[WSIS CS-Plenary] No offence taken

[conchita poncini]

I suggest that as long as the human rights based approach to the information
society including right todevelopment and gender equality are the basic
tenets, one cannot go wrong on ethics, values, peace and security.  The
information society's fundamental principle is giiving equal opportunities,
access and choice to the have-nots by the haves.

Cheers,
Conchita

Conchita


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Laina Raveendran Greene" <laina at getit.org>
To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:11 PM
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] No offence taken


> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of
this message!
> _______________________________________
>
>
> Understand your views. Just to close this debate, you are right about
> subjectivity of ethics and values, but perhaps it helps if you see the
> chapter on "ethical dimensions of the Information Society" in the Geneva
> Declarations. Hope those aspects are at the least aceptable. I also
> understand where you are coming from so no offence taken.
>
> Laina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On
Behalf
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:53 PM
> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Challenging Sub-committee A drafting groups
> going into closed sessions
>
> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
> Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific
people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of
> this message!
> _______________________________________
>
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>