[IRP] Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1

[michael gurstein]

Hi Lee and all,

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:54 AM
To: Michael Gurstein; 'IRP'
Subject: RE: [IRP] Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1

Hey Michael, everyone,

....

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.

YES...


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
: )

ON REFLECTION I VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT WHAT LEE IS SAYING HERE WHICH IS THAT
IT WOULD BE A POTENTIAL MISTAKE TO SEND THIS OUT WITHOUT FIRST CHECKING IN
WITH VARIOUS OF THE SPECIFIC ADVOCACY GROUPS WHO MIGHT HAVE SOME WORDING
ETC. TO ADD... IF NOTHING ELSE IT WOULD PROVIDE VERY USEFUL ADDITIONS TO THE
ULTIMATE CS PLATFORM FROM WHICH IT WAS LAUNCHED. (JUST SO WE DON'T CROSS
PATHS I'VE SENT IT TO BRIAN BEATON (CANADA), TEANU TUONO (MAORI, UNESCO) AND
ANN-KRISTIN HAKANSSON (SAMI, SWEDEN)


I HAVE SOME LIMITED CONTACTS WITH THE ICT AND DISABILITIES COMMUNITY AS WELL
AND WILL DO AS I'VE DONE WITH THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES. I'M SENDING IT OFF TO
HIROSHI KAWAMURA OF THE DAISY CONSORTIUM (RIGHTS OF THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED)
AND GUNELLA ASTBRINK OF TEDICORE AND AUSTRALIAN CONSORTIUM OF DISABLED
GROUPS (MET HER AT OECED MINISTERIAL IN SEOUL).
 

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...

F'R SURE...

M

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

Lee
________________________________________
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-empowe
red-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,

Mike
-----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 ___________________________________________________________
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/>