[bestbits] POSTnetmundial civil society position

[JOSEFSSON Erik]

Dear Jeanette,

I had the impression that there was some kind of agreement on the PREnetmundial text that leaked. Sorry if that was a misunderstanding.

Here's a PREnetmundial v. NETmundial wikidiff (scroll down to "Line 43" to see where the similarities begin):

http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox%2FNETmundial&diff=16684&oldid=16683

It's just a rough comparison, you could make it much more sophisticated with the help of other tools like Pippilongstrings :-) 

Best regards.

//Erik

________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]
Sent: Saturday 3 May 2014 12:05
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Marilia Maciel
Subject: Re: [bestbits] POSTnetmundial civil society position

Hi Erik,

I think this is a great idea but I would suggest a slightly different
approach. As you can see on this list, there has never been consensus,
neither within nor across civil society boundaries. So, I don't think a
consensual postnetmundial doc can be done.

What I would find a valuable exercise is documenting the specific
suggestions made by civil society for each paragraph.
I know that Marilia compiled the comments made on the basis of the first
draft outcome doc. Marilia's work would provide a very good starting
point. Further suggestions could be added to her document.

Jeanette

Am 03.05.14 11:55, schrieb JOSEFSSON Erik:
> I was pinged back to the list and encouraged to ask again if it would be
> meaningful to update the official NETmundial text so that *forgotten
> viewpoints* could be made visible again and *skewed language* aligned
> with a POSTnetmundial civil society position.
>
> I am aware that such post processing work has already been done and that
> what I'm suggesting is basically to do the same work again.
>
> The difference would simply be the format of the text. If the official
> NETmundial text is reworked to a POSTnetmundial consensus position it
> would be very easy to identify more precisely *"what went wrong"*, e.g.
> with a wikidiff.
>
> If it is the case (I have understood it is) that, for example, the
> phrase "the rights of authors and creators" has less support than a
> reference to ICESCR has, it would look like this:
>
>     *NETmundial:*
>     Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should
>     have the right to access, share, create and distribute information
>     on the Internet, consistent with the *rights of authors
>     *and*creators as established in law*.
>
>     *POSTnetmundial:*
>     Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should
>     have the right to access, share, create and distribute information
>     on the Internet, consistent with the *UN International Covenant on
>     Economic, Social* and *Cultural Rights*.
>
>
> And that edit would look like this in a wikidiff:
>
>     http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox%2FNETmundial&diff=16666&oldid=16665
>
>
> And so on, throughout the NETmundial v. POSTnetmundial document.
>
> Anyone bites? :-)
>
> It would of course be a challenge to put experiences of procedures and
> representation at NETmundial immediately into practice. But maybe that's
> worth while exercise?
>
> Best regards.
>
> //Erik