[discuss] Goals of our discussions: [Was: Problem definition 1, version 5]

George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 02:17:06 UTC 2014


Yes, Carolina,

I think that you are correct, and that both are needed.  I think that we both agree on the need to define the issue to be addressed, but we have somewhat differnt approaches.  There's nothing wrong with that.

BTW I have inserted 'international' - you will see it.

Goals: we probably all have somewhat similar goals.  My goal is to move from a set of disjointed discussions (which IMO were non-productive) based more on emotion than fact into a structured more analytical environment, then define the problems (not plural) that appear to confound us, look in a similar way for approaches to ameliorate those problems, and possibly add value to the various IG discussions that  seem to be multiplying around us.

What's your view, Carolina?


On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:

> well folks, I do believe George intent is to simply state a problem...while Milton is actually proposing a debate on the discussion of that problem. Anyway, just to say I agree with George statement but support the change suggested by Avri (just for the sake of being explicit, which is always important to prove intent later when we interpret such issues. However, I would suggest "users from around the world"...instead of "international", since I do feel they represent different things).
> 
> The steps here could be 
> - 1st - do we agree on the criteria George list? (CR: I do). Are there any others? (CR: maybe something regarding transparency that would both support trust by users and accountability?)
> - 2nd - list and debate all the proposals available so far regarding item "6" of George's statement. (Which Milton has initiated.)
> - 3rd - understand what is feasible under national and international law (CR: I actually do not see feasibility of one of his proposals)
> 
> But a step 0 is - what are our goals with this debate? This probably would help regard our focus.
> 
> Tks
> 
> Carol
>   
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Structurally, there are three basic options for getting globalized governance:
> >
> > 1) unilateral globalism, i.e. a single state achieves global hegemony (the status quo IANA)
> 
> What is not working today ?
> 
> > 2) multilateral globalism, i.e., individual nation-states negotiate a universal agreement
> 
> ala WCIT ? Would love to watch that conference.
> 
> > 3) denationalization, i.e., delegation to a transnational private actor
> 
> I like this one. I vote for Kim DotCom to take it over :-)
> 
> -J
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Carolina Rossini 
> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
> Open Technology Institute
> New America Foundation
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140122/75231145/attachment.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list