[governance] Where are we going?

[Meryem Marzouki]

Bertrand,

It should probably be more important to tell Demi that this law has  
been tabled first to forbid the veil in public schools. Then it  
became problematic not to address symbols of other religions: kippah,  
sikh's turban, etc., and big crosses - and I should better avoid  
dealing here with the special regime for the Alsace-Moselle region...
That's to say that analogies are generally misleading... if not  
leading exactly to the contrary of the point one wants to make.

Meryem

Le 6 avr. 07 à 15:39, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit :

> 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")
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance