[IRP] RESPONSE REQUIRED: Revising the Charter
shaila mistry
shailam
Fri Oct 15 21:39:18 EEST 2010
Hi Lisa
Just to clarify with reference "to what was agreed in Vilnius" In fact what
transpired was a small meeting out of which we lost many members who left to
attend the opening ceremony. In the end were only a handful remaining, I too was
going to leave. Only a couple of people were of the view that we should proceed
with the charter as it stands. There was no agreement reached in any direction.
This needs to be known by other IRP members and others on this list.
Secondly I am intrigued by the concept of " perfect is the enemy of good" . I
applied it to newborn babies who are universally thought of as "perfect"
.Interesting conclusion
The Charter is not perfect now and is not intended to be. Even with our best
efforts will continue to be an ongoing evolving document. I doubt that any of us
can make it perfect.
Shaila
challenge the rules ...push the barriers....
............live beyond your existential means !!
________________________________
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 10:31:58 PM
Subject: Re: [IRP] RESPONSE REQUIRED: Revising the Charter
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-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)
_______________________________________________
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/20101015/75528534/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the IRP
mailing list