Internet Bill of Rights

I think this would be a good move, there need to be some protections codified in law.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom
of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue
is a good place to start.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf

Broadband access should be a human right that is essential to full participation in a democratic society. Access cannot be removed arbitrarily or made unaffordable to any section of society. The three strikes law should be repealed.

The full guarantee of the right to freedom of expression must be the norm, and any limitation considered as an exception, and that this principle should never be reversed.

Content restriction should be based on the principles outlined in the report.
(1) it must be provided by law, which is clear
and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency);
(2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , namely:
(i) to protect the rights or reputations
of others;
(ii) to protect national security or public order, or public health or morals
(principle of legitimacy); and
(3) it must be proven as necessary and the least
restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality).

In addition, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.

@andrewmcpherson that's a fabulous proposal.

We must include some sort of transport layer neutrality, though!

Forgot to mention this, but Gareth Hughes of the Greens has been working on this:
http://www.internetrightsbill.org.nz/

That's another one where we could support the greens, as they are way ahead. It would be much more efficient to help them improve their proposal than to try to do the same, but different under our own flag that nobody recognises. This would also show that we are not dogmatic nor childish and do really care about our core issues and want to advance in a way that actually can make a difference.

Here is another manifest to potentially support:
http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/

We should be prepared to take part in any conversation and or action that would promote Pirate Party principles outside our own party.

Not sure if Gareth has addressed data sovereignty in his draft bill of rights, but it's an issue a lot of people don't understand, and one the Pirates could be at the forefront of educating people about:
http://www.1stcloud.com/nz/data-sovereignty/

The problem I have with data sovereignty in the context of global data services in the cloud, is that you must subject your service to each countries laws that you operate in.
In effect, this is analogous to a christian trying to follow all the verses of the bible, even the ones that contradict each other.
For this reason, the cloud project I am working on is not sovereign to any nation, due to self-hosting and social sharing it is impossible to even know which countries your hosting is in besides on your device.
There is no good argument for a global cloud service to tie itself to a nation's flag.

I agree with you in principle @andrewmcpherson , in fact I remember a time when it felt like the net wasn't subject to the laws on any state. However, states didn't like that, and are busy applying their laws to net users both inside and outside their territory. The link above suggests that a customer's data is subject to the law of the country where the hosting company is based (eg US), even if the customer and their data are located in another country (eg NZ).

The point of a data sovereignty policy would be to limit such expansions of jurisdiction.