Vittorio and all, I shall TRY to answer your questions. But my answers in no way necessarly reflect the opinion of the ALAC or any of the ALS'es. See my answers below... Vittorio Bertola wrote:
John Levine ha scritto:
possible interpretation of one of 20 recommendations, a recommendation which is actaully obvious for 95% of the world, but which seems to hurt the intellectuals of a specific developed country which accounts for less than 5% of the world's population but which is disproportionately represented in ICANN for historical reasons.
Well, I was going to point out how utterly unconstructive it is to invent bogus arguments based on hoary stereotypes of national character and and use them as straw men to try to discredit people with whom one disagrees, but then, what else would one expect from an Italian?
I am not speaking about "stereotypes of national character" (by the way, individual moral standards vary wildly among citizens of a country) but rather about differences in the common founding moral values of the various countries of the world.
I don't know that there are any "founding moral values of a the various countries of the world", as you say. I do know that there are some very generally excepted norms. I also know that there are groups of all sorts in multipul different countries that purport to hold a certain set of moral values and speek for, rightly or wrongly, a majority of citizens in the countries in which those groups have a presence.
The Constitution of Italy (art. 21) says that "Everyone has a right to freely express their thoughts through words, writings and any other means of diffusion... [Press] can be seized only upon a motivated decree by a judicial authority in case of crimes, if the law on press so explicitly provides... Written publications, shows and any other expression contrary to good behaviour are forbidden. Law defines adequate actions to prevent and repress violations."
The constitution of Italy in irrelevant. The Constitution of the USA is relevant at the moment.
-snip-
A similar balance is stricken in most Western Constitutions; in other parts of the world, freedom of expression isn't even considered a primary common value; also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has both article 19 ("Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.") and article 29 ("In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."). The UDHR's combined disposition of articles 19 and 29 is actually the guidance that ICANN has taken to draft the recommendation that we are now discussing, and it's hard to think of a more authoritative source.
The problem here is that there is not now a proponderance of civil law in the International house of Justice that can enforce these UDHR rights in any appropriate manner, and mostly not at all.
So I would ask you to justify your statement that my argument is bogus; it seems to me that most founding moral systems, including the UDHR which is the only global one we have on this planet, recognize the need to prevent expressions that go against "morality and public order". The US is an exception to this; now I don't think that one approach is better than the other, but surely global governance processes have to respect everyone's approach, right? Not just one of the two, right? Or if they have to pick one, that's going to be the one of the majority of the world, right? Don't you agree?
Also, I would still like to receive from someone at the ALAC an answer to my questions:
1) How comes that a statement from a constituency which is supposed to represent the views of the entire world is only representing one point of view, but not the other?
I don't know that it does only represent one point of view.
2) How comes that the ALAC only stated the negative aspects of this decision, but did not bother to mention the positive sides and the satisfaction of many At Large participants?
Because the negitive aspects need to be addressed expressly.
3) How were the community and the ALSes consulted on that statement?
I don't know for a certantity.
Could someone please provide me with answers?
I just did my best.
Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827