[At-Large] ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for Domain Names Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It]

[Vittorio Bertola]

John Levine ha scritto:
>> possible interpretation of one of 20 recommendations, a recommendation 
>> which is actaully obvious for 95% of the world, but which seems to 
>> hurt the intellectuals of a specific developed country which accounts 
>> for less than 5% of the world's population but which is 
>> disproportionately represented in ICANN for historical reasons.
> 
> Well, I was going to point out how utterly unconstructive it is to 
> invent bogus arguments based on hoary stereotypes of national character 
> and and use them as straw men to try to discredit people with whom one 
> disagrees, but then, what else would one expect from an Italian?

I am not speaking about "stereotypes of national character" (by the way, 
individual moral standards vary wildly among citizens of a country) but 
rather about differences in the common founding moral values of the 
various countries of the world.

The Constitution of Italy (art. 21) says that "Everyone has a right to 
freely express their thoughts through words, writings and any other 
means of diffusion... [Press] can be seized only upon a motivated decree 
by a judicial authority in case of crimes, if the law on press so 
explicitly provides... Written publications, shows and any other 
expression contrary to good behaviour are forbidden. Law defines 
adequate actions to prevent and repress violations."

Good behaviour ("buon costume") is a legal concept that is then 
specified both by law and by jurisprudence, and of course it evolves 
with society (for example, until the 50s-60s pornography would be 
considered contrary to good behaviour and thus prohibited, then social 
customs changed and the law recognized that fact; even today, however, 
you can't have pornography on TV - or even movies with a few scenes of 
sex - if not at very late hours). In other words, there is an ongoing 
political judgement on what kind of expression does not conform to good 
behaviour and thus is to be prohibited.

A similar balance is stricken in most Western Constitutions; in other 
parts of the world, freedom of expression isn't even considered a 
primary common value; also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 
both article 19 ("Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and 
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without 
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas 
through any media and regardless of frontiers.") and article 29 ("In the 
exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to 
such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of 
securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of 
others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order 
and the general welfare in a democratic society."). The UDHR's combined 
disposition of articles 19 and 29 is actually the guidance that ICANN 
has taken to draft the recommendation that we are now discussing, and 
it's hard to think of a more authoritative source.

So I would ask you to justify your statement that my argument is bogus; 
it seems to me that most founding moral systems, including the UDHR 
which is the only global one we have on this planet, recognize the need 
to prevent expressions that go against "morality and public order". The 
US is an exception to this; now I don't think that one approach is 
better than the other, but surely global governance processes have to 
respect everyone's approach, right? Not just one of the two, right? Or 
if they have to pick one, that's going to be the one of the majority of 
the world, right? Don't you agree?

Also, I would still like to receive from someone at the ALAC an answer 
to my questions:

1) How comes that a statement from a constituency which is supposed to 
represent the views of the entire world is only representing one point 
of view, but not the other?

2) How comes that the ALAC only stated the negative aspects of this 
decision, but did not bother to mention the positive sides and the 
satisfaction of many At Large participants?

3) How were the community and the ALSes consulted on that statement?

Could someone please provide me with answers?

Thanks,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------