[governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

klaus grewlich kwgr at gmx.de
Mon Oct 1 08:58:23 EDT 2007 

Dear Colleague,
I did not have time for many months to look into the governance-mails. Could You be so kind to send me an article or a statement of Yours that would bring me up to the latest legal and political developments in the field "Internet governance and Icann".
I apologize for asking for this help (but I have to teach a course in the framework of the Bonn-"Master of european regulation of network industries" (MERIN)
Best wishes
Yours
Klaus

Ambassador Prof. Dr. Klaus W. Grewlich
Deutsche Botschaft
ul. Razzakova 28
720040 Bishkek
Republic of Kyrgyzstan
(Privatpost: Diplo-Kurier
Botschaft Bischkek
11020 Berlin)
Tel: (996) (312) 905000
e-mail: kwgr at gmx.de




-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 08:48:24 -0400 (EDT)
> Von: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin at law.miami.edu>
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
> Betreff: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> 
> > You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs
> some
> > consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
> >
> > Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In one
> > sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people from
> doing
> > whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by
> others.
> 
> Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define censorship 
> in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you approve of: 
> "the heckler's veto" (the doctrine that centralized authority can suppress
> speech because of its concern for a 3rd party's reaction) -- and we VERY 
> strongly disapprove of it.  That B claims offense *cannot* be allowed to 
> muzzle A, or else A's *right* to speak is illusory.
> 
> The rest of your note proceeds under the assumption that it's somehow not 
> cencorship if it's well meaning.  It would be more persuasive to talk of 
> 'balancing' rights than to try to argue somehow that this isn't censorship
> when it clearly is.
> 
> To shift to a 'balancing' view does, however, require that one articlute a
> 'right not to be offended' equal in value and weight to the right to 
> speak, and also equal in likely long run effect to the prophylactic rule 
> that governments (or quasi-governmental entities for that matter) ought 
> not to be trusted to regulate speech.  This is not easy to do, although 
> some have tried.
> 
> > This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that hold
> any
> > society together.
> >
> > Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to
> others'
> > sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted or
> 
> It is so long as it does not creat physical harm, or the risk of imminent 
> physical harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).
> 
> You have defined the problem away.  But it's still there.
> 
> > intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different
> matter.
> >
> >
> >
> > The important question to ask is: does not allowing certain new gTLDs
> result
> > in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a certain topic?
> 
> No, the important question to ask is, "Who decides" -- opinions differ so 
> the question is at which level will the decision be made, the governmental
> (or quasi-governmental) or the individual level.  In the US we in the 
> large majority of cases, do not trust institutions with the power to 
> decide these questions.
> 
> >
> > And the answer to this is quite clearly no.
> 
> And the answer to this question is in fact that opinions differ, which is 
> why history teaches us that the power question is central.
> 
> >
> > This human rights argument appears to completely ignore the actual
> reality
> > of the Internet. There is actually comparatively little connection
> between
> > domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly bizarre.
> >
> >
> 
> The argument for the heckler's veto seems to ignore completely the reality
> of the diversity of viewpoints, and the many things that offend someone.
> 
> I could go on, but I think you get the point....
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I can't for the life of me understand why so much effort is being put
> into
> > shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large sections of the
> ICANN
> > community over several years when the really important discussion to be
> had
> > is how exactly the inevitable policies are implemented.
> >
> >
> 
> It is very hard to believe that well-educated people can so blithely whisk
> away the lessons of history.  Assuming that you mean the above seriously, 
> all I can say is that there's a powerful body of modern history that 
> teaches that Very Bad Things tend to follow from giving institutions 
> chokeholds over speech.  I do agree that in the grand scheme of things, 
> control over TLD content is (today) pretty small beer.  I personally get 
> more excited about Guantanamo.  But I do understand and respect the people
> who argue that one must fight the question of principle when it is small, 
> and can be won, rather than waiting until it is big, and much harder to 
> deal with.
> 
> --
> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                           -->It's warm here.<--
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list