[IRP] Punchiness and consultation process

Fri Oct 8 14:09:37 EEST 2010

Thanks for this Jim.

We will add it to our list of issues to consult on.  But it would also be great to kick start the discussion now if you have ideas for alternative language.  Anyone, inside the coalition and beyond, is free to start threads on any of the articles in the Charter - we'll use those discussions as a starting point for external consultations.

I think once people are generally happy with the proposed consultation process, then we can move on to look at our list of issues, defining which ones we include in the face to face meetings, and how we phrase the questions etc.

I'd suggest that once we've had the wider consultations and our administrator/steering committee has developed a new draft next year, we can have focussed discussions about outstanding issues and concerns within the coalition.  For example, we might dedicate a week and a conference call to a set of defined issues to hammer out language etc.  We'd need to adjust the proposed timescale to allow for that, probably ending the external consultation around May or June to give us time to finalise 2.0 within the coalition.

Thoughts, comments welcome!

Lisa

From: Jim Killock [mailto:jimkillock at googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Jim Killock
Sent: 07 October 2010 10:50
To: Lisa Horner
Cc: 'Fouad Bajwa'; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRP] Punchiness and consultation process

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101008/b6fb98cd/attachment-0001.htm>