Re: [wg-review] DOMOINIC BARONS LETTER

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Dr. Gendron,

Thank you for your input into my utopic and idealistic approach.  As I wrote the
concept down I was truly troubled by nations.  As I truly do not want one nation
to rule the internet but do want each nation autonomy within their framework.  As
I work forward in determining and declaring a bill of rights I very much would
appreciate your imput.

"Dr. Michael S. Gendron" wrote:

> And my final comment on this topic since this is not a discussion.  In fact,
> if I said what was truly on my mind or told the WG why I posted these
> messages that too would be taken out of context.  So, I think it is better
> to withdraw from this discussion since this it is not a place for open
> communication and thought, but an opinion machine for those that have the
> time to be involved in such.
>
> Dr. Michael Gendron
> Associate Professor
> School of Business
> CCSU
>
> 860-437-8322
> mgendron75@home.com
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]  On Behalf
> Of Bret Busby
> Sent:   Monday, January 15, 2001 12:16 AM
> To:     Dr. Michael S. Gendron
> Cc:     wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject:        Re: [wg-review] DOMOINIC BARONS LETTER
>
> "Dr. Michael S. Gendron" wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > I would rather have certain people think am retrogressive, than have them
> > push their ideals on me.  The USG feels is has the right to intervene
> > wherever it wants.  That is just not the case.  Nations have a right to
> > govern the way they see fit.
>
> So, human rights, come second to totalitarian rule? Hmmmm.
>
> > Yes, some nations do not do things the way we
> > like, and some are cruel, but we need to change those nations, not impose
> > our information economy on them.  That is only part of the picture, you
> are
> > pointing to root problems that go  far beyond the Internet.
> > >
> > >     That all the People are created equal within the internet.
> > >
> > > As are all governments.
> > >
> > >     That we the People are entitled to a proper and speedy redress of
> > > wrongs committed against us.
> > >
> > > Through the coordinating body above.
> >
> > What co-ordinating body? Do you mean the UN? If so, why should any
> > country have the right of veto, on the Internet, the right of veto
> > having been abused in the past, purely on political bases?
> >
> > Suggest another body!
>
> I have, already, in relation to the Internet.
>
> > >
> > >     That we the People have a right to make public our internet
> > > positions.
> > >
> > > In a unified fashion, not just individually.
> >
> > So, keep the dissidents quiet (and, oppressed)?
> > No, but we do no need order.
>
> That sounds to me, remarkably like the policy of one Adolf
> Schicklegruber.
>
> > >
> > >     That no person shall be denied access to the internet
> > >
> > > True.
> > >     That freedom of speech is to be protected.
> > >
> > > Only as it is protected within each nation. (I do not like this but
> > believe
> > > it is/should be fact)
> >
> > In other words, you say that suppression of free speech should be
> > allowed? Why have the Internet? Why not just have isolated country-based
> > networks, with no communication between countries? That way, your
> > parochial sovereignties could maintain their totalitarian rule. Welcome
> > to 1984.
> > The Internet can not solve everything, nor do I believe it should.
>
> So, you believe it should give up, and, fall in a heap and die?
>
> > >
> > >     That access, reliability and security are to be protected against
> > > intrusion.
> > >
> > > Only as it is protected within each nation. (I do not like this but
> > believe
> > > it is/should be fact)
> >
> > In other words, maintain the oppression, and, kill the Internet.
> > On, make the Internet cooperative, not run by some US non-profit
> corporation
> > with its own agenda - namely what appears to be bug business.
> > >
> > >     That we have a fundamental right to be secure in our identity.
> > >
> > > Only as it is protected within each nation. (I do not like this but
> > believe
> > > it is/should be fact)
> >
> > Once again, shut down the Internet, to support totalitarian, parochial
> > soveriegnty.
> > Governmental sovereignty. Like it or not, there are governments that are
> not
> > like ours.
> > >
> > >     That we have a duty and responsibility to be educated and informed.
> > >
> > > Only as it is protected within each nation. (I do not like this but
> > believe
> > > it is/should be fact)
> >
> > And, again, ...
> >
> > >
> > > I would kind of hope that whenever, however and wherever a true
> > > individual group is formed, that the founders think about, correct and
> > > impliment this type of finding.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Why not just shut down the Internet and the UN? Then, your ideals can be
> > attained.
> >
> > The Internet, and, the freedoms that it is perceived to bring with it,
> > are imperative, to improve the world, through communication and
> > ediucation, both of which, which you seem to oppose.
> >
> > I disagree strongly. But, then, I believe in human rights.
> >
> > You take my comments out of context.  To re-emphasize - work within
> existing
> > political structures to govern the Internet  and bring about change.  I
> > believe in human rights, but believe it or not there are different
> > definitions of what they are.  Rather than sarcasm, you should try and
> > dialog and reach (should I dare say) consensus!
> > --
> >
>
> That remids me, of the ratification of the International Covenat on
> Civil and Political Rights, by Australia. "We go along with this, but,
> only with the parts that we want".
>
> Either you have human rights, or, you don't. Either they apply to
> everone equally, or they don't.
>
> Why should women not have the right, to find, via the Internet, that
> genital mutilation is not practised all through the world, and, is
> regarded as unacceptable in most of the world, just because they live in
> a country, that inflicts it on them? Why should people not have the
> right to know how they are entitled to vote, just because a government
> forbids such knowledge? Why should people not have the right to know
> that the dogma that they have been taught, may be wrong, just because
> they have a government that believes that truth is a pliable thing, to
> be modified when it is convenient.
>
> I am sorry; I strongly disagree with you. I believe in human rights for
> everyone, and, independent of geographic location, as a matter of
> paramount importance, and, not something to be taken so lightly.
>
> And, I disagree with your proposition which effectively supports
> ministries of truth in each country.
>
> But, then again, retrogressive universities teaching tate the earth is
> flat, and, if you get too close to the edge, you fall off, is quite
> acceptable, isn't it?
>
> --
>
> Bret Busby
>
> Armadale, West Australia
>
> ......................................
> "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
> answer means."
>  - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>  - Douglas Adams, 1988
> ......................................
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard