[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

[Mawaki Chango]

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22/12/2013 08:31, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 22/12/2013 05:36, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators
> >>>
> >>> - Official launching of a review process of the global IG
> >>> frameworks/models;
> >>>
> >>> - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles
> >>> for global IG;
> >>>
> >>> - Tentative draft of a global IG model.
> >> Thanks for the update. However, I find these objectives very
> >> disturbing. They seem to assume
> >> (a) That there is a problem caused by defective IG.
> >> (b) That the solution is a "global IG model".
> >>
> >> I am not aware that either of these assumptions have been justified.
> >> That should be the starting point IMHO.
> >
> > I disagree with the view that that “expected outcomes” statement
> > contains assumptions that need justification before this can proceed.
>
> Norbert, then what is the problem caused by defective IG? (That is not
> the same question as "What is the problem?".) Again, I am not trying
> to be clever or sarcastic: I simply don't know the answer.
>
> If, for example, the answer is "Pervasive surveillance by NSA and
> their friends" I would strongly dispute that defective Internet
> governance is the cause.
>
>    Brian
>
>
> My turn to be a little confused by... your question, actually. Because I
frankly thought there was an emerging agreement among various actors about
a problem. Maybe that would help if you please answer the following
questions for me: What was the motivation and the purpose of the Montevideo
statement (if nothing else)? Why did Chehade go see president Rousseff to
agree (and maybe even suggest, some say) to convene this meeting?

Or is the problem here with using the words "global IG" to label this
topic? Are we heading for a semantic debate here (I hope not, because I'm
already worn out by the process/non-process/anti-process debate)? Do you
think there is any such thing as "global IG" to begin with (and that this
meeting is not or should not be about that thing)? Maybe not, and maybe
this is all a misnomer. But language is a human thing and it's imperfect.
There's no real logical relationship word-to-meaning; it is in the way
humans use the words that sometimes make the meaning.

So maybe we can just say: let's the BR meeting discuss about the "thing"
that moved the Montevideo statement to occur, and Chehade to suggest or
agree with president Rousseff to convene the BR meeting (which she might
have agreed to, maybe, just maybe for the same reason that moved her to
give that speech of hers at the UNGA last September, which in turn may have
prompted Chehade's visit/outreach to Rousseff). Let these folks discuss
about the "thing" that they want to see addressed and assist them find ways
to possible/acceptable solutions. Maybe then we/they will discover that
those solutions have nothing to do with "global IG" but belong elsewhere.
As long as they provide keys to the solutions to the "thing" and are
accepted as such, who cares what the "thing" was once called, pr is still
called, anyway? So many things are wrongly called in the media everyday,
and we still live with that.

Mawaki


>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131221/c3c024cb/attachment.html>