[IRP] Mobile phones and other changes to article 1 (was RE: Outcomes of call on right to access/right to the Internet.)

Lisa Horner LisaH
Thu Dec 9 13:26:33 EET 2010

Hi Mike and all

Definitely agree with you on the mobile phones.  We need to work out the best way to include this.  What's the balance between technology neutrality and being clear that things are likely to be different for different modalities? We could opt to keep it fairly top line in the Charter itself, and go into more detail in the explanatory document.  But I do feel we need to put something in the Charter to flesh out the current wording if we can. Could we take you up on the offer of suggesting some language please, Mike? We can then ask technical folk if we have it right during our consultations...  Would love to talk to Berners-Lee and W3C on all of this.

Just a couple of extra points whilst I remember.... People have commented on the lack of reference to sexuality and inclusion of lgbt people in the current draft. We refer to marginalised groups in article 3 on non-discrimination, but only to gender, age and "people with different needs".  Should we include sexual orientation here too?

We've also had a comment about the need for the fundamental architecture to support linguistic diversity.  Linguistic diversity and its relationship to technological evolution is in article 13b at the moment, but maybe we need to make the language a bit sharper and more explicit.  But maybe that's for version 2.0...

All the best,

From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: 08 December 2010 17:58
To: Lisa Horner; 'parminder'
Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: RE: [IRP] Outcomes of call on right to access/right to the Internet.

Hi Lisa and all,

I'm easy as to modalities but to be clear if we want to talk about (for example)

The right to access the Internet includes:

a) Quality of service

b) Freedom of choice of system and software use

We need to be cognizant of the fact that QoS is quite different for mobile than for stationary as is the issue of "freedom of choice of system" etc.--BTW in an era increasingly dominated by mobile these questions become rather more technical and commercial than perhaps was initiailly envisaged when the document was drafted.

Re: "Right of access to the Internet" or "Right to the Internet"... I did the same research as you Lisa (after I sent my note off) and had the same questions about what I had written... Honestly I'm still not sure that the folks drafting the legislation weren't technically naive as well (but I could be corrected here...

My suggestion is why not go to the source... I have indirect access to Berners-Lee which might or might not get him to respond--perhaps others have better access.  But I think we should be actively consulting with the W3 Consortium /Foundation http://www.w3.org /Berners Lee on these issues. I think they will be sympathetic and they might be willing/interested to act as a technology sounding board on these questions. (They are based in the UK at Southhampton U.)

Re: your final point about concerns by various parties about a Right to the Internet etc.etc.--doesn't the fact that various jurisdictions are already engaged with this and others are thinking about it really give us license not only to proceed but even to look to take a leading position? (not a rhetorical question as I'm not familiar with the national or inter-agency "politics" around these issues.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101209/5db23c70/attachment.htm>

More information about the IRP mailing list