[IRP] Punchiness and consultation process

[Fouad Bajwa]

Hi Lisa,

Can you share the google link to the irp document?

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Lisa Horner
<LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa