[IRP] FW: Call for comments: DRAFT Version 1.1
M I Franklin
Fri Jan 7 15:54:17 EET 2011
Happy New everything!
I am still reading Draft 1.1 so need to defer any comments I might have
about that a bit.
RE. the important points raised about (the Universal Declaration of)
Indigenous Rights and this community/constituency, I'd like to add my
support for ensuring they are an integral part of the consultation process;
particularly as Draft 1.1 is ready to go forward.
As it is still a *draft* we do need to emphasise this point; indeed because
it is not a definitive fait accompli, asking this constituency for their
input is a must.
In terms of approach; can we make a distinction between more tailored ones
(as for above) and more general ones (for the HR 'mainstream')?
Re. substantive wording; Lisa and Dixie's latest amendments look fine to
me; as a non-expert in the legal/drafting domain, will read Draft 1.1 as a
--On Friday, January 07, 2011 10:30 +0000 Lisa Horner
<LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi all
> I agree that we need to think really carefully about this so we get it
> right, and thanks for engaging with this. Could people start to come up
> with specific suggestions/an outline and timescale of what they think
> should happen and how we should frame things?
> Are we saying that we don't go out with a "official" version 1.1
> yet, e.g. through setting up a website and encouraging wide circulation?
> Are we saying that we go to specific communities of expertise to sharpen
> the document first (e.g. jan ? march), and then go out for more general
> consultation (e.g. april ? june)? I've been trying to present our
> drafts in different forums I've been going to (e.g. Frank La Rue's
> series of regional consultations). Should I refrain from doing
> that...maybe talking a bit about the process rather than presenting an
> actual draft? Or do we continue as we are (e.g. inviting comments
> widely), but add a clear note to the draft saying that it's very much a
> draft and that we're currently seeking expert opinion from specific
> I guess the advantage of going out widely in the first instance is that
> we might get some people interested who have specific expertise and can
> help us, who we didn't previously know. We also want to mobilise
> interest and support. The disadvantages, as Lee and Mike point out, are
> that we might imply that the document is more finalised than it is, and
> perhaps that people would be more reluctant to engage.
> Please note as well that we'll all be relying on coalition members to
> take the lead in talking to different contacts with different expertise.
> Whether we form a steering committee, working groups, or use another
> system. So we should formulate a plan that matches realistically what
> people are able and committed to do, rather than being too ambitious and
> then failing to meet our goals.
> What are people's thoughts? Concrete suggestions are particularly
> All the best,
Dr Marianne Franklin
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
London SE14 6NW
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
"It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature,
without forming an opinion on them. On the other hand, it is perfectly
possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and not have
the slightest thought about them whatsoever." (Douglas Adams)
More information about the IRP