[IRP] Tentative proposal for merging the APC/IRP and FCForumcharter processes
Thu Dec 10 14:45:44 EET 2009
I think it would be great to get as many people involvd in the Charter process as possible, and that the idea of merging with the FCForum charter is a good one. It's right that reducing fragmentation in these kinds of efforts was one reason why the IRP got involved in the APC process.
It's a shame though that the suggestion's been made at this late stage...I think we have agreement that we're leaving the wiki/google doc open until 25th Dec, and then handing it over to the HR experts to edit for language and human rights compliance. So, to keep to this timescale, we'd need to add the principles from the FCForum charter to the wiki in the relevant places (mainly articles 19, 26 and 27 I guess). Jeremy - could you or someone from the Forum group do that? Then they'd need to join the IRP/apc rights lists and participate in the discussions once the expert group has done their first round of work.....
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Thu 10/12/2009 10:33
Subject: Re: [IRP] Tentative proposal for merging the APC/IRP and FCForumcharter processes
On 10/12/2009, at 2:27 AM, Sylvia Caras wrote:
> about merging charters, this group also has a 'charter' or a version
> of one, in its statements - are we wanting to combine all of that a
> UDHR for the internet, UDHIR?
Well, that's the question. The thinking behind it, from the Free
Culture Forum group, was that it is desirable to consolidate charters
and reduce fragmentation. Rather than paraphrase, let me copy and
paste some of the list discussion (the original poster Simona is a
Spanish native speaker, so excuse her English):
> i think we should write to the past relevant efforts to tell them
> about the charter and to say that their wrk was insprational and to
> invite them to endorse and participate from now on. so we did with
> the documents that we propose in the fcforum from our side.
> Particularly, i think we should write to the APC, (is the more
> solid, even if i think its forget the legal really and it is to much
> on the level of intentions more that practical acting). ...
> i think that we absolutely don't let the "movement" or in general
> the philosophy of free culture to be duplicating efforts and
> fragnmentating. this is the big success of our charter. to put many
> people together. so, i agree deeply with Paolo that we must propose
> the charter as inspiration or even more, we should firmely propose
> to the grpoups that want to start new charter, to use this
> charter, to take it as its. if not we do the work of the enemies,
> fragmentation, irrelevance. Paolo did it and also i was asking time
> ago to Amelia that the Pirate partiet adopt it and so she succed.
> but now i think we should really write to the "bill of rights"
> people and tell them really to discuss it with us and to use it.
The underlying ideal of reducing fragmentation is also why (as I
understand it) this dynamic coalition decided to rework the APC
Charter rather than creating a new one.
But at the same time, adding more voices makes the task of producing a
single document that much more difficult. So I don't know if this
group would prefer to continue to revise the APC Charter in a small
group, rather than to try to merge with the larger FCForum's charter
project. I am interested to hear peoples' thoughts on this.
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in
115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more
information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IRP