[IRP] IRP IGF notes
Dixie Hawtin
Dixie
Fri Sep 24 17:37:43 EEST 2010
Hi all,
I hope everyone is safely back in their home countries and fully recovered from the busy but productive IGF!
Two things:
First of all, just a quick reminder that if you have any specific concerns with the wording of the Charter please let me know by October 10th, and a big thank you to Tapani for his very useful work on the Preamble.
Secondly, I just wanted to let Parminder know that Lisa is without internet access at the moment and that's why she hasn't replied yet. I think she will be back online by the end of next week.
My own thoughts are in line with Meryems. I think it is important to ensure the document is strongly embedded in existing human rights standards as this will make it more influential and authoritative. However, as Meryem said, I think it will be possible for us to demand the internet we want within existing human rights standards. For example, some people would argue that the right to access the internet is a new right, however I think the world has changed to the extent that access to the internet can be considered a human right as it is a vital element of the realization of existing human rights standards including the right to expression, education, health, knowledge etc. Another example is access to information, some people would argue this is a new right, however I think it is part of a right to culture and the right to freedom of expression.
As far as I am concerned whether we class the process as technical or political doesn't matter (many people argue that all or almost all actions are political) but rather that what we are talking about is the same thing.
Best wishes,
Dixie
________________________________________
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of irp-request at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-request at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org]
Sent: 22 September 2010 15:05
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: IRP Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29
Send IRP mailing list submissions to
irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
irp-request at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
irp-owner at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of IRP digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: IRP IGF notes (Meryem Marzouki)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:01:52 +0200
From: Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
To: irp <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP IGF notes
Message-ID: <CE22AEAE-0EB1-4A0F-9A91-119752CDF382 at marzouki.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
format=flowed
Hi Parminder and all,
Le 22 sept. 10 ? 07:35, parminder a ?crit :
> [...]
> First of all, let me clarify. I do think that HR experts have an
> important, even a leading, role as we go forward. I have no doubts
> about it. However, while I had been reading what appeared to be a
> certain 'technicalisation' of the process between the lines in a
> good amount of text, I simply had to stop when I came to the text
> saying that experts would help shield against political influence.
> I felt that the difference of politics between those who back this
> *apolitical* view of rights and those who consider them primarily
> political is too huge for me to continue without making my point.
Maybe I'm taking my own interpretation for granted, but I genuinely
read this part of Lisa's synthesis not as a call for any "apolitical"
approach, but rather as an account of your, mine and some others'
warnings against any attempts to exert pressure from private/specific
interests, since our approach is driven by the common public/common
interest. Perhaps, calling such attempts 'lobbying' rather than
'political' influence would help avoiding any misunderstanding. The
best would be that Lisa herself clarifies what she actually tried to
summarize from the meeting discussion.
> (You know that 'technicalisation', expertise-based,
> multistakeholderism, apolitical etc etc are peas of a pod when it
> comes to preparing the DNA of a new global order which which admits
> of *no* distributive demands on the powerful.)
Obviously, I couldn't agree more..
> I will deal with the 'freezing' rights versus evolutionary rights
> issue later in a separate email. We (Meryem and I) may indeed have
> some differences on this issue, though I am not completely sure. In
> any case, we do both certainly agree that whatever be our positions
> with regard to this issue, they are certainly political, and the
> debate would also be political.
It's not about 'frozen' rights vs. evolutionary rights. It's simply
about strategy here. And we'll probably find throughout the process
of discussing specific issues (I mean Section 2), that we don't need
any entirely new right here, and we could achieve much more than you
probably think by advancing the concrete ways of *realizing* current
rights. And this is by no mean a call to favor negative rights over
positive rights, we need both.
Re: reproductive rights, no, they aren't explicitely mentioned in
UDHR. But there are indeed efforts - including at governemental level
- to have them recognized as binding rights in themselves, and many
HR and women rights organizations are approaching this issue through
the core, existing, established, binding HRs they embrace. I
understand that grassroot organizations are tempted to have
reproductive rights recognized as such and I recognize its
politically significant value, but from a strategic and pragmatic
point of view, I'm afraid this would be a lost battle, at least in
the short or mid-term, if approached this way.
In the digital/communication environment more specifically, we have a
good example that has never found larger support than that of its
insiders (as Cees Hammelink was himself deploring at a 2009 IAMCR
conference session in Mexico), that is, the attempt to define a
'right to communicate', which started in the late 60s. During early
WSIS times, the issue was back on the table and faced a strong
opposition (starting from myself and many HR and freedom of the press
organizations, and we've soon set up the WSIS CS HR caucus, with the
shared vision of this need for 'translation' of current HR in the
digital environment). The 'right to communicate' has then evolved, at
least in this setting, into "communication rights", i.e. those HR
that relate to communication, which is, in my opinion, a restrictive,
non holistic, vision (for a quick account of these debates till WSIS
2003, see http://itidjournal.org/itid/article/view/168/38; for a
further analysis, till WSIS 2005, see http://www.worldsummit2005.de/
download_en/Visions-in-Process-II.pdf, p.17-23). While sharing a lot
(though not all) of the "right to communicate" advocates' analyses
and concerns on many issues, I would strongly oppose now, like I did
during WSIS time, an approach that could only lead, in the best case
to failure and in the worst case to a backlash on human rights which,
you would certainly agree, is highly undesirable and dangerous,
especially in the current political state and with the current
balance of powers.
BTW, could you give us an example of which new rights are needed that
couldn't be seen as ways to fully realize already existing rights?
Going back to Lisa's notes, and since she's asked us for further
thoughts, I haven't got the same feeling from our discussions re: the
objectives of the charter:
>>> On Monday 20 September 2010 02:57 PM, Lisa Horner wrote:
>>
>>>> 1) Objectives of the Charter
>>>>
>>>> ? We've identified three overarching objectives of the
>>>> Charter (in addition to its immediate aim of translating UDHR
>>>> rights to apply to the internet):
>>>>
>>>> - To provide a platform for dialogue and collaboration between
>>>> different stakeholders.
>>>> - To provide an authoritative document that can influence policy
>>>> making and norms
>>>> - To provide an information resource for different groups, with
>>>> a focus on policy makers.
I would add that many of us expressed its usefulness as an *advocacy*
tool for NGOs and other activitist, including at national level in
our daily activities.
[...]
>>>> ? Whilst we didn't have an in-depth discussion on the
>>>> ownership of the Charter, I got the sense that some would still
>>>> like us to follow a process of getting endorsements. If we go
>>>> down this route, it would perhaps be better to aim for
>>>> endorsements by individuals rather than organisations, given our
>>>> multi-stakeholder status. But my feeling in the short term is
>>>> that we should focus on getting the text right, and keep it as
>>>> an IRP coalition document. But let's discuss this further.
I don't remind that the endorsement process (if any) was discussed.
In any case, I don't see why the fact that the coalition has a
multistakeholder status prevents from endorsement by organizations:
'multistakeholder' doesn't mean 'composed by individuals, acting in
their personal capacity', but means that different kind of entities/
organizations/institutions are represented. There are individuals,
too, and they may endorse the statement as such if they want, but if
we're going to eventually engage in an endorsement process, then
signatures/support from organizations and institutions are clearly
crucial, in my opinion.
Best,
Meryem
> Thanks, once again. Regards. Parminder
>
>
> On Wednesday 22 September 2010 02:17 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>
>> Dear Parminder, Lisa and all,
>>
>> There is probably a misunderstanding here, due to the used
>> wording. In her summary, Lisa was still talking about an 'expert
>> group', but at the same time she was expressing the need to shift
>> the role - and maybe composition, by adding new volunteers - of
>> the current expert group.
>> My own understanding or, should I say, my own position that I
>> expressed today on the current expert group list, in reaction to
>> these minutes, is:
>>
>> "I agree that we could include more HR experts, in case there are
>> new volunteers. I also agree that, once version 1.1 will be
>> produced, and a draft of the visionary preamble (so-called
>> "punchy" document;)) will be ready, the major need would be to set
>> up a small group to take the lead in the consultation process with
>> HR NGOs and institutions.
>> However, I think that, precisely for this role, we need some HR
>> people who are at the same time involved in the coalition. As I
>> said during our IRP Charter launch meeting, I hate being called an
>> "expert", because I consider this whole process of translating HR
>> in the digital environment, especially when getting to the
>> specifics, a political process where we affirm our positions and
>> commitments, not a sole academic/expertise process.
>>
>> In any case, as both a drafter and a coalition member, as both an
>> academic and an activist, I remain interested in taking full part
>> in the continuation of this process after the production of
>> version 1.1, and in particular in contributing to prepare and to
>> conduct the subsequent consultations, and finally to work on
>> version 2.0 of our Charter to be presented at next IGF."
>>
>> In any case, we should all understand that the consultation
>> process with HR NGOs and institutions beyond the IGF community
>> cannot be conducted by the coalition as whole, if only for
>> practical reasons, especially if we succeed in organizing face to
>> face consultations. And yes, Parminder, we also need HR people (or
>> 'experts') who are able and legitimate enough to avoid some
>> dangerous drifts, like e.g. "this is a multiskakeholder process,
>> thus we need to find consensus/compromise among all
>> interests" (no, there couldn't be any compromise on such essential
>> principles as those embedded in HR) or "we need to strike a
>> balance between <put whatever you want here>" (HR are inalienable,
>> no way to raise the status of what should remain an *exception* by
>> considering it as fundamental right), or accept any cultural
>> relativism (HR are universal), or put aside economic, social and
>> cultural rights (HR are indivisible and interdependent), or ...
>>
>> So, yes, this can only be a political process, and HR are by no
>> means a technical issue. Calling our process "an effort to
>> translate existing human rights standards to apply to the
>> Internet" doesn't imply that this is simply a technical process,
>> but indeed an effort to define what HR mean - how they 'translate'
>> - in the digital environment. This is clear in the Charter, in its
>> section 1, and probably even more in section 2, where we get to
>> the specifics and detailed translations. Well, if you have a
>> better word than 'translation', then it would be most welcome. But
>> my opinion is that 'translation' is good enough to mean what is
>> meant in this process: we are not going to define new rights and
>> thus to enter in an endless - and probably unsuccessful - effort
>> to have them recognized, but we are defining what HR standards,
>> which are already well established and are already binding States,
>> need in pratice to be fully realized in this environment. I have
>> no doubt you fully understand that this approach is also part of
>> the political process, well, part of the strategy, at least.
>>
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 21 sept. 10 ? 19:08, parminder a ?crit :
>>
>>> Dear Lisa
>>>
>>> I request clarification on one point.
>>>
>>> I did try strongly during the meeting to make the point that we
>>> should take the first phase or charter text writing as a rather
>>> technical one, whereby a concrete document to work on has been
>>> assembled, and that we should be clear that the next stage is
>>> going to be a political one. We should accordingly plan our steps
>>> ahead, and one of my suggestions supported by a few others was
>>> that we should go to frontline grassroots organizations working
>>> on human rights to validate our work ( and not just CoE, UNESCO
>>> etc). I also clearly remember at least Meryem clearly and
>>> unequivocally support the notion that it is now going to be a
>>> political process, and the 'expertise part' is just one aspect of
>>> the process.
>>>
>>> However I see the note presenting the process forward as still
>>> largely a technical/ expertise oriented process.
>>>
>>> "Looking forward, I think there?s a general feeling that we still
>>> need some kind of expert group to make sure that the text is
>>> accurate and strong. That will also help us guard against any
>>> *political* (emphasis added)/corporate/other influence on the
>>> substance of the text."
>>> My organization seeks to bring nothing other than 'political
>>> influence', which seems to be sought to be guarded against here ,
>>> to the process through representation, to our best capability, of
>>> the interests of the people and groups we work with. We are
>>> indeed not an expert organization, and so in the present
>>> formulation of the process going forward I am not sure how to see
>>> our role.
>>>
>>> I simply do not think HRs are a technical issue at all. They are
>>> as political as anything can be. And as our political
>>> consciousness and the political nature of our society evolves
>>> (for example through and because of globalisation) rights also
>>> evolve. We need to take HR documents as our principal instruments
>>> but also go to the edges where new political consciousness is
>>> arising in a collective construction of the nature of the society
>>> people consider just and fair to all. For instance their are
>>> grassroots organizations fighting for reproductive rights of
>>> young women and I am not quite sure if they figure in UNHDR.
>>>
>>> Let me quote from a text on HRs - 'Normative and Theoretical
>>> Foundations of Human Rights'
>>>
>>> "The rhetoric of human rights can sometimes obscure
>>> the many ways in which the human rights movement
>>> is a political movement. The talk of universalism, of
>>> common standards for human kind, and of inalienable
>>> and self-evident rights, can give the impression that all
>>> the big questions about human rights are settled. As
>>> even a cursory investigation of the history of the human
>>> rights idea shows, however, the greater part of what we
>>> appeal to when we appeal to human rights is contro-
>>> versial and contested."
>>>
>>> In fact, I am unable to accept that the present exercise is
>>> simply an 'effort to translate existing human rights standards to
>>> apply to the Internet'. (BTW, if it were so , how do right to the
>>> Internet, and right of equality over the Internet (network
>>> neutrality or network equality)) figure in the present text. Such
>>> a view valorises the so called negative rights against positive
>>> rights vis a vis the Internet, and I think this is one of the
>>> principle political economy questions that this global group will
>>> have to face up to, and address squarely.
>>>
>>> So my view is that we should not try to fit an expressly
>>> political exercise into ill-fitting technical clothes. This is my
>>> primary response to the notes for the present. I will go more
>>> minutely through the text a little later for any specific comments.
>>>
>>> Thanks, and best regards
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday 20 September 2010 02:57 PM, Lisa Horner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <!--P { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px } -->
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to everyone for a great IGF....both those of you who were
>>>> there in person, and those who were participating and tweeting
>>>> from afar. The Charter went down really well, and I think we've
>>>> successfully raised the profile of the coalition in the IGF. So
>>>> well done everybody!
>>>>
>>>> I've jotted down some notes below about discussuions that were
>>>> had about the Charter and other coalition business at the IGF,
>>>> and tried to draw out outcomes and next steps. If I have
>>>> anything wrong, please do say. Also if you disagree with any of
>>>> my suggestions for next steps or would like to discuss further.
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for the length of the notes...we discussed a lot, and
>>>> I think it's important to keep everyone in the loop.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again to everyone for their hard work. Onwards and
>>>> upwards...let's make this year even better!
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>> Lisa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> General Reception to the Charter
>>>>
>>>> ? This was fantastic. A wide range of people expressed a
>>>> lot of interest in the Charter process, including new faces and
>>>> people who have in the past been a bit more sceptical about the
>>>> effort. It?s really emphasised for me the importance of
>>>> concrete initiatives in mobilising people and getting them
>>>> involved.
>>>> ? Our workshop was really busy - there weren?t enough
>>>> chairs or copies of the Charter for everyone (we had around 55
>>>> copies).
>>>> ? There were a few critical comments. These included
>>>> opinions that:
>>>> ? It?s not closely related to the internet ? a rehashing of
>>>> rights rather than elaboration on internet issues. We don?t
>>>> need to restate rights that are the same online and offline.
>>>> ? It?s a bit too negative and gives too much ground (i.e. not
>>>> coming out strongly enough on condemning internet censorship and
>>>> giving too much space to permitted restrictions on content and
>>>> expression).
>>>> ? It doesn?t focus enough on worse case scenarios.
>>>> ? The language is misleading in places, and could easily be
>>>> misinterpreted. Definitions of issues aren?t clear ? i.e. what
>>>> is an ?internet offence?.
>>>> ? It?s not practical, visionary or enforceable enough. Too
>>>> simplistic.
>>>> ? It?s too wide ranging, brings too much together, and isn?t
>>>> clear enough between rights and principles.
>>>> ? I think some of these comments are valid, and we can
>>>> work to take them on board.
>>>> ? However, on the whole, the response was tremendously
>>>> positive. On balance, the vast majority supported the Charter.
>>>> Whilst there were reservations over content, the process was
>>>> really commended. People said that it was a much needed text
>>>> and process, and applauded our efforts. New people have come on
>>>> board and want to participate. Furthermore a number of people
>>>> have said that the Charter will really help them in their work.
>>>> There was real energy and enthusiasm. So I think we all deserve
>>>> a huge pat on the back ? congratulations everyone!
>>>>
>>>> The discussions we had in the coalition and with the wider IGF
>>>> community have helped us to identify a few next steps (below).
>>>> Here?s what I think came out of it all...for those who have
>>>> participated, please do correct me if I?m wrong! Also, we can
>>>> discuss these next steps that I suggest...please send your
>>>> thoughts and ideas through.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) Objectives of the Charter
>>>>
>>>> ? We've identified three overarching objectives of the
>>>> Charter (in addition to its immediate aim of translating UDHR
>>>> rights to apply to the internet):
>>>>
>>>> - To provide a platform for dialogue and collaboration between
>>>> different stakeholders.
>>>> - To provide an authoritative document that can influence policy
>>>> making and norms
>>>> - To provide an information resource for different groups, with
>>>> a focus on policy makers.
>>>>
>>>> ? In most of our discussions, I think there was a
>>>> general sense that we couldn't expect to be able to take the
>>>> document to the UN or member states and demand its ratification/
>>>> incorporation into law. At least not in the short term.
>>>> Instead, our aims are more related to a bottom-up process of
>>>> norm setting, and the provision of a useful document that people
>>>> can use in policy and law making, and in advocacy.
>>>> ? Whilst we didn't have an in-depth discussion on the
>>>> ownership of the Charter, I got the sense that some would still
>>>> like us to follow a process of getting endorsements. If we go
>>>> down this route, it would perhaps be better to aim for
>>>> endorsements by individuals rather than organisations, given our
>>>> multi-stakeholder status. But my feeling in the short term is
>>>> that we should focus on getting the text right, and keep it as
>>>> an IRP coalition document. But let's discuss this further.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Length of the charter and the punchy working group
>>>> ? There was some discussion about the length of the
>>>> Charter. Some felt that it was too long and unwieldy, covering
>>>> too wide a range of rights. However, most felt that we
>>>> shouldn?t try to reduce the length. Some commented that we
>>>> shouldn?t be worried about making it even longer. There was a
>>>> general feeling that part of the value of the Charter lies in
>>>> its comprehensiveness, and its attempt to cover all of the
>>>> issues and the relationship between them.
>>>> ? However, to complement the detailed and somewhat
>>>> technical document, there was a strong sense both within and
>>>> outside the coalition that we should produce a short, punchy and
>>>> visionary document that outlines the top level principles. This
>>>> could be a tool for advocacy and mobilisation.
>>>> ? We felt we didn't need to wait to finish the
>>>> consultation process before we start on this.
>>>> ? Brett, Shaila, Henrik, Dixie, Karmen and Carlos have
>>>> formed an aptly named ?punchy working group? to take the lead
>>>> with this. Brett ? could you update us on your workplan?
>>>>
>>>> 3) Incorporating technical feedback
>>>> ? There was a feeling that the text is currently not as
>>>> coherent as it could be. Some felt that some of the wording
>>>> might cause misunderstandings or was inconsistent with human
>>>> rights language and standards.
>>>> ? It was also felt that the two levels we wanted to use
>>>> to structure the Charter (human rights and interpretive
>>>> principles) were sometimes not clearly separated out in section
>>>> 1 of the document.
>>>> ? We decided that we should look at these issues before
>>>> we consult further on the Charter. We don?t want to change the
>>>> content or real substance of the Charter. The only changes that
>>>> will be made at this stage are intended to correct and to
>>>> clarify what?s already there.
>>>> ? I suggested that Dixie Hawtin (Global Partners) takes
>>>> the lead with this work. Dixie will have some capacity in the
>>>> coming weeks, and has a background and qualifications in human
>>>> rights law. She would be supported by Wolfgang and Meryem in
>>>> this work, and also other human rights contacts that she has.
>>>> ? Meryem has also said that she will be able to complete
>>>> the draft of the second section, producing tables for the
>>>> missing groups of rights.
>>>> ? If you have any concerns about the current text in
>>>> terms of language or phrasing, this is your chance to send them
>>>> through. Please make your comments by email to the list.
>>>> Please be as specific and constructive as you can with your
>>>> comments, referring to specific articles and making suggestions
>>>> for changes in the text where necessary. DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS:
>>>> 10 October. We will produce a new draft by 31 October. This
>>>> will be Draft 1.1.
>>>>
>>>> 4) Once we have Draft 1.1 ? next steps
>>>> ? We had a lot of discussion about where to take the
>>>> Charter from here. I think there was general consensus that
>>>> working towards creating an improved and solid version 2.0 by
>>>> the next IGF would be a good idea (assuming it happens!).
>>>> ? We agreed that we need to go to specific institutions
>>>> with expertise, like CoE, Unesco and traditional human rights
>>>> organisations.
>>>> ? I think what also really came out of this IGF was the
>>>> value of the *process* of creating the Charter as a means of
>>>> fostering participation, collaboration, outreach and a general
>>>> sense of ownership. I think most agreed in our discussions that
>>>> we could, and should, try and foster a broad-based consultation
>>>> process, inviting comments and participation from as many people
>>>> as possible through our own networks and beyond. However, we
>>>> also agreed that the Charter itself is not supposed to be a
>>>> consensus document. Rather, it?s a genuine effort to translate
>>>> existing human rights standards to apply to the internet. So we
>>>> agreed that we could invite comments from a wide range of people
>>>> (according to a framework/list of questions), under the
>>>> understanding that we don?t necessarily have to incorporate them
>>>> all. We will however consider them all, and use them as a
>>>> resource to improve and strengthen the text where we can.
>>>> ? We had a very quick discussion about the role of the
>>>> expert group, in our planning and our debrief meeting. We?re
>>>> extremely grateful for the work that our experts have done so
>>>> far on the text, working on a voluntary basis. Special thanks
>>>> to Wolfgang for leading on section 1, and Meryem for section2.
>>>> ? Looking forward, I think there?s a general feeling
>>>> that we still need some kind of expert group to make sure that
>>>> the text is accurate and strong. That will also help us guard
>>>> against any political/corporate/other influence on the substance
>>>> of the text.
>>>> ? I?d like to suggest that we shift modes a bit to form
>>>> some kind of oversight group that helps to ensure that the text
>>>> is accurate and meaningful as we move forwards. Maybe we could
>>>> make the group a bit bigger, with people with different
>>>> backgrounds and expertise. Now we have a good draft, I think
>>>> this group should play a supportive rather than a drafting
>>>> role....that we can ask them for advice on specific issues and
>>>> to check the text. These are just my ideas at the moment....we
>>>> should discuss this further. If you have any thoughts on this,
>>>> please feed them in!
>>>>
>>>> NEXT STEPS:
>>>>
>>>> ? We will draft a framework and plan for consulting on
>>>> the Charter as we move forwards, based on ideas from our
>>>> meetings here at the IGF. I?ll send a draft of this through
>>>> asap for comments, and we can take it from there.
>>>> ? Carlos has kindly volunteered to look into
>>>> technological platforms that we can use to collect and collate
>>>> comments from wider networks, learning from the experience of
>>>> the Brazilian civil rights framework process.
>>>>
>>>> In depth policy discussions
>>>>
>>>> ? I think there?s a lot of work to be done on section 2
>>>> of the Charter ? this is where we?re teasing out the roles and
>>>> responsibilities of different stakeholders, defining more
>>>> specific principles, and exploring where the boundaries and
>>>> limitations might lie in relation to specific issues.
>>>> ? I?m really keen to explore ways of holding in-depth
>>>> discussions, preferably face to face, on these issues. Bringing
>>>> together top experts from different stakeholder groups to really
>>>> thrash out the issues. We?d need to find some funding for
>>>> this. If you have any ideas, please let?s discuss. Whether
>>>> it?s collaborating on a funding proposal or encouraging small
>>>> contributions to put into a central pot of funds.
>>>>
>>>> 5) Other coalition business
>>>>
>>>> STRATEGY
>>>>
>>>> ? Most of our coalition discussions here at the IGF
>>>> focused on the Charter. We agreed this would be the focus of
>>>> our work as we move forwards. But we?ll also of course
>>>> encourage other initiatives that people want to undertake, and
>>>> we should keep an eye on the IGF process...especially as its
>>>> future is still unclear.
>>>> ? We should start thinking about making our formal
>>>> feedback statement about this year?s IGF...any volunteers to
>>>> take the lead with that?
>>>>
>>>> FUNDING
>>>>
>>>> ? We also need to continue the discussion about
>>>> funding. There was general agreement that we don?t want to
>>>> formalise the coalition in terms of legal status or
>>>> membership...its value and power lies in its flexibility and
>>>> openness. But there was also agreement that we need funding if
>>>> we want to reach our full potential...not least to hold meetings
>>>> to foster collaboration and work on the Charter. But also so
>>>> that a wider range of people might be able to take the chair in
>>>> the future.
>>>> ? We have a few options and can continue to discuss.
>>>> One is for our existing organisations to raise and administer
>>>> funds on behalf of the coalition. Another is to house ourselves
>>>> within an organisation with a formal structure...I suggested
>>>> Global Partners? sister charity, Global Dialogue, which is
>>>> currently housing two human rights networks. These are
>>>> thoroughly independent, but can take advantage of GD?s
>>>> registration as a UK charity to raise and administer money. If
>>>> you?d like to discuss this further, please do let me know.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list
>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://
>>>> lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
>>>> internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
>>> internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
>> internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
> internetrightsandprinciples.org
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
End of IRP Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29
***********************************
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
More information about the IRP
mailing list