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

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: HR-IGF-Themes.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 111197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/values-ethics/attachments/20060331/22e78fd1/HR-IGF-Themes.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance