[IRP] Option 2 RESPONSE REQUIRED: Revising the Charter
Wed Oct 13 20:21:32 EEST 2010
I meant option 2 but perhaps it does not have to be so intensive as a call every
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
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 !
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
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
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
SAY WHETHER YOU WOULD PREFER OPTION 1 OR 2 BY SUNDAY 17TH OCT ? we will go with
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,
1) The original proposed plan
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 group drafts separate flyer for coalition to review.
2) Alternative plan
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
Final version 2.0 produced in time for IGF 2011.
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.
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...
More information about the IRP