[WSIS CS-Plenary] April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes

[karen banks]

hi meryem

>Karen, and all,
>
>Many comments to be made on APC press release of Nov. 15, but 
>this  one below is of major concern:
>
> > - Convene 'IGF Working Groups': APC recommends that the IGF uses
> > the format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF (Internet
> > Engineering Task Force) to convene working groups to address
> > complex issues that emerge during a forum. These groups can be made
> > up of individuals with the necessary expertise, and drawn from
> > different stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage specific
> > issues in greater depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop
> > recommendations that can be communicated to the internet community
> > at large, or addressed to specific institutions. .
> >
> > [...]
> > Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups
> > on the following five issues might be valuable: a) WG on the
> > definition of illegal and harmful content;
>
>Is APC seriously proposing that such a group work on a 
>*definition*  of illegal content at international level? i.e. a 
>*harmonization* of  all national laws? I cannot believe this..

firstly - they are initial reflections, and certainly we'll be doing 
some further reflection.. and having your reaction right now is 
great.. as the proposals for working groups - or rather what they 
night focus on - is definitely one for discussion - if there isn't 
sufficient interest from enough people in forming a WG around a 
particular issue, then it clearly wouldn't have any traction..

secondly - the proposal that you're particularly concerned about, 
'definition of illegal and harmfil content' - is certainly not 
intended to come up with a definition - but rather the contrary (at 
least in my mind) - that the phrase 'illegal and harmful content' is 
at the centre now of so much policy and legislation - in both hard 
and soft forms, compulsory, voluntary, self and co-regulation - that 
you can't move for fear of banging up against it..

there was an interesting discussion about 'illegal' and 'harmful' 
content.. and that, irrespecive of how anyone might feel about the 
illegaility of specific content, it is illegal - but 'harmful' 
content, is essentially content that some interested group wishes to 
make illegal - and the raod to that, is largely via self and 
co-regulatory schemes - and often implemented by inappropraite parties..

>Is APC also seriously proposing same thing for harmul content? i.e. a
>*harmonization* of all cultures, religions, beliefs, morals, etc.? I
>cannot believe this either!

of course not meryem ;)

karen 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20071115/c05c0724/attachment.htm