[governance] Where are we going?

[Avri Doria]

hi,


On 6 apr 2007, at 10.46, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

>
> Le 6 avr. 07 à 14:20, Avri Doria a écrit :
>
>> BTW: my position is based not on the USan so called right to free  
>> speech, but on the UDHR which a lot of the countries that complain  
>> about the imperialism of freedom of expression have signed:
>>
>> 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.
>
> But, Avri, a Declaration should be considered as a whole, and there  
> are other articles in UDHR, like, e.g.:
>
> "Article 29
> (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free  
> and full development of his personality is possible.
>
> (2) 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.
>
> (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary  
> to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Yes, I know about the escape clause.  but i think it does not alter  
what i am saying.  It certainly goes far to enable much of the  
constraint imposed within a country and supports the deployment of  
the great firewalls.

i think the most important one to notice here is #3.    Generally in  
the UN context one country cannot interfere in the actions in another  
country.  At least not without there being some extreme case and with  
a decision of the UN, or a treaty.  We have no such UN declaration  
permitting countries to act against other countries who allow the  
registrations of nasty vile insulting geographic labels.   So I see  
no way in which the national enabler for censorship grants any relief  
to  ICANN.  There is no lawful basis for ICANN to apply limitations  
on article 19.

BTW< i do agree that countries and their citizens should adhere to  
all the treaties, covenants and other instruments they have signed.   
In many cases the law will already allow to the prohibitions that are  
being sought.


>
> which is more than enough to support other positions. There's only  
> one way out from this endless discussion: ICANN shouldn't be  
> expected to adhere to these principles (in any case, it's not bound  
> by them - only governments are).


I disagree they should adhere to all those that are relevant.

> Yes, the .xxx case is a blatant case of content regulation  
> (whatever stength the meaning of a domain name is granted w.r.t. to  
> full pages of text). But it's only the latest at this step. What  
> about the supremacy of trademark protection over any other  
> criteria? Isn't that content regulation too?

yes and a much more difficult problem.

especially as the commons of language, the words we use in speech and  
writing, are being marked.

a.


____________________________________________________________
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