[IRP] forward IGC open consultation statement & endorsement draft

Max Senges max
Mon Feb 23 00:44:58 EET 2009

Hi Ralf and all

I see Ralf's point that we as an IGF multi-stakeholder dynamic coalition are
a different kind of institution than the IGC. I therefore suggest that we do
not generally endorse the IGC statement but simply advocate that our core
mission to work on and promote Internet Rigths and Principles (especially in
the IGF context).

Below an amended version of the statement with reference to the IGC


Please allow us to take this opportunity to share with the IGF organizers
and community that the "Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights"
and  the "Dynamic Coalition on Framework of Principles for the Internet"
have agreed to merge and change our name to "Dynamic Coalition on Internet
Rights and Principles (IRP)".

We invite all interested parties to join and participate in our discussions
and initiatives. Furthermore and on todays subject, the Dynamic Coalition on
Internet Rights and Principles wants to join others in urging the IGF
organizers to make "Internet Rights and Principles" a major theme at the IGF
09 in Egypt.

Naturally our coalition is working to prepare thematic events and workshops
on "Internet Rights and Principles" for Egypt and we are most interested in
working with other groups and institutions, including the IGF community as a
whole, to ensure that the IGF 09 will be successful in developing insights
and solutions regarding this key theme of protecting the openness of the
Internet as a public sphere in which all humans enjoy their basic rights and


Given that the open consultations are taking place tomorrow and on tuesday
(23-24) i am not sure that we can reach sufficient consensus and agreement
to read this (or a further developed version of this statement).

What do you think?


On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
> wrote:

> Max Senges schrieb:
> > We wont have time to raise and
> > tweak controversal points, so i suggest we generally endorse the IGC
> > statement
> I would be very careful with this, for two reasons:
> 1) As Craig has pointed out, if there are controversial points or no time
> for discussions, we should only issue things as drafts or maybe even not
> at all.
> 2) The Dynamic Coalitions are Multi-Stakeholder bodies. The Internet
> Governance Caucus whose statement you recommend to endorse is a pure civil
> society body. For the sake of long-term multi-stakeholder collaboration in
> this and other coalitions, I would prefer to keeep these separated. We
> can't take the coalitions and just transform them into advocacy groups.
> > update the secretariate on our name change and merger process.
> That of course is fine and should certainly be done.
> Best,Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20090222/2140adb5/attachment.htm>

More information about the IRP mailing list