis agenda as a guide is 
>>that it can be read in different ways by 
>>different people, very much like complex 
>>religious documents such as the Bible.  Now 
>>para. 72 prescribes the initiation of actions 
>>or activities.  Rather than trying to define 
>>activities as good or relevant, or 
>>alternatively bad or irrelevant, i would like 
>>to focus on goals, and for each activity, ask 
>>whether it produces good or bad results with 
>>respect to those goals.  This reflects my 
>>consequentialist leanings in which the concepts 
>>of good and bad are the major focus rather than 
>>the concepts of right or wrong.  An action is 
>>'right' if its consequences are good, and 
>>vice-versa.
>
>Here we have to recall IGF was created carry 
>out, as a forum, the mandate expressed by the 
>Tunis agenda, para 72 included *in its 
>entirety*, whatever our beliefs or religious 
>inclinations (like the belief that the current 
>ICANN structure is untouchable and not subject 
>to external debate towards its revamping or 
>modification).
>
>>
>>So while I do not dismiss para. 72, I would 
>>argue that the interpretation and 
>>implementation of the specific activities 
>>chosen under each of its sub-paragraphs does 
>>need to be subjected to a test of whether it 
>>meets overall development goals which the IGF 
>>was established to promote.  Each of those 
>>sub-paragraphs can give rise to activities that 
>>I believe would be consistent with and 
>>supportive of those goals.  Likewise each can 
>>give rise to activities that are inconsistent 
>>with or destructive with respect to those goals.
>
>As pointed out above, neither the MAG (with its 
>strong pro-ICANN-status-quo presence) nor the 
>organizers of the IGF process have any authority 
>to just dismiss any part of the Tunis agenda. 
>This has been the result of gross manipulation 
>in the Athens phase which we hope will not be 
>repeated in Rio.
>
>>
>>Opinions will clearly differ on these points.
>
>You can say that again! :)
>
>fraternal regards
>
>--c.a.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070502/349cdd54/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070502/349cdd54/attachment.txt>