[IRP] Nature of Charter - Conference Call
Dixie Hawtin
Dixie
Mon Nov 22 16:06:36 EET 2010
Hi all,
Thanks for the comments which have come in so far about the nature of the Charter and what exactly we are trying to do. Anriette - I fully agree that the Roles and Responsibilities document is very important and should be a priority over the next year. I also think an explanatory document citing sources will be incredibly useful. If anyone has any thoughts at all, please do send them through to the list.
We will be having a conference call this Wednesday at 15:00 GMT, the details of the call are below. Anyone who is free and who is interested in the Charter please do join, we have an opportunity now to define exactly what it is we are doing and the resulting document and process should really benefit from this... which in turn will help us to promote human rights in the internet governance arenas!
All the best,
Dixie
* Conference Room Number: 2217822
To use the HiDef Conferencing(tm) service, you may call from:
Phone (Toll):
From United States: +1 (201) 793-9022
From Canada: +1 (201) 793-9022
From Austria: +43 (0) 82040115470
From Belgium: +32 (0) 7 0357134
From France: +33 (0) 826109071
From Germany: +49 01805009527
From Ireland: +353 (0) 818270968
From Italy: +39 848390177
From Spain: +34 (9) 02885791
From Switzerland: +41 (0) 8 48560397
From United Kingdom: +44 (0) 8454018081
Skype:
Moderators: +9900827042065175
Participants: +9900827042217822
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:22:40 +0000
From: Dixie Hawtin <Dixie at global-partners.co.uk>
To: "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org"
<irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Subject: [IRP] My opinion
Message-ID:
<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C758B61FF at SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi all,
There haven't been any replies yet about the "objectives and nature of the Charter", so I thought that if I state my own opinions it may provoke someone to disagree (or even agree!) with me.
The more I look at the Charter the more I feel like we are trying to achieve two quite different things in the same document - on the one hand we are writing an advocacy document and trying to promote a particular and very progressive interpretation of human rights. On the other hand we are trying to write a reference document which is as comprehensive as possible and it doesn't matter that we are repetitive, nuanced, meandering etc. I think that both of these aims are very important and can be achieved through the Charter process, but I think they should be separated out so that the documents are more coherent and so much stronger.
I feel that the Charter should be structured in a slightly different way. I think that when we talk about "the Charter" we should be referring to just the first section (i.e. rights and principles) and that this should be strong and definite and read like a manifesto. Then, I think two/three other documents are needed to back it up (which form a "family" of documents):
1. What is currently section two, a document outlining the roles and responsibilities of all actors in relation to the Charter right/principles
2. An explanatory document which lists all the sources of the provisions in the Charter and states the arguments behind what we have chosen to include (here you would find ALL sources, e.g. international, regional, non-human rights documents such as WTO or WIPO docs, national document e.g. Brazilian principles, documents from other groups e.g. EFF principles etc). This would be very useful as a reference tool.
3. A user friendly version, although I would hope that the Charter could be made simple and clear enough that a user-friendly document wouldn't be necessary.
With "The Charter" in my opinion we are operating within the framework of existing human rights, and everything we state must be drawn back to an existing human right, but we can be as progressive as we like within those boundaries. The authority for our arguments comes from outside documents where they back up our arguments, but to a greater extent comes from the large amount of knowledge we contain within the Coalition on the internet and human rights, together with our extensive consultation process.
However, given that "The Charter" should be (in my opinion) predominately an advocacy document, I think we need to be precise, concise and use strong language. I have examples, but I don't want to give everyone to much to read! Here are just a couple:
-I think some of our provisions are quite weak and should be removed (although very few of them are in this category, one example is this: "the Internet [must be use] for the protection of the environment" (nb, I am not proposing that we remove mention of ewaste)
-I think some of our provisions are repetitive and only one is necessary, for example the article on right to associations contains both of these sentences where I feel only one is needed
* Everyone has the right to form, join, meet or visit the website or network of an assembly, group or association for any reason, including political and social.
* Everyone has the freedom to establish or join online communities.
-I believe we should use powerful language e.g. not "Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet shall be encouraged in the form of text, images and sound" as it is at present, but, "Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet must be realized".
I look forward to hearing people's thoughts on this.
All the best,
Dixie
___________________________________________________________
Dixie Hawtin
Researcher Global Partners and Associates
338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK
Office: + 44 207 239 8251 Mobile: +44 7769 181 556
dixie at global-partners.co.uk<mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk> www.global-partners.co.uk<http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101118/e7659314/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:31:38 +0200
From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRP] My opinion
Message-ID: <4CE57F1A.2040608 at apc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Dear Dixie
I agree with you.. very hard to have a focused document if it is trying
to achieve multiple, and different goals.
In splitting it into a family of documents I would like to see a far
more prominent place for what, from my perspective, is an incredibly
useful piece of work.. the spreadsheet with rights an interpretations
from an internet perspective which Meryem developed.
Anriette
On 18/11/10 19:22, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> There haven't been any replies yet about the "objectives and nature of
> the Charter", so I thought that if I state my own opinions it may
> provoke someone to disagree (or even agree!) with me.
>
> The more I look at the Charter the more I feel like we are trying to
> achieve two quite different things in the same document -- on the one
> hand we are writing an advocacy document and trying to promote a
> particular and very progressive interpretation of human rights. On the
> other hand we are trying to write a reference document which is as
> comprehensive as possible and it doesn't matter that we are
> repetitive, nuanced, meandering etc. I think that both of these aims
> are very important and can be achieved through the Charter process,
> but I think they should be separated out so that the documents are
> more coherent and so much stronger.
>
> I feel that the Charter should be structured in a slightly different
> way. I think that when we talk about "the Charter" we should be
> referring to just the first section (i.e. rights and principles) and
> that this should be strong and definite and read like a manifesto.
> Then, I think two/three other documents are needed to back it up
> (which form a "family" of documents):
>
> 1. What is currently section two, a document outlining the roles and
> responsibilities of all actors in relation to the Charter right/principles
>
> 2. An explanatory document which lists all the sources of the
> provisions in the Charter and states the arguments behind what we have
> chosen to include (here you would find ALL sources, e.g.
> international, regional, non-human rights documents such as WTO or
> WIPO docs, national document e.g. Brazilian principles, documents from
> other groups e.g. EFF principles etc). This would be very useful as a
> reference tool.
>
> 3. A user friendly version, although I would hope that the Charter
> could be made simple and clear enough that a user-friendly document
> wouldn't be necessary.
>
> With "The Charter" in my opinion we are operating within the framework
> of existing human rights, and everything we state must be drawn back
> to an existing human right, but we can be as progressive as we like
> within those boundaries. The authority for our arguments comes from
> outside documents where they back up our arguments, but to a greater
> extent comes from the large amount of knowledge we contain within the
> Coalition on the internet and human rights, together with our
> extensive consultation process.
>
> However, given that "The Charter" should be (in my opinion)
> predominately an advocacy document, I think we need to be precise,
> concise and use strong language. I have examples, but I don't want to
> give everyone to much to read! Here are just a couple:
>
> -I think some of our provisions are quite weak and should be removed
> (although very few of them are in this category, one example is this:
> "the Internet [must be use] for the protection of the environment"
> (nb, I am not proposing that we remove mention of ewaste)
>
> -I think some of our provisions are repetitive and only one is
> necessary, for example the article on right to associations contains
> both of these sentences where I feel only one is needed
>
> ? Everyone has the right to form, join, meet or visit the website or
> network of an assembly, group or association for any reason, including
> political and social.
>
> ? Everyone has the freedom to establish or join online communities.
>
> -I believe we should use powerful language e.g. not "Cultural and
> linguistic diversity on the Internet shall be encouraged in the form
> of text, images and sound" as it is at present, but, "Cultural and
> linguistic diversity on the Internet must be realized".
>
> I look forward to hearing people's thoughts on this.
>
> All the best,
>
> Dixie
>
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> *Dixie Hawtin*
>
> *Researcher **Global Partners and Associates***
>
> 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK
>
> Office: + 44 207 239 8251 Mobile: +44 7769 181 556
>
> *dixie at global-partners.co.uk <mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk>**
> **www.global-partners.co.uk <http://www.global-partners.co.uk/> *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101118/cf41f1e8/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
End of IRP Digest, Vol 22, Issue 12
***********************************
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
More information about the IRP
mailing list