[Values-ethics] FW: [governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to IGF

[Shaila Mistry]

HI all j
Just got out of sick bed...really suffering from food poisoning . Yes my vote is that we should produce something . I will write something but need a little time to stabilize. Most deadlines are a few hours and this exactly how we got the draft with our ides into the UN CSW. I will send it to you . I am so jazzed to see all our work AND of course to see key conceptsand ideas of mine included without adultration.

What is the deadline time

regards
Love

Shaila Rao Mistry

Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com> wrote:           Hi Laina and all,
 
 I do not think we can (should) produce a statement in some hours... I do think that we could and should think about what this caucus wants to contribute to the IGF?
 
 From what I have learned about our constituency and history I understand that we add a ethical (meta-physical/spiritual) perspective driven by a shared idealism.
 
 As such, and as said before, our approach is cross-cutting and paramount to 'practical Internet governance'. Therefore i wonder whether there is interest to prepare one or a collection of statements outlining different perspectives on the ethical dimension and the role of values in cyberspace. I think a collection of texts from the different spiritual and cultural groups would be a very interesting compendium and would serve two purposes 1) the theme of the ethical/religious/meta-physical role of cyberspace would be discussed inside and amongst the participants of the communities that have participants in this caucus and 2) the result would represent a first overview of the different perspectives and hence represent a good basis for finding common ground and program. What do you think?
 
 I would be motivated to contribute and help coordinate
 
 my 2 cents
 max  
 
 
 
 Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:    
 
Dear Max, Liberato and team,

Should the values and ethics caucus also work on a paper submission?

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:05 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to IGF  Hi all,  Please find attached a draft proposal, still submitted for comments to the HR caucus. Some changes will probably occur before sending late today the proposal to IGF. Your comments are also welcome (Stephane Bortzmeyer will recognize his idea - and some of his words, with permission:) - of sticking to the basics: IGF should only discuss issues needing mandatory governance).  I'm sorry to jump in the discussion so late - due to work overload -, but I would really like to draw your attention to the fact that one of the proposals circulated on this list ("internet content filtering and free expression", posted by Milton), may be _very_ dangerous and counterproductive, though well intentioned.  I do share the idea that there is a need to develop 'ethical'   guidelines for Internet companies, when there is no possibility to use legislation/public policy. In fact, I've
 even myself made this kind of recommendation at a workshop on racism and the internet organized by the OHCHR, as a followup to the Durban conference (see http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3?id_article=127 if interested). I entirely agree that this should be extended to companie that sells filtering software to non democratic governments (cf. the study conducted by the OpenNet Initiative, http:// www.opennetinitiative.net/), in the framework of
a new set of "Corporate social responsibility" rules (till now, CSR is
rather applied to compliance with labor rights) that should be pushed with
some friendly (on this issue) governments as a start.

However, proposing this in the IGF framework will certainly open the way to
a definition of "ethical content", "acceptable by all in the whole world"
allowed on the Internet. Many people genuinely think that this would be a
good idea, because of the problem of competence of jurisdiction, etc.
Remember the Mahomet cartoons ? Ever thought of "harmful content for minors"
? Such proposal immediately lead to a list of "inappropriate content" that
may be filtered for ethical reasons. And, believe it or not, such lists are
not pushed only by governments.

I think we should keep in mind that, while IGF mandate is rather centred on
discussing and framing issues, with no actual decisive power, this forum
will be considered as a place of negociation for governements, whether we
like it or not. We should then be cautious when formulating our proposals.

This is the reason why the HR caucus proposal doesn't include FoE as a theme
by itself. It rather proposes to establish a task force on FoE, privacy and
the rule of law (pls read it in the attached proposal).

Best,
Meryem

  
   

---------------------------------
 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance   
  
 _______________________________________________ Values-ethics mailing list Values-ethics at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/values-ethics 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/values-ethics/attachments/20060331/6030af3e/attachment.html