[IRP] Nature of Charter - Conference Call
Meryem Marzouki
meryem
Tue Nov 30 00:02:43 EET 2010
Hi Marianne, Dixie and all,
I would go even further, and reduce the sentence to:
"No blocking or filtering should be made mandatory or enforced beyond
what is strictly necessary to ensure the technical functioning of the
net."
Furthermore, if we keep the current acknowledgement that sometimes
blocking or filtering is " necessary to ensure the technical
functioning of the net" (which is, BTW, the argument of those who
block, including for other reasons), then I think we should be more
specific and make distinction between blocking/filtering of *content*
and blocking/filtering of *services* or *protocols*
But first, Dixie, could you let us know where exactly you intend to
make this change in the text? If this is on point 7 (freedom of
opinion and expression), then it's clearly about blocking content.
And, to my knowledge, the only content that might harm the technical
functioning of the net is malware. And thus, it shouldn't be dealt
with under freedom of expression, but under network stability and
resilience which is currently, to my knowledge, under discussion on
whether we should keep it or not (currently point 4.b).
Best,
Meryem
Le 29 nov. 10 ? 12:45, M I Franklin a ?crit :
> Dear All,
>
> Would it not be more prudent to omit the phrase "should be
> promoted" for all the reasons people have brought up previously;
> reasons that I think are well-founded.
>
> New sentence would then read:
>
> "Blocking and filtering as tools and services should be made
> available for users to use as they choose. No blocking or
> filtering should be made mandatory or enforced beyond what is
> strictly necessary to ensure the technical functioning of the net."
>
> best
> MF
>
>
> --On Monday, November 29, 2010 10:56 +0000 Dixie Hawtin
> <Dixie at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Shaila,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes please, any comments at all are very welcome. Please note, the
>> wording on filtering and blocking will be different following
>> conversations on the list and is now going to be along the lines of:
>>
>> "Blocking and filtering as tools and services should be promoted
>> and made
>> available for users to use as they choose.
>>
>> No blocking or filtering should be made mandatory or enforced
>> beyond what
>> is strictly necessary to ensure the technical functioning of the
>> net."
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Dixie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: shaila mistry [mailto:shailam at yahoo.com]
>> Sent: 29 November 2010 05:46
>> To: Dixie Hawtin; M I Franklin; Bodle, Robert;
>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] Nature of Charter - Conference Call
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dixie
>> So are you wanting us to comment on Charter 1.1 or do you want us to
>> wait?
>> shaila
>>
>>
>>
>> Life is too short ....challenge the rules
>>
>> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
>>
>> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>> From: Dixie Hawtin <Dixie at global-partners.co.uk>
>> To: M I Franklin <cos02mf at gold.ac.uk>; "Bodle, Robert"
>> <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>;
>> "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org"
>> <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>> Sent: Thu, November 25, 2010 7:00:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] Nature of Charter - Conference Call
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Many thanks to everyone for the valuable discussion about the
>> nature and
>> objectives of the Charter, so far I think it has been a really useful
>> discussion that will help us to be more focussed in our approach
>> towards
>> the Charter going forwards. It would be great to get a sense about
>> whether there is a broad consensus about the way the Charter
>> process in
>> moving, so if anyone does have any more comments/opinions/critiques
>> please bring them to the discussion (and thank you to Marianne and
>> Robert
>> for already doing so!).
>>
>> We thought it would be a good idea to write an FAQ section about the
>> Charter for the IRP website to clearly explain what the Charter is.
>> Instead of writing up the meeting notes, I thought I could write a
>> first
>> draft of the FAQs to outline the discussion we had yesterday together
>> with some of the discussions we have been having about the Charter
>> more
>> broadly. This is a first draft, so if you would like to make
>> changes or
>> comments please do, or if you are happy with it as it is please
>> say so.
>> The FAQs are on a GoogleDoc which can be accessed here
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/
>> 142ntuI2pgn1DQGvCrTtEOwzNICJLAZzfyvBBo
>> Ds4amo/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJTXptoH
>>
>> As an overall summary of the meeting -
>> On the call yesterday were Lisa, Meryem, Henrik, Shaila and Dixie.
>> Apologies were received from Marianne, Robert B, Wolfgang, Rikke,
>> Parminder and Tapani.
>>
>> As an overall summary of the meeting:
>> *There was full agreement that the separate objectives of the Charter
>> should be delivered through separate yet intimately related
>> documents.
>> *There was full agreement that we are presenting the IRP Coalition's
>> interpretation of human rights, and this interpretation is one
>> which is
>> expansive and progressive rather than narrow and legal.
>> *There was full agreement that it is necessary and of value in
>> itself, to
>> create a secondary document clarifying the legal status of each
>> provision
>> and outlining all sources.
>> *There was some discussion about the nature of obligations under the
>> Charter given that human rights law governs the relationship between
>> States and individuals. For more information see FAQ#3: Who is
>> bound by
>> the Charter?
>> *There was some disagreement over the definition of rights and
>> principles, the group came to agreement that principles which are
>> essentially a re-working of a human right for the internet (such as
>> freedom from filtering and blocking) are not actually principles
>> but are
>> right. Then there are two types of principle: legal principles
>> (such as
>> rule of law) and implementation principles (such as
>> interoperability and
>> network neutrality). I have attempted to define this separation in
>> FAQ4.
>> I did not mention legal principles as I am not sure if they are in
>> the
>> Charter at present, other than where they are a human right (e.g.
>> non-retroactivity).
>> *There was some disagreement over which principles should be in the
>> Charter. Some argued that the Charter should not include
>> implementation
>> principles but that these should be in the document on roles and
>> responsibilities. This was not however, the dominant view. Most
>> people
>> felt that these principles were so important to fulfilling human
>> rights
>> standards on the Internet that they should be contained in the
>> Charter.
>> Therefore the decision was made to keep all principles in the
>> Charter but
>> to revisit this question should opinions change in the future.
>> *There was agreement that in general more work is needed to make sure
>> that the Charter is coherent and consistent. At present some of the
>> provisions are far more detailed than others, and there is little
>> consistency in how the provisions are presented.
>>
>> Also, if people agree and we do more forward with the idea of a
>> Charter
>> of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet containing three
>> separate
>> constituent parts, we may like to have a think about what we are
>> going to
>> call each of those parts.
>>
>> I hope everyone is well.
>> All the best,
>> Dixie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk]
>> Sent: 25 November 2010 09:49
>> To: Bodle, Robert; Dixie Hawtin;
>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] Nature of Charter - Conference Call
>>
>> Dear IRP'ers
>>
>> My apologies as well for missing the meeting; extenuating
>> circumstances.
>>
>> To respond to comments so far about the purpose and shape of the
>> Charter;
>> as a single or set of documents; I agree with Dixie's analysis and
>> others'
>> points so far; there are several aims and objectives which makes
>> it an
>> ambitious undertaking; something in itself that people need to
>> persuaded
>> about!
>>
>> As to writing/revision issues in light of the 2-3 distinct sorts of
>> documents we're working with:
>> My main concern right now is regarding the manifesto/shorter
>> document;
>> which serves as the primary - 'taster' - document. My question is
>> about
>> how
>> to distinguish the way this part is being written from the UDHR
>> (as well
>> as
>> the APC/Brazilian Charters) in terms of the way the clauses/section
>> headings make clear the way this initiative is looking to develop
>> specific
>> applications of UDHR clauses to specific areas of the internet.
>>
>> I mention this as it was the key focus for audience comments at a
>> talk I
>> recently gave about the Charter process; questions being about how
>> the
>> section headings distinguished themselves from the general UDHR
>> ones; if
>> they do, how so, and then how the IRP Charter is *not* reinventing
>> the
>> wheel.
>>
>> In short, how can we make clear in a glance in the shorter
>> document the
>> core aims of the Charter in general ('punchy') and yet also make
>> clear
>> that
>> it has specific application to the internet? One way is to continue
>> working on more Internet- specific *headings* (vs. reiterations of
>> the
>> original UDHR ones) as one way to respond to these recurring 'why
>> bother?'
>> questions.
>>
>> best
>> MF
>>
>>
>> --On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:36 -0500 "Bodle, Robert"
>> <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> I just missed the meeting ? I was really excited to touch base with
>>> everyone, but instead I will add some comments below:
>>>
>>> I tend to agree with Dixie (and others perhaps) that the aims of the
>>> Charter should be separated out:
>>>
>>> 1) "the Charter" A Manifesto for advocacy (with punchiness ?
>>> precise, concise, with strong language) 2) a document outlining
>>> roles and
>>> responsibilities
>>> 3) an explanatory document and reference tool
>>>
>>> Yet, I think the reference tool should be elaborate and ambitious ?
>>> that it should be a digital library, resource center, and commons.
>>> Perhaps it can be called something like "Human Rights on the
>>> Internet:
>>> Digital Library | Resource Center | Commons (I am drawing
>>> inspiration
>>> here from: http://internetresearchethics.org/ supported by the
>>> Center for
>>> Information Policy Research at the School of Information Studies,
>>> UW-Milwaukee). This would be a repository for all who want to access
>>> sources of the provisions in the charter as a resource tool.
>>>
>>> This would take $$ which means we would need grant funding
>>> opportunities,
>>> perhaps hosting institutions, PhD candidates to run, etc. I'd
>>> love to
>>> work with someone on this. Maybe it could be a phased project
>>> that builds
>>> steam after the explanatory document is established.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/netrights (89 followers)
>>> http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples (612 fans)
>>>
>>> Internet Rights and Principles on Facebook
>>> 68 monthly active users - 12 since last week
>>> 612 people like this - 8 since last week
>>> 3 wall posts and comments this week - 1 since last week
>>> 146 visits this week
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Dixie
>>> Hawtin [Dixie at global-partners.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 22,
>>> 2010 9:06
>>> AM
>>> To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> Subject: [IRP] Nature of Charter - Conference Call
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> loca
>>> l>
>>>
>>> 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-
>>> internetrigh
>>> t sandprinciples.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-
>>>> internetr
>>>> i ghtsandprinciples.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-
>>> internetrigh
>>> t sandprinciples.org/attachments/20101118/cf41f1e8/attachment.htm>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
>>> internetri
>>> g htsandprinciples.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
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> __
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
>>> internetri
>>> g htsandprinciples.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
>>> internetri
>>> g htsandprinciples.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Marianne Franklin
>> Reader
>> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
>> Media & Communications
>> Goldsmiths
>> New Cross
>> London SE14 6NW
>> United Kingdom
>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-
>> global-med
>> ia.php
>>
>> "It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other
>> creature,
>> without forming an opinion on them. On the other hand, it is
>> perfectly
>> possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and
>> not
>> have
>> the slightest thought about them whatsoever." (Douglas Adams)
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
>> internetrig
>> htsandprinciples.org
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-
> global-media.php
>
> "It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other
> creature,
> without forming an opinion on them. On the other hand, it is perfectly
> possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and
> not have
> the slightest thought about them whatsoever." (Douglas Adams)
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
> internetrightsandprinciples.org
More information about the IRP
mailing list