[IRP] Option 2 RESPONSE REQUIRED: Revising the Charter

shaila mistry shailam
Wed Oct 13 20:21:32 EEST 2010

Hi Everyone 
I meant option 2 but perhaps it does not have to be so intensive as a call every 



Hi Everyone 
Although I have remained silent, I have been following all threads of the "more 
punch and punchiness " conversation particularly noting the changed position of 
several of the IRP members. Needless to say I am pleased we are reviewing the 
Charter as it stands .

Punch list Document 
The punch provides a direct succinct message on the key point of our Charter.  
It has the purpose of acting as the flagship for the charter and we should  
proceed as agreed.
Content of the Charter 1.0 and its readiness for launch for consultation to the 
outside world.
I made my points quite clearly at the workshop in Vilnius . Nonetheless, in 
brief I reiterate that some work is needed to first review the document 
thoroughly ourselves to correct and reconfigure "known weaknesses " Some of 
these elements are not just a matter of opinion but will not stand up to the 
test of principle, application or intent .

The Charter is a proud achievement for all of us and receives, in my opinion a 9 
out of 10 in terms of our collaboration, our goal of pioneering leadership for 
human rights . Notwithstanding the positive comments received from the attendees 
at our workshop,  there were also many significant comments that pointed out 
these shortcomings. Also keep in mind that in an international  conference we 
are all operating under the rules of rampant diplomacy, wherein hard facts can 
be lost !

Consultation process
One of our problems has been that we did not have sufficient time between 
receiving the Charter and assembling in Vilnius. The due precess that should 
have taken place is for more discussion and work amongst those of us who were 
directly involved or should have been involved.  I would still be inclined to 
proceed in this manner.  Best analogy I can make is that of turning in your 
college term paper knowing  that it is incomplete. 

My vote is for Option 1

challenge the rules ...push the barriers....
............live beyond your existential means !!

From:Lisa Horner <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk>
To: "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" 
<irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 9:18:24 AM
Subject: [IRP] RESPONSE REQUIRED: Revising the Charter
Hi all
Thanks for all of the comments so far about our immediate revisions of the 
Charter.  From these comments two things have emerged as needing immediate 
attention.  First of all, I will try to clarify what the ?Punchy Working Group? 
is and what they are doing. Secondly, we need to decide how much work we want to 
do to the Charter before we use it in external consultations. I have outlined 
two possibilities at the bottom of the email.  Please could everyone say which 
option they prefer by this SUNDAY 17TH OCTOBER. 

a) The Punchy Working Group
The group formed in Vilnius after our internal meeting in the canteen.  It is 
informally being led by Brett, and includes Dixie, Shaila, Henrik, Karmen and 
Carlos.  The group is working to draft a flyer/short document to use as an 
advocacy and campaigning tool. This is a separate document to the main Charter.  
People wanted to work on it as they feel they need an advocacy and mobilising 
tool right now, rather than having to wait for the longer Charter process.  They 
also wanted something that was shorter and more accessible than the longer, more 
academic and comprehensive Charter.
The individual members of the group have brainstormed a list of key principles 
that they think embody the essence and spirit of the Charter.  They are now 
working to refine this list, and are due to send a draft to the coalition in the 
coming weeks.  We can then discuss and edit together.   The idea is to produce 
something like the Brazilian principles.  Once we?ve all agreed on a version, 
the plan is for a designer to make it look good, and then it will be ready for 
people to use in their advocacy work. 

The proposed ?Punchy? advocacy document will be sent to the mailing list in the 
next couple of weeks and we will have an in-depth discussion about this document 
b) The Charter
At Vilnius it was agreed that some work needs to be done to the main Charter 
before the external consultation.  However since then there have been some 
differences in opinion about how much work the Charter needs. 

Our original plan (which I sent around last week) would give us about two weeks 
from now to rectify any mistakes in the Charter and, refine some of the language 
and build in Tapani?s new and improved preamble.  Dixie would undertake this 
work, based on comments so far, and would send a revised version round for 
However, there is a feeling among some of us that more work is needed to go 
through the whole Charter together to make it more concise, clear and inspiring. 
I would like to stress that this would not be an attempt to rewrite the Charter. 
We already have a very good Charter! The aim would be to work with what we 
already have; the substantive content would not change (except for where there 
are mistakes) but what content we already have would be made more streamlined 
and consistent. 

So let?s make a final decision now. I have put the two options we have below (we 
can refine the details once we?ve broadly agreed on one or the other).  PLEASE 
the majority on this.  Either are possible and can work.  But please take into 
consideration whether you personally will have time to participate in the 
process and can commit to it.
Please respond...we can?t decide how to go forwards with this if you don?t!
Thanks and all the best,
The options:
1) The original proposed plan
Main Charter:
Coalition members submit comments to Dixie about serious concerns that you think 
need to be addressed in the text.
Dixie revises text and sends to coalition for comments. 
Discussion, and final text produced. (original deadline we set was 31 October). 
External consultation begins in November, and internal discussion within the 
coalition runs in parallel.
Final version 2.0 produced in time for IGF 2011.
Punchy flyer:
Punchy group drafts separate flyer for coalition to review.
2) Alternative plan
Main Charter:
Dixie revises text according to comments already received since Vilnius. 
Coalition reviews the Charter in depth.  This is likely to take the form of 
discussing one section per week on the list, seeing where the text can be made 
more inspiring.  We could organise a conference call at the end of each week to 
agree final language.
We produce version 1.1 by end of December, and begin external consultation in 
January 2011.
Final version 2.0 produced in time for IGF 2011.
Punchy flyer
Work continues to produce separate document as before.
Note: With either option, we will still be sticking to our original objectives 
of ?applying? existing rights standards to the Internet.  This means that we 
have to be careful with our language and to make sure that we don?t contradict 
or undermine rights standards.  We?ve made progress with the work of the expert 
group, and don?t want to go backwards.  As has already been pointed out, we?re 
not trying to produce a consensus document, but rather to apply existing rights 
standards to the Internet.  If we can?t agree on language, we will have to agree 
to compromise and/or discuss further during the external consultation.   
Lisa Horner
Head of Research & Policy  Global Partners and Associates
338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK
Office: + 44 207 239 8251     Mobile: +44 7867 795859
LisaH at global-partners.co.uk  www.global-partners.co.uk 

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/20101013/9b31eedd/attachment.htm>

More information about the IRP mailing list