[discuss] Current drive

Alejandro Pisanty apisanty at gmail.com
Fri Apr 4 05:53:15 UTC 2014


at this point an asymmetric approach to the problem may be productive
(addressing Michael Gurstein and Parminder Jeet Singh as well):

Very briefly: Frank LaRue, the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of
Expression, has proposed for years that instead of defining "Internet
rights" positively, in detail, etc. we focus on the rights themselves and
prevent, prosecute and punish their violations independently of whether
"online" is involved or not (disclaimer: very briefly, my own summary for
this discussion.)

In the same mode of thinking the questions about public interest can be
recast. What specifically goes against the public interest, and how vital
is it to solve it? (solving one problem has the cost of opportunity of not
solving others.) A framework similar to risk management (identifying
separately probability and impact; assessing the risk/damage-cost-benefit
relations) may be useful.

This approach may quickly lead us to productive steps on the problem Milton
continues to discuss and the one now posed by George. The other approach
seems to me to have been wrung drier than by lyophilization.


Alejandro Pisanty

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:33 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> If this is agreed, then we also need to agree that such an effort requires
> resources, though I wouldn't brand the flow of revenues as "taxes" or
> "rent". If ICANN acknowledges its broader role and starts "investing" in
> broader causes of Global Public interest of importance to the Internet,
> then Michael Gurstein's "other points" are automatically answered.
> It is not clear that ICANN (or the rest of Internet identifier system) has
> an direct and
> inherent role to promote "global public interest", although successful
> administration of
> the Internet identifiers should definitely help contribute to that goal
> and thus result in
> the system doing its "share" towards global public interest with respect
> to the Internet.
> There is, however, a question that needs to be asked related to resources
> and allocation,
> but it is more focused on the actual role of proper administration of the
> Internet identifier
> system itself, and whether or not there is an inherent responsibility to
> provide resources
> towards the principle of inclusiveness.  To wit, can a system commit to a
> value principle
> such as:
>       " - Open and Inclusive: Discussions are open to all and structured
> to encourage the broadest range of relevant inputs from all interested
> parties. Input provided is valued and heard by all. All documents are
> freely available online. Processes for public comment and remote
> participation are provided wherever feasible, and without requirements for
> participation other than decorum. "
> without also specifically supporting making resources available to
> interested parties who
> may not otherwise to be able to participate in discussions?   Some
> outreach/engagement
> /capacity building of this nature is already being done, because it is recognized
> as both
> necessary and desirable, but that is different than enshrining it as a fundamental
> principle
> (and thus also imply the need for some objective measures of success?)
> In the terms of fulfilling an "inclusiveness" objective, should it be
> required that a certain
> amount of resources (in terms of percentage of total resources, or
> towards geographic
> coverage of participants, or some other metric) be provided for outreach
> and engagement
> measures?  How does one measure that such activities are successful, and
> administer
> them to avoid introduction of selection bias into the system and its
> outcomes?
> If we revisit the entire Internet identifier registry system 20 years from
> now, will it be
> viewed as successful if resources aren't being provided for aiding the
> engagement of
> those who cannot otherwise afford to participate?  Do we need a more
> specific principle
> and/or criteria regarding what constitutes "inclusiveness" to make sure
> that our future
> Internet identifier system is performing as expected when it comes to
> inclusiveness and
> the resources made available for this purpose?  In particular, do we need
> to specifically
> need some form of principle that discusses resources being made available
> for the
> purpose of supporting inclusiveness?
> There are folks with far more experience in capacity building and
> engagement building
> than I, and it would be good to understand their expectations in this area
> (and hence
> gain insight into aspects of the underlying principles that we might want
> to enshrine
> into the system itself.)
> Thanks!
> /John
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140403/cb4a0a42/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list