[IRP] Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1

Lee W McKnight lmcknigh
Thu Jan 6 20:54:24 EET 2011

Hey Michael, everyone,

I've also been lurking for a while given overload on other things, but want to chime in on Michael's note to ensure we highlight indigenous peoples. 

FCC opened last fall a Native American office and a Native Nations Broadband Task Force is in the offing, I'm sure partially in response to the signing of the Declaration Michael mentioned but also because - after they spent all the broadband stimulus $ - the FCC realized the $ weren't reaching large swaths of rural territories which coincidentally might be one of 300 or so native territories. Duhh. 

Personally I'm engaged with the Seneca on a project.

Whethr them or Michael's contacts or others, probably is a good idea to get feedback - from indigenous peoples - before we make any declaration on their behalf. As the Seneca were finding it difficult to engage eg at UN level, while interested in strengthening ties across indigenous peoples, which of course really would rely on internet at many levels, as an example of why we can anticipate good receptivity.

Same would go as Mike suggests for a whole host of other areas whether speaking of gender or disability or egov, where others would want to know before the 'official' thing is done...and might be bent out of shape by a leaked particular unartful phrasing....not that current draft has any, but  : ) 

So careful doc management is critical i agree so relevant folks don't feel offended that they were presented a fait accompli rather than a chance to help shape/tune the doc, especially in a climate oscillating between Wikileaks and privacy and security paranoia...

Now back to my lurking. keep up the great work!

From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 1:59 PM
To: 'IRP'
Subject: Re: [IRP] Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1

My apologies for not being as attentive to this as I might have been.

I've now had a chance to take a look and I've made some fairly detailed comments/suggestions in the attached.

I do have some more general comments though which concern the overall document and process.

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...

For a more extended argument around this please see http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered-or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ and http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered-or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/.

The first of these blogposts went "viral" for a time after being tweeted by Tim O'Reilly and commented on by Wired Magazine online and is currently being assessed as the basis for an extended article in the New York Times magazine.. It clearly hit something of a nerve among the digerati and using that overall formulation might I think be a way to bridge support for our document into the nether reaches of silicon valley's (mainly libertarian) techdom.

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.

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...

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.

Best to all for the new year,

-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Dixie Hawtin
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 7:19 AM
To: 'IRP'
Subject: [IRP] Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1

Hi all,

I hope everyone has enjoyed their holidays and I wish to all a very happy 2011!

This is just a brief reminder that if you have any comments on the DRAFT Version 1.1 please send them through by January 8th! DRAFT Version 1.1  can be accessed at the first link on this page: http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/version+1+1+draft

Also, there has been much difficulty in reaching an approach to filtering and blocking which everyone can agree on. Lisa and I have had an in-depth look through the discussion to date and would like to propose the following:

Under Freedom of Expression we should exchange the current clause on freedom from blocking and filtering to:
?Blocking and filtering systems which aim to prevent access to content and are not end-user controlled are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified.?
(Please note, this language in inspired by the Joint Statement on Wikileaks by the UN and IAHCR Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression, which is very clear and effective).

Then, following Meryems suggestion, we do not need to address filtering for technical functioning here. Instead, under Security of the Internet, the provision should be changed to the following:
?Everyone has the right to enjoy secure connections to and on the Internet. This includes protection from services and protocols that threaten the technical functioning of the Internet, such as viruses and malware.?
(Please note, in the discussions some people were keen to stress that the role of addressing viruses and malware belongs to ISPs and not to Governments. The Charter is supposed to be actor neutral, but this kind of information can go in the accompanying explanatory document.)

I think this wording addresses the discussions we have been having much better than the wording in the DRAFT Version 1.1 so I propose that we use this wording unless anyone has any major objections?

All the best,
Dixie Hawtin
Researcher Global Partners and Associates
338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK
Office: + 44 207 239 8251     Mobile: +44 7769 181 556
dixie at global-partners.co.uk<mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk>  www.global-partners.co.uk<http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>

More information about the IRP mailing list