[IRP] Option 2 RESPONSE REQUIRED: Revising the Charter

parminder parminder
Thu Oct 14 11:30:10 EEST 2010

On Wednesday 13 October 2010 10:51 PM, shaila mistry wrote:
> Hi Everyone
> I meant option 2 but perhaps it does not have to be so intensive as a 
> call every week.

Agree with Shaila. Will prefer another round of improvements to the 
charter from within the group so that we can go for the consultation 
process, which is likely to be one time, with a more complete, and what 
is more important, more inspiring document, onet which can invoke active 
engagement by groups who may not otherwise be that much into IG kind of 
stuff. Parminder

>  Shaila
> **
> **
> __________________________________________________________________________________
> 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
> Shaila
> *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 then.
> 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 comments.
> 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 
> 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,
> Lisa
> -------------------------------
> 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 <mailto:lisah at global-partners.co.uk> 
> **www.global-partners.co.uk <http://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
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101014/b353ffa6/attachment.htm>

More information about the IRP mailing list