[IRP] Another comment on "punch"
Wed Oct 6 15:40:45 EEST 2010
Since a lot of punchy stuff is coming in now, I think that we should
carry on taking in these comments and table a version 1.1 or version 2
whatever it is called in the next 2-3 months.
In fact, at the IRP meeting in Vilnius I had proposed that since we can
expect a lot of energetic responses with the charter now that a full
version is out, and also it having had some good visibility through the
IGF and other spaces, we should use this opportunity to keep taking in
substantive stuff. We should not rush to close this version. And then we
should use the new fuller version to be taken more proactively to groups
that may be outside the typical IG spaces, and seek their engagement.
On Wednesday 06 October 2010 05:42 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> I've read the recent discussions on "punch" and, being one of the
> people who criticized the lack of it, I'd like to make some examples
> of "punchy" rights that I would like to see stated.
> I would like to see a right to make use of the knowledge and
> instruments of the past to enhance the personal and collective
> knowledge and instruments for the future (as opposed to "copyright is
> a fundamental right, but please use Creative Commons"... copyright
> should be an exception to sharing, not the opposite).
> I would like to see a right to access and share information of public
> political and social value without being subject to harassment or
> limitations by governments, corporations and other interested parties
> (think of Wikileaks).
> I would like to see a right for the people to use the Internet to
> gather and self-organize for political and social activity (yes it's
> already there in the draft, but it's attributed to "the users of ICT
> tools" - no, it's really "the people", you don't gain the right
> because you use an ICT tool, it's a generic right for which the
> Internet is an additional instrument).
> I would like to see a right to innovate in content, applications and
> services without having to undergo centralized authorization and
> validation procedures.
> It's not that these things are not there (some are not, though), it's
> that IMHO they should be phrased with more focus, more abstraction
> (implementation in today's technological terms should go in part 2 or
> in specific documents), and more courage.
> Anyway, I'd be happy to join whatever drafting group to turn criticism
> into wording proposals.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IRP