[governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening speakers

[Seth Johnson]

Nick: I think balance is not often really a zero sum analysis, not
when in policy discussions.  Almost nobody in a policy discussion is
actually thinking or engaged like that.  It's not a bucket of water,
or nobody would be engaged in any sort of creative way.  Rather,
they'll say x needs to be balanced by our side getting something
"commensurate" y.  Typically making a point of contrast in one of a
manifold of ways to characterize relations in a policy discussion.

Suresh: A little lost on what you're saying and what not, but
appreciate that you are playing a diplomatic function.


Seth

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
<nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.
>
> For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.
>
> Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.
>
>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 16:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> There are balanced positions.  And then there are principled stands - which can still be expressed civilly - and as long as they stick to a consistent set of facts, they are to be respected.
>>
>> I wasn’t referring to you at all when I said that part about burning bridges.  However, appeals to balance that I made were those that tend to what I mentioned above.
>>
>> I hope I make myself clear - I am not disagreeing with you here.
>>
>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This kind of characterization of what I actually said doesn't help either.  :-)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> Painting ourselves as extremists does our cause a disservice.  And burns bridges with other stakeholder groups that various people try hard to build and maintain.
>>>>
>>>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:24 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I generally avoid appeals to "balance" in the international arena.
>>>>> Get some actual fundamental rights first; then balance might be a real
>>>>> discussion.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t