[IRP] RESPONSE REQUIRED: Revising the Charter
Fri Oct 15 11:53:28 EEST 2010
Just to clarify ? it wasn?t a steering committee meeting. It was an internal coalition meeting to which everyone who was present in Vilnius was invited (unfortunately we didn?t have remote participation for that one). An email was initially sent by Shaila on this list by means of invitation. I merely commented that a number of steering committee members were present. There were approximately 15 of people there I think. Since the days of the Bill of Rights coalition, the coalition has always done its business in internal meetings, using the formal IGF slot as a kind of external presentation/discussion/outreach.
Let?s wait until Monday to get a sense of how people want to move forwards (I set a deadline of Sunday for people to express preferences). Please comment if you have ideas. I suspect we?ll end up with a compromise which is fine...ie Dixie doing a revision next week, and then us all combing through and discussing outstanding concerns and options for making the text better, just with a tighter timeframe. Hopefully we can make this work in a way that everyone is happy and comfortable with.
I?m away next week (but hopefully with access to email) so I won?t be able to do a call. Others are welcome to set one up though if you?d like to.
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: 15 October 2010 06:32
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRP] RESPONSE REQUIRED: Revising the Charter
On Thursday 14 October 2010 02:09 PM, M I Franklin wrote:
Option 1 mainly because that is the one agreed to at Vilnius with respect to the main text of the Charter
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..
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.
--On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 17:18 +0100 Lisa Horner <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk><mailto:LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
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
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
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
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 January 2011.
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
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>
Dr Marianne Franklin
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
London SE14 6NW
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk<mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
"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<mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.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...
More information about the IRP