[IRP] FW: Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1

Thu Jan 6 22:08:51 EET 2011

I have no problem with any of the comments or changes suggested by Lisa.

My only comment is to go back to Lee's point about doing some sort of "round
robin" consultation with selected specialized groups before we do any other
consultation... I think this is probably important from both substantive and
strategic perspectives.

I'm not sure what that does to the scheduling as for example the meeting
next week, but perhaps that could be renamed in some way... optics will mean
a lot iwth some of the groups that we might want to be consulting with...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Lis
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,

Lisa

MG:

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
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered
-or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/> use" becomes more and more relevant...
I've made some suggested changes in the document...

>> I agree, and like your edits.

 MG: 

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.

MG:

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?

MG:

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?

____________________________

  _____  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20110106/2a2eb87c/attachment-0001.htm>