[governance] Where are we going?

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Demi,

As you make that reference, just a few precisions regarding the French
regime in schools :
1) this is applicable to public schools - not to confessional schools, a lot
of which exist;
2) the key notion here is "laïcité" or the clear distinction between church
and state;
3) the exact term was not "abusive" display of religious symbols but
"ostensible" display, meaning very visible - no notion of abuse here.

More generally, the law adopted in 2004 folllowed a very intense debate, not
unlike the one we are facing here. In my view, it tried to strike a
difficult balance between different and equally viable principles : respect
for cultures and religions, defense of a major republican principle in
France, laicity.

Best

On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko <trieste at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agreed, Bertrand!
>
> And just one more thing: I think all of us agree that in France there
> is freedom to profess any religion. Notwithstanding (and here I am
> *not* discussing the merit of the decision, just trying to make a
> distinction between free speech and free display of signs and,
> tentatively, one more analogy with TLDs), the France government in
> some way restricts public abusive display of religious symbols in the
> schools, like big crosses, the veil, the kippah etc etc.
> Best
>
> demi
>
>
>
> On 4/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello to all,
> >
> > Two simple remarks - on a personal basis :
> >
> > On the Milton / George debate :
> >
> >  As it has already been mentionned, there are two extreme options that
> > simply do not work :
> >  - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be accepted
> /
> > legal on the Internet as a whole;
> >  - anything forbidden / illegal in one country / culture  should be
> > forbidden on the Internet as a whole.
> >
> >  Once we accept these two options must be out of the table, we are
> > confronted with much simpler questions : what should be the rules to
> > organize the coexistence of different value sets in the common space of
> the
> > Internet ? how are we going to discuss them ? and more than anything :
> where
> > ?
> >
> >
> > Regarding the Demi / Karl discussion :
> >
> > In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding communities
> are
> > separated by some physical distance : the agreed public signs for each
> > community progressively evolve along a sort of geographic continuum. To
> take
> > Karl's pertinent example of the cross : the symbol is very present in
> > countries with strong christian communities, much less in countries with
> > other dominant religions. Likewise for "porn" : any pharmacy in France
> today
> > - or many  advertising billboards for that matter -  display images of
> women
> > so naked that they wouldn't have even been allowed in the "porn" mags of
> my
> > youth and they would be considered very offensive for people with very
> > strong muslim moral references for instance. I
> >
> > Community references evolve and what is agreed at one time in one zone
> is
> > deifferent from what is accepted as common in another time or another
> zone.
> > This is just a fact. And, let's be clear, this is why countries
> implemented
> > borders and sometimes fought aggressively to defend their own conception
> of
> > society rules - for better or worse.
> >
> > Problem is : the Internet is a common space and it does not provide
> similar
> > boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one cultural
> space
> > to another. With a single click (or even without in the case of
> pop-ups), it
> > is just like a  Star Trek Holodeck : as if you were to move in one
> second
> > from the most sexy Las Vegas table dance club to the inner part of St
> Peter
> > in Rome or the Kabbah in Mecca. Or, to take another domain of reference
> :
> > from the die-hard Davos capitalist crowd to the strongest Porto Alegre
> > anti-globalization crowds.
> >
> > Those two examples show :
> > 1) that this mere distinction between a continuum in the physical space
> and
> > the Holodeck effect raises new problems : you do not deal with the
> Internet
> > space exactly the same way you deal with the physical world; seems
> obvious
> > but maybe worth reminding;
> > 2) that in certain cases (the Las Vegas - St Peter example) you may deal
> > with a difficulty to preserve free circulation through the Internet
> Space
> > while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily offending people who would
> > like to remainin a coherent space. This applies both for avoiding the
> > placement of the equivalent of signs advertising lap dances on the right
> of
> > St Peter's altar AND for not positioning moral condemnations or call to
> > repentance at the entrance of entertainment sites;
> > 3) that in other cases, maybe the Davos - Porto Alegre example, the
> Holodeck
> > effect placing together streams of information that are competing views
> on
> > the same subject micht actually be beneficial to a better
> understanding.;
> >
> > In any case, the whole discussion is, once again, about coexistence of
> > different cultural and value sets in a common environment. This is a
> debate
> > that has not taken place yet and will necessarily impose itself. It
> deserves
> > better than just talking past one another. Using physical world
> analogies is
> > useful : to understand how people feel and to understand what is similar
> and
> > what is different in the virtual world as opposed to the physical one.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bertrand
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko <trieste at gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be in the
> > > very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make
> > > judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect choose but,
> > > for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the same
> > > errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could be
> > > offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons to
> > > have the public comments period.
> > > best
> > > demi
> > >
> > > On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> > > > Demi Getschko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, sign,
> > > > > picture (like those at the displays or posters on the streets, may
> be
> > > > > we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to something
> > > > > they do not like.
> > > >
> > > > Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured to
> death
> > by being
> > > > nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a crown
> of
> > thorns
> > > > and pierced by a spear.
> > > >
> > > > It would not be hard to find people who do not like such displays.
> > > >
> > > > Should we then require the various Christian churches to abandon
> placing
> > such
> > > > displays on and in their buildings?
> > > >
> > > > Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong to
> muzzle
> > those
> > > > who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence (which
> is
> > itself
> > > > a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some people or
> even
> > make
> > > > them intolerant.  One of the few exceptions is one of extreme
> > circumstances in
> > > > which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional or
> highly
> > reckless
> > > > physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical response; and
> we
> > certainly
> > > > do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has been
> > proposed.
> > > >
> > > > It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first principle
> of
> > internet
> > > > governance is that it should confine itself to matters that have a
> > clear,
> > > > direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters.
> > > >
> > > > For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through which end
> > users (or
> > > > their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways
> adequate
> > to
> > > > sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet
> > governance.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of perceived
> > business
> > > > plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of these being
> non
> > > > technical, really are not proper matters of internet governance.
> They
> > are,
> > > > instead better left to the normal work of national legislatures and
> the
> > slow
> > > > process of international agreements.
> > > >
> > > >                 --karl--
> > > >
>
>

Bertrand de La Chapelle
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070406/082f6e2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070406/082f6e2a/attachment.txt>