<html>
<body>
<font size=3>hi meryem<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">ps.. and meryem, to some extent
you are right, not a typo so much, <br>
ut open to misinterpretation - the word 'definition' shouldn't be
<br>
in the phrase, as it creates just this kind of misundertanding.. we
<br>
will edit the statement</blockquote><br>
Please do if indeed this was not what was meant. There are so many
<br>
people and groups and institutions.. that would be more than happy
to <br>
understand it as it actually reads in this first version.
</font></blockquote><br>
we will indeed (and in fact already have) removed the word definition..
but i see you've formulated another below.. which i'll come to
below<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>If indeed APC
understanding is what you specified in your previous reply
("irrespecive of how anyone might feel about the illegaility
of specific content, it is illegal - but 'harmful' content,
is essentially content that some interested group wishes to make
illegal <br>
- and the raod to that, is largely via self and co-regulatory
schemes <br>
- and often implemented by inappropraite parties.."), then may
I suggest other wordings that you may or may not
use:</blockquote><br>
</font>and yes, that is certainly my understanding of what several of us
are interested in pursuing.. but, i'd like to take a breath and suggest
that we use this topic to finetune exactly what it is, we might focus
on.. you know well meryem, the frenetic pace and nature of these
events, and it is easy for a word or phrase to be inadvertantly used in a
public document due to the hectic nature of writing quickly
etc..<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>"WG on the
impact of content regulation by technical and soft law measures on
human rights and the rule of law"<br><br>
And this working group would actually be able to build on huge
existing work.</blockquote><br>
for now, we're going to remove that particular WG proposal altogether -
as you see we have another:<br><br>
"WG on self and co-regulation in internet governance" (which is
more in line with what you're proposing)<br><br>
and we may even fine tune that, using yours and others input..<br><br>
thanks meryem<br><br>
karen</font></body>
</html>