[IRP] FW: Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1
Thu Jan 6 19:40:44 EET 2011
Thanks for speedy response Mike! I'm still inclined to remove that sentence from the education section as I don't think it's clear, whether we frame as a right or not. I also think our text in A2K covers the point, especially 13a on "Knowledge Commons and the Public Domain": "Publicly funded research and intellectual and cultural work must be made available freely to the general public, where possible." What do people think?
I personally would definitely appreciate comments from the ICT policy list you're a member of, and from as many other people as possible....I think other people on this list would too? But as the plan was to try and finalise this version of 1.1 this week, I wonder if it might be better to hold off until we've done that. We'll then be able to take on board any comments we get in a less rushed way, engaging in serious dialogue, etc. Does that sound ok?
All the best,
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: 06 January 2011 17:27
To: Lisa Horner; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: RE: [IRP] FW: Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1
Lisa and all,
Just a quick note (I may not be able to get to do a more substantive look until later in the day...
My phrasing around "legally enforceable" etc. ietc. is probably very very poor but I thought that the existing phrase should be replaced with something that was rather more "rights" than "policy" oriented... Certainly you folks know very much better how to structure/phrase that than I do.
(Also, I'm on a private e-list with some very heavy mostly US ICT policy wonks...all political persuasions... I'm wondering if there would be any objection if I ran the current revised draft by them for comments?
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Horner
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 9:04 AM
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: [IRP] FW: Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1
Hi Mike and all
Thanks very much for these comments which are all very pertinent. I agree with nearly all of them, and have made specific responses in the word doc which you can download here:
http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/lh+comments+to+mg+comments (done this to avoid sending round large attachment. sorry for this awkward way of commenting...I promise to try and sort out a better system asap for our consultations).
My only major concern is about the 3rd paragraph of article 12a under education on and about the internet, which now reads: "Contracts which prevent the publication of scientific and other works on the Internet shall not be legally enforceable".
I don't really understand this sentence it in its previous form (it read "used" rather than "legally enforceable"), and I'm not sure about legal enforcement either...surely any private actor has a right to create and sign any contract that they want to...as long as parties that sign are in agreement? I think we should perhaps remove this altogether. But if it has to be there, isn't it publicly funded or public interest research that we're talking about? Not just any works?
My gut feeling at this late stage is to remove this sentence, unless anyone has any objections. I don't think it's clear. And I think the articles in the A2K section cover what we're trying to get at?
RE your more general comments and concerns, my responses are in line below.
Quick reminder - We set a deadline of this Saturday for discussion of this version. If it's ok with everyone, I'd like to present this draft at the consultation that Frank La Rue is having in Cairo next week on free expression on the internet in the mena region. I'll stress it's still a draft. But it's a good opportunity to raise awareness about the process, and hopefully to get some feedback from people in the region.
Next steps - Once we've agreed on this 1.1, we can move onto planning the consultation process. I can send through a list of the outstanding/key issues that have emerged that we need to explicitly consult on if that would be helpful as a starter (mobile Internet, right to the Internet, indigenous knowledge etc)...maybe some time next week. We'll also need to think about specific communities we want to talk to. We could then organise a call to discuss for the week after (w/c 17th Jan)? We'll also need to think about how to collect comments etc. I was thinking about setting up a dedicated website for the charter as has been suggested before, and we could use digress.it to collect comments. And we also need to think about our accompanying document that explains each article in a bit more depth and clarifies its legal status. If anyone wants to take the lead with any of this, or has bright ideas of how to move forwards, please do send them through! We'll be relying on everyone's initiative and networks to make this a success.
All the best,
1. access/use/effective use--as many folks know I've been arguing this point for a very long time and if anything, as we become more and more digitized the issue of "effective use<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered-or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/>" becomes more and more relevant... I've made some suggested changes in the document...
>> I agree, and like your edits.
2. While the overall document is a very good and useful one it is clearly insufficient when it comes to discussing particular specialized areas such as e-health, e-government/e-governance, and so on. There are a number of groups who would likely be very sympathetic to our current effort who could fill in those blanks with relative ease and my suggestion would be to attemtp to link up with some them and either literally or figuratively look to engage them in a wiki process where they could fill in the blanks from their particular specialized area.
>> I agree. This is an important component of the consultation process. We need to start to talk about how we'll do this. I suggest that we start to put together a list of key issues that we need further help and input on. We can then invite comments from everyone, and also go to specific communities with specific expertise. We already have a number of issues that have emerged from our discussions so far... let's start a separate thread on those issues that we need to consult on specifically, and who we can go to for help and collaboration.
3. I'll be sending the document to some folks I know in the Indigenous community. As most of you know the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has now (finally) been signed by Canada and the US and overall come into force (pardon for any mistakes here in the terminology or legalisms involved). From my experience Indigenous peoples are among the marginalized groups who have benefited the most from using the Internet and I think there should be special attention paid to this in the document and in light of the recent Declaration. (I'll be getting back with comments as and when I receive them...
>> Fantastic, thanks. Is it ok to treat that conversation as part of the consultation process, so we'll be incorporating their feedback into our version 2.0 for the next IGF?
4. arguably our area of discussion has become one of the most important public policy issue areas globally in the last several months with the coming into prominence of Wikileaks. I'm not exactly sure what that means for this document but we should be aware that we are launching it into a very active and fraught environment and one moreover where there is a clear conceptual and leadership vacuum from a global human rights perspective. I think we should be very cognizant of this and undertake our future discussions and the ultimate launch/circulation of this document (and even possibly a delay to review the document in the light of what has been stirred up by Wikileaks) in full awareness of this dramatically modified media and policy/political environment. There are risks but I would think those are outweighed by the opportunities but given this we really should be making sure to the degree possible that we get the document and the strategy for its launch etc. right.
>> I agree. However, this doc wasn't supposed to be the "final" one, but rather a draft for further comments. The idea is to start the external consultation process to collect comments and mobilise support, incorporate comments in the summer of 2011, and then launch a more "final" or formal version 2.0 at the time of the next IGF. So I think we should definitely strategise for the launch of 2.0 carefully. Do you also think it's necessary to delay the consultation process for this 1.1 version, given that we're still presenting it as a draft for discussion?
>>Could we have a discussion on the list now about the risks and opportunities, how to make sure that we launch this consultation process in the right way so that it's useful and not dangerous, how to run the consultation process, and how to work together on the outstanding issues and comments that we receive?
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