PatchA,
Thanks. Comments below:
>Dear All,
>
>Sorry my commens is late. Because of lots of works
>(including info & outreach works).
>I couldn't send my opinion. I hope this is not too late.
>I have something different from Adam's opinion.
>
>I have not many information about the issue of children
>and exploitation of children. But I think, it is important.
>If possible, I'd like to add more contents about it in our final version.
>
>below is my different opinion from Adam's suggestions.
>2. delete "and other stakeholders." govt. private sector and civil
>society should be all, no more than us three.
>
>=> In my opinion, there may be stakeholders we missed.
>And we need to consider them, I think.
>I cannot understand Adam's opinion,
>"govt. private sector and civil society should be all, no more than us three"
>Why no more?
>
>However, I cannot imagine concrete map of the other stakeholders, now.
>If we need to change the sentence, I'd like to change it like the following,
>rather than delete.
>
>"The information society should be regarded as a collaborative effort of
>all the stakeholders including, civil society, government and private sector."
Excellent.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>13. Delete "never" and replace with not. Delete "any kind of".
>This is too definite.
>
>=>The full sentence is below
>
>"Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of expression should
>never be threatened by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>
>It is difficult to understand why this expression is too definite.
>Rather, I think this is clear attitude of civil societies
>to the surveillance and censorship system.
>Many asian civil societies already got many experiences of surveillance
>and censorship system, and found out the danger of these systems.
>
>And I saw the expression, "any kind of" or "all forms of" etc. in other
>civil society documents.
I believe surveillance and censorship are sometime necessary. I think
our society cannot function without them in some *limited* and
*controlled* way (I don't want to get into an argument about my
rights to make money from a "celebrity autopsy" videos, or whether or
not surveillance of known terrorists is a good/bad thing, but I hope
you see what I mean.)
I also think there are more fundamental rights (freedom of
expression, democracy, etc.) that need to be protected from excessive
surveillance and censorship. So I was looking for a way of expressing
that, and I think cutting "never" and replacing it with "not" helps,
as does cutting "any kind of" (which is really just too vague.)
Thanks,
Adam
>I hope to keep the original sentence.
>If necessay, I think we can discuss it more.
>
>Thanks,
>PatchA.
--