[IRP] Punchiness and consultation process

[Lisa Horner]

Hi

Two things I wanted to raise in this email:

1)      Whether 1.1 should have more punch

2)      A proposal for the consultation process once we have 1.1


1)      Whether 1.1 should have more punch


It is great that the punchy comments are coming through ? thanks everyone!

We did agree in Vilnius that we?d just address serious concerns for version 1.1 (mistakes, misleading language, contradictions).  The main rationale for that was so that we could move forwards as quickly as possible with the consultation, and also so that people don?t get confused/disinterested in the process if we release a lot of different versions.  The idea wasn?t to stop inputs on substantive issues, but rather to get as quickly as possible to a point at which we?re all happy to begin that discussion.

But I agree with the comment that we should ride on this punchy wave!  And I think more punch in the Charter would definitely be a good thing.  However, it would also be good to stick as much as possible to our original time scale of the end of October to get version 1.1 out and start the consultation and outreach on substantive issues.

So, could I suggest something between the two solutions:

-          People on this list make comments and suggestions on (a) ?serious? issues [mistakes etc] and (b) ?punchy? improvements that could be made to the existing text for specific articles.  We could extend the deadline for comments and discussion by a week until 17th October.

-          Dixie revises the text, taking as many of the suggestions into consideration as possible.  She sends the coalition the revised document by 27th October, with clear explanation/rationale for changes.

-          Coalition has chance to comment again until Sunday 7th November.

-          Version 1.1 is ready for Monday 15th November.

Just to stress, changes being made during this process would only be to language and grammar.  I recognise that small changes in language can have a powerful impact...this isn?t an apolitical exercise.  But following on from our discussions in Vilnius, I really don?t think that we should jump the gun too much in terms of making too many substantive changes at this stage.  For example, I don?t think we should be adding in new articles, taking any out or changing the spirit and intention of the text.  That?s all for the consultation process (which of course has already informally started on this list, which is great).

What do you think?


2)      A proposal for the consultation process once we have 1.1

Dixie and I have drafted a proposal for moving forwards, based on the coalition discussions we had in Vilnius.  This is just a draft proposal...we need your comments, thoughts and ideas about how this should work.  The proposal is here: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/368

Please send through your comments, questions and ideas.  I?ve put some specific questions in red italics in the doc, but you can of course comment on anything.  I suggest we then have a conference call to finalise in the next few weeks, but let?s discuss on the list first.  The success of this process will depend on all of our participation, so please do comment.

Thanks and all the best,
Lisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101006/2f9cfcda/attachment-0001.htm>