<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=202491503-01042006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=202491503-01042006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=202491503-01042006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=202491503-01042006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=202491503-01042006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Best,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=202491503-01042006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Laina</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> values-ethics-admin@wsis-cs.org
[mailto:values-ethics-admin@wsis-cs.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Max
Senges<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 31, 2006 9:05 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
values-ethics@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Values-ethics] FW:
[governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to
IGF<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Hi Laina and all,<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>>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.<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>I would be motivated to contribute and help
coordinate<BR><BR>my 2 cents<BR>max <BR><BR><BR><BR>Laina Raveendran
Greene wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid200603311724396.SM01048@LAINATABLET type="cite"><PRE wrap="">
Dear Max, Liberato and team,
Should the values and ethics caucus also work on a paper submission?
Laina
-----Original Message-----
From: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org">governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</A>
[<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</A>] On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:05 AM
To: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>
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
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3?id_article=127">http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3?id_article=127</A> 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, <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://">http://</A> <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://www.opennetinitiative.net/">www.opennetinitiative.net/</A>), 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
</PRE><PRE wrap=""><HR width="90%" SIZE=4>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance">https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>_______________________________________________
Values-ethics mailing list Values-ethics@wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/values-ethics </BODY></HTML>