<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [wg-review] DOMOINIC BARONS LETTER
Eric:
Thanks for the current message. I appreciated your tone and invitation to
continue. So, I guess another comment -
We have to start somewhere. While I agree that there are many nations that
trample on human rights we have to face facts. Some nations can do what
they want regarding the Internet...look at China. We are not going to
change that solely through the Internet. In fact, we need to see the
Internet for what it is...a communications vehicle...not a government. As
such, it is subject to laws of the nations that are connected, not the other
way around. Our ideals, like free speech, are just that....our ideals.
While we can expound on them using the Internet, if the socialistic (or
other forms of) government do not want their people to see the message they
will filter, disconnect or in some other way prevent the message if at all
possible. So, what I am proposing is that the constituencies that make
sense are nations. We are not going to get true IDNO representation from
some nations, (e.g. China), so why not form constituency groups around our
current geopolitical system, and then foster grassroots organizations that
bring about new ideas. We can not change the world in an instant. I again
call for the disbandment of consensus as we define it, and possibly the
dissolution or remodeling of ICANN. Lets build on our geopolitical system,
then work to improve it. Perhaps we are a move closer to some global
tribunal...who knows.
Dr. Michael Gendron
Associate Professor
School of Business
CCSU
860-437-8322
mgendron75@home.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:ERIC@HI-TEK.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 6:16 PM
To: Dr. Michael S. Gendron; hugh dierker
Cc: 'Bret Busby'; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] DOMOINIC BARONS LETTER
<< File: ERIC.vcf >> 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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|