[governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to IGF

[Meryem Marzouki]

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://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060331/fb6fa057/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance