[IRP] forward IGC open consultation statement & endorsementdraft

[Lisa Horner]

Hi

I think it's best to take the opportunity to read out a statement if
possible, although I do  agree with Ralf's points, especially that we
are not an advocacy body.

I also think that it would be good to take the opportunity to explain a
bit why we've changed the name/accepted the merger as I suggested
before, but also fine not to if it's too difficult at this stage.  I've
pasted a version with an additional sentence in the first para below in
case you do want to use it.

Thanks for the coordination on getting it read out.

All the best,

Lisa

 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)". The inclusion of
principles in our mandate will enable us to define better what applying
established human rights to the internet environment means in practice,
examining the implications for internet users and policy makers.

We invite all interested parties to join and participate in our
discussions and initiatives. Furthermore and on today's 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 freedoms.       

 

 

From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
Max Senges
Sent: 22 February 2009 22:45
To: Ralf Bendrath
Cc: irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] forward IGC open consultation statement &
endorsementdraft

 

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
statement:

------------------------------------------------

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 freedoms.       

-------------------------------------------------------

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? 

Max

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-internetri
ghtsandprinciples.org

 

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3880 (20090223) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 

http://www.eset.com

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3881 (20090223) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20090223/098bd2ea/attachment-0001.htm>