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

Mon Apr 3 17:21:59 BST 2006

I fully agree with the direction Max is suggesting. A compendium of
texts will help us as we refer to them in future rafting efforts.

Levi

_________________________________________________________________

REV. LIBERATO C. BAUTISTA

Asst. Gen. Secretary for United Nations and International Affairs

General Board of Church and Society

The United Methodist Church

777 United Nations Plaza, 11F

(cor. 44th St. and 1st Ave.)

New York, New York 10017

USA

Tel:     +1.212.682.3633 ext. 3112

Fax:    +1.212.682.5354

Web:   www.umc-gbcs.org/un

The General Board of Church and Society (GBCS)  is the international

public policy and social action agency of the worldwide

United Methodist Church. It is headquartered in Washington D.C.

with a United Nations Office in New York City. As an international

non-governmental organization,  GBCS maintains consultative

status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

It has UN representatives in New York, Geneva and Vienna.

________________________________

From: values-ethics-admin at wsis-cs.org
[mailto:values-ethics-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Laina Raveendran
Greene
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 10:18 PM
To: values-ethics at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: [Values-ethics] FW: [governance] Comments and Draft of HR
caucus proposal to IGF

I tend to agree with you Max that maybe a separate statement may be too
late to coordinate and that it is probably better to consider this issue
cross-cutting. 

I wonder what you think about the statement from the HR caucus below on
the "ethical" components not being relevant. Perhaps we could just
respond along those lines.

Best,

Laina

________________________________

From: values-ethics-admin at wsis-cs.org
[mailto:values-ethics-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Max Senges
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 9:05 AM
To: values-ethics at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [Values-ethics] FW: [governance] Comments and Draft of HR
caucus proposal to IGF

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/20060403/4ede4e9e/attachment.html