I kind of waited for others to comment, but nobody so far for a few days
or almost a week. (PatchA, your time stamp that time was one month ahead).
I appreciate PatchA's persistent effort.
Unfortunately, to make the long story short, I cannot agree with your
final suggestion:
>"Values of human rights, democracy, privacy and freedom of expression
>should never be
>threatened and infringed by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>
>or
>
>"Values of human rights, democracy, privacy and freedom of expression
>should never be
>violated and infringed by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
"never" as an absolute term is not acceptable and I tried to explain the reason.
The ones you suggested made things even more difficult for me to accept.
The only solution I thought was to change "threatened" to "compromised".
But if you really want to keep "never" and also not accept "compromised",
and don't see where we have problems to come up the mutually agreeable
solution, then you should go ahead, but I don't think I or Adam can sign.
The choice is relatively simple. Narrow the signatories with the one
PatchA suggested (or original one) or try to reach broader people (and
their values). I fully understand your position, PatchA, but I do not
share it exactly the same way.
Sorry about my blunt statement, but this is taking too much time and
unless we reach agreement, we cannot send this as our input to PrepCom2.
Please, others, try to come and find mutual solution if possible.
thanks again,
izumi
At 04:16 03/03/03 +0900, patcha wrote:
>Dear Mavic and all,
>
>
>Sorry for my wording suggestion, but I also tried to find good word from
>my english
>dictionary and I found something. And my suggestion is bottom of my email.
>
>"Compromise" is usually used for the meaning of "to reach agreement," or
>sometimes used
>for the meaning of "to damage someone's reputation" or also used for the
>meaning
>of "to cause the impairment of", which Mavic mentioned...
>
>We can see the example, below.
>I attach it here from the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Online
>-----------------
>Compromise (Merrium Webmaster's online)
>1 obsolete : to bind by mutual agreement
>2 : to adjust or settle by mutual concessions
>3 a : to expose to suspicion, discredit, or mischief b : to reveal or
>expose to an
>unauthorized person and especially to an enemy (confidential information
>was compromised) c :
>to cause the impairment of (a compromised immune system) (a seriously
>compromised patient)
>intransitive senses
>1 a : to come to agreement by mutual concession b : to find or follow a
>way between
>extremes
>2 : to make a shameful or disreputable concession (wouldn't compromise
>with their
>principles)
>-----------------
>
>Maybe, Mavic mention from the meaning of 3-c : to cause the impairment of
>(a compromised
>immune system) (a seriously compromised patient).
>
>I think it is not so good meaning to use.
>We can also refer it from the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary below. I
>usually use Collins
>dictionary...
>-----------------
>Compromise (Collins Cobuild)
>1. A compromise is a situation in which people accept something slightly
>different from what
>they really want, because of circumstances or because they are
>considering the wishes of
>other people
>ex.) Encourage your child to reach a compromise between what he wants and
>what you want... Be
>ready and willing to make compromises between your needs and those of
>your partner... The
>government's policy of compromise is not universally popular.
>
>2. If you compromise with someone, you reach an agreement with them in
>which you both give up
>something that you originally wanted. You can also say that two people or
>groups compromise.
>
>ex.) The government has compromised with its critics over monetary
>policies... 'Nine,' said
>I. 'Nine thirty,' tried he. We compromised on 9.15... Israel had
>originally wanted $1 billion
>in aid, but compromised on the $ 650 million.
>
>3. If someone compromises themselves or their beliefs, they do something
>which damages their
>reputation for honesty, loyalty, or high moral principles.
>ex.)... members of the government who have compromised themselves by
>co-operating with the
>emergency committee... He would rather shoot himself than compromise his
>principle.
>-------------------
>
>As I mentioned upper, "compromise" is usually used for the meaning of "to
>reach agreement" or
>sometimes "to damage the reputation."
>So, I don't think that "compromise" is good to use.
>
>In my understanding, "infringe" or "violate" are more accurate words to
>use in our statement
>rather than "compromise". We can refer it from the below details of the
>dictionaries. I attach each
>word's details from two dictionaries, Collins and Merriam.
>Especially I'd like to focus on the expression, (infringe) "2. If
>something infringes people's rights,
>it interferes with these rights and does not allow people the freedom
>they are entitled to"
>and (violate) "1. If someone violates an agreement, law, or promise, they
>break it" and "2. If you
>violate someone's privacy or peace, you disturb it."
>
>-------------------
>Infringe (Collins Cobuild)
>1. If someone infringes a law or a rule, they break it or do something
>which disobeys it.
>ex.) The film exploited his image and infringed his copyright... The jury
>ruled that he had
>infringed no rules.
>
>2. If something infringes people's rights, it interferes with these
>rights and does not allow
>people the freedom they are entitled to.
>ex.) They rob us, they infringe our rights, they kill us... It's starting
>to infringe on our
>personal liberties.
>
>Violate (Collins Cobuild)
>1. If someone violates an agreement, law, or promise, they break it.
>ex.) They went to prison because they violated the law... They violated
>the ceasefire
>agreement.
>
>2. If you violate someone's privacy or peace, you disturb it.
>ex.) These men were violating her family's privacy.
>
>
>Infringe (Merrium Webmaster's online)
>to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
>
>Violate (Merriam-webster's online)
>1 : BREAK, DISREGARD (violate the law)
>2 : to do harm to the person or especially the chastity of; specifically : RAPE
>3 : to fail to show proper respect for : PROFANE (violate a shrine)
>4 : INTERRUPT, DISTURB (violate the peace of a spring evening -- Nancy Larter)
>-------------
>
>
>And the word "threaten," I don't think it is "a little vague". I attach
>the details below
>from the dictionaries.
>-------------------
>Threaten (Collins Cobuild)
>1. If a person threatens to do something unpleasant to you, or if they
>threaten you, they say
>or imply that they will do something unpleasant to you, especially if you
>do not do what they
>want.
>ex.) He said army officers had threatened to destroy the town... He tied
>her up and
>threatened her with a six-inch knife... If you threaten me or use any
>force, I shall inform
>the police.
>
>2. If something or someone threatens a person or thing, they are likely
>to harm that person
>or thing.
>ex.)The newcorners directly threaten the livelihood of the established
>workers... 30
>percent of reptiles, birds, and fish are currently threatened with
>extinction... He said that
>the war threatened the peace of the whole world... (from C.C. Essential
>Dictionary)
>
>3. If something unpleasant threatens to happen, it seems likely to happen.
>ex.) The fighting is threatening to turn into full-scale war... Plants
>must be covered with a
>leaf-mould or similarly protected if frost threatens.
>
>Threaten (Merrium Webmaster's online)
>1 : to utter threats against
>2 a : to give signs or warning of : PORTEND (the clouds threatened rain)
>b : to hang over
>dangerously : MENACE
>3 : to announce as intended or possible (the workers threatened a strike)
>-----------------
>
>I think we usually use the word "threaten" for the meaning of "harm."
>Especially in our statement, people can understand the meaning of
>"threatened" as "harmed",
>not "warning" or "announcing", I guess.
>
>So I'd like to use "infringed," "violated," or "threatened" rather than
>"compromise"
>
>One more thing...
>If possible, I'd like to add one more word, "privacy", because
>surveillance usually violates
>people's privacy, as I already said in my former email.
>
>So my suggestion is as follows:
>
>"Values of human rights, democracy, privacy and freedom of expression
>should never be
>threatened and infringed by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>
>or
>
>"Values of human rights, democracy, privacy and freedom of expression
>should never be
>violated and infringed by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>
>
>I'm sorry my email is very long, but I think we need to check and select
>the word very
>carefully.
>
>Thanks,
>PatchA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mavic Balleza [mailto:mballeza@csi.com.ph]
>Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:02 PM
>To: communication@wsisasia.org
>Subject: [communication 477] Re: Our Tokyo declaration: Never say "never"? :-)
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>I also support Izumi's suggestion to use the word compromise instead of
>threatened.
>
>original text: "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of
> >expression should never be threatened by any kind of surveillance and
> >censorship."
>
>proposed text: > > "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of
>expression should
> > > never be compromised by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>
>Sorry for this lexical input but I checked both words in Merriam Webster's
>Collegiate Dictionary and threaten means "to give signs or warning of" or
>"to announce as intended or possible" whereas compromise means "to bind by
>mutual agreement" or "to cause the impairment of."
>
>In this case, I think compromise is a more accurate word to use.
>
>Hi Gaurab,
>
>I cannot respond to your other question as I don't have my files here with
>me--I'm home. Can I make a suggestion regarding editing or discussion on
>particular parts of our documents? Can we copy and paste the original text
>in question right before the proposed text so it's easy for people to
>compare?
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Mavic
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab@lahai.com>
>To: <communication@wsisasia.org>
>Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 5:00 PM
>Subject: [communication 476] Re: Our Tokyo declaration: Never say "never"?
>:-)
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it's a nice compromise that Izumi has proposed.
> >
> > >
> > > "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of expression should
> > > never be compromised by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
> >
> > I have a suggestion in No. 10 (I hope i am referring to the right
> > document), on national projects.
> >
> > The word 'National compulsory projects utilizing ICT", convey a
> > whole range of projects, which may or may not be involved in
> > citizens' registraiton. so i would suggest it to read
> >
> > "National registries utilizing ICTs, such as electronic national ID
> > card initiatives and electronic health care card initiatives, should be
> > prudently assessed with the consideration of privacy issues and
> > government surveillance issues before the implementation"
> >
> > In number 16, reference to IPR, can 'public domains' be replaced
> > with 'Information commons" , which becomes more encompassing.
> >
> >
> > Finally, If new version of the documents are sendout every
> > monday, with versions number in it, it would help to know, what is
> > the final shape of the document.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > gaurab
> > --
> > /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
> > | Gaurab Raj Upadhaya
> > | GPO BOX 13655, Kathmandu, Nepal, +977 1 499 393
> > | gaurab@lahai.com , www.lahai.com
> > X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > |
> >
> >
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Asia Network Research
www.anr.org
&
GLOCOM /Institute for HyperNetwork Society
<< Writing the Future of the History >>