[IRP] RESPONSE REQUIRED: Revising the Charter

[parminder]

Sure, Marianne, I agree that we should do things as quickly as possible, 
and go by clear time tables... Only while we are still at it, i mean the 
version that has to go out for wider consultation, which is going to be 
a very important process, just lets not be too rigid on what kind of 
changes/ improvements may be considered and which may not be.... Parminder

On Friday 15 October 2010 01:42 PM, M I Franklin wrote:
> Dear Parminder
>
> Point taken!
>
> Both options do take account of the need to refine - correct and tidy 
> up sections and wording that are deficient - the main Charter before 
> sending it out for wider consultation; option 1 in short.
>
> However, if others want the DC to take a bit more time to consult 
> further on these passages and strengthen less robust sections (here I 
> refer to and agree with Shaila's ponts here) before going 'public' so 
> to speak, then that is fine with me; Option 2.
>
> I don't see these options as mutually exclusive. The key decision, if 
> I understand correctly, is timing; how much time is needed for DC 
> conferring before sending version 1.0/1,1 into wider consultation? 
> Option 1 has this occur quite soon in order to keep the momentum up so 
> if we are going to confer within the DC in more detail then its up to 
> us to get moving!
>
> Happy to go with the general consensus here. Lisa, would it perhaps be 
> a good moment to have a tele-conference to iron out the major points 
> still needing attention in the Charter text?
>
> best
> MF
>
>
>
> --On Friday, October 15, 2010 11:01 +0530 parminder 
> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 14 October 2010 02:09 PM, M I Franklin wrote:
>>
>> Dear All
>>
>> Option 1 mainly because that is the one agreed to at Vilnius with 
>> respect
>> to the main text of the Charter
>>
>>
>> Hi Marianne
>>
>> When you say 'agreed to at Vilnius' you mean at the steering committee
>> and not at the general IRP DC meaning, right. I ask this because you 
>> also
>> cite this agreement as the main reason for your choosing option 1. In
>> fact when I heard Lisa too refer to this thing having been agreed to at
>> Vilnius I kept going back to the transcripts and did not see any such
>> agreement. I rather read many participants speak about putting more meat
>> into the version. On being asked offline Lisa confirmed that she meant
>> the steering committee meeting and not the IRP DC meeting. I wanted  to
>> also clarify this point for all other members here..
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>> i.e. tidy up any glaring oversights as soon as possible within the 1.0
>> phase. The aim here is to open up the document for wider consultation.
>> This process will contribute to tightening and refining the substantive
>> details of the Charter by others outside the IRP.
>>
>> During this phase there's no reason why IRP members can't continue to
>> confer on the details.
>>
>> best
>> MF
>>
>> --On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 17:18 +0100 Lisa Horner
>> <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> 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,
>>
>> 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  www.global-partners.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Marianne Franklin
>> Reader
>> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
>> Media & Communications
>> Goldsmiths
>> New Cross
>> London SE14 6NW
>> United Kingdom
>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-med 
>>
>> ia.php
>>
>> "It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other 
>> creature,
>> without forming an opinion on them. On the other hand, it is perfectly
>> possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and not
>> have
>> the slightest thought about them whatsoever." (Douglas Adams)
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig 
>>
>> htsandprinciples.org
>>
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php 
>
>
> "It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature,
> without forming an opinion on them. On the other hand, it is perfectly
> possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and not 
> have
> the slightest thought about them whatsoever." (Douglas Adams)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101015/1607f630/attachment.htm>