[IRP] Punchiness and consultation process

Thu Oct 7 12:49:41 EEST 2010

Hi folks

I've been lurking on this list, so please excuse my directness below. I would like to know what the process for consulting on this part would be:

c.   E-Democracy 
E-democracy and online voting should be promoted whenever it bears the potential to enable a more participatory democracy where political decisions are debated and taken by more people, provided its security can be assured. 

This to me is a very contentious statement, that many security engineers and human rights organisations would be uncomfortable with. Many of us do not believe that e-voting or online voting is likely to be secure anytime soon. I can see that position is reflected by "provided its security can be assured", but to many of this is extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. It might be a bit like saying: "Banking should be completely deregulated, provided our financial security can be assured".

So what would the process be to consult more widely, perhaps, and consider changing this statement?

On 7 Oct 2010, at 09:33, Lisa Horner wrote:

> Hi Fouad
> 
> Do you mean the actual Charter?  The Google links for that are out of date, but you can see it on our website at: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/367
> 
> We could do with tidying up the format on this or - even better - creating an eye catching online version. Any volunteers?
> 
> Lisa
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] 
> Sent: 07 October 2010 00:46
> To: Lisa Horner
> Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> Subject: Re: [IRP] Punchiness and consultation process
> 
> 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
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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-internetrightsandprinciples.org

Jim Killock 
Executive Director
Open Rights Group
+44 (0) 7894 498 127
Skype: jimkillock
http://twitter.com/jimkillock
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101007/f34cc7eb/attachment.htm>