RE: [wg-review] DOMOINIC BARONS LETTER

["Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>]

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]  On Behalf
Of Bret Busby
Sent:	Sunday, January 14, 2001 1:21 PM
To:	Dr. Michael S. Gendron
Cc:	'Eric Dierker'; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [wg-review] DOMOINIC BARONS LETTER

"Dr. Michael S. Gendron" wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]  On
Behalf
> Of Eric Dierker
> Sent:   Friday, January 12, 2001 8:08 PM
> To:     wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject:        [wg-review] DOMOINIC BARONS LETTER
>
>  << File: ERIC.vcf >> We the People of the Internet, find these truths to
be
> self evident;
>
>     That no single nation has the right to govern the use of the
> internet.
>
> The Internet is like the phone system.  Each nation should have the right
to
> govern what occurs within its borders and to provide access to its
network.
> No nation should be able to impinge on an other.  Perhaps a body like the
UN
> or the UN itself should be the "coordinating body."
>
>     That the People of the internet have the right to self
> determination.
>
> Through their national government.

But, what about basic human rights, eg, freedom of speech, freedom of
political association, etc? In a country like Australia, where these
ideals are not rights, and, where the International Covenant on Civil
and Poltical Rights, is not binding, you are saying that the Internet is
not equality for the people of the Internet, but, the Internet is only,
and, should only, be a network of country-based networks? I use
country-based, and, not national, as, in the case of australia, some
countries have a long way, to accomplish nationhood.

Methinks your policy is somewhat retrogressive.

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. 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!
>
>     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 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.
>
>     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!
--

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