[WSIS CS-Plenary] Challenging Sub-committee A drafting groups going into closed sessions

[Avri Doria]

On 25 sep 2005, at 20.43, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

> - as for the notion of Ethics and Values raised by Avri, all I can  
> say is that anybody that interacts with Laina and the other members  
> of this caucus, could only testify that they are certainly not in  
> the direction of a morality approach but rather relentlessly  
> promoting harmony and mutual respect. More a buddist-type  
> philosophy of compassion than a christian right affirmation of  
> supreme GOD-driven moral principles (just a quick image of course)

I do not accuse anyone, at least no one in this discussion, of   
having a specifically prejudicial morality.  What I have problems  
with is the introduction of morality and ethics into the discussion  
in general since once you open that door, you have no chance for  
deciding that one morality/ethics is any better or worse then  
another.  It ends up a matter of religious belief, and as comendable  
as i may find some relgious belief  (i even have my own), i do not  
believe it has any place in Internet governance or management of the  
internet.

For similar reasons, i am concerned about any attempt to control  
content.  Yes, there is dangerous and bad content, but, in my  
opinion, the definition of that is best left to national and  
international law rather then to ethics, morality or religion.

a.