[WSIS CS-Plenary] authors of issue papers [clarification]

[William Drake]

Adam,

I have been trying off and on from the outset to focus attention on the need
to address the working definition, and now that the issue papers are done, a
dialogue on that is rebooting in WGIG.  All the messages implying that WGIG
is somehow committed to side-stepping the definitional question are
misplaced conjecture (somewhat inevitable I guess since it would be
difficult to continually report that now we're talking about this, now we're
talking about that when the WGIG list has had a staggering amount of traffic
on multiple simultaneous topics).  It was simply a matter of the secretariat
feeling like we ought to take things one step at a time and devote our main
energies to getting some views on the table regarding issues, as inputs we
could draw on later and which people outside could then respond to.

Not starting with the definition did result in some problems.  Some members
took the time to write up papers on issues that, while important, others
later argued are not actually examples of IG, either because they do not
involve collective rule systems or because they go beyond the Internet to
broader ICT issues.  Most but not all of these contested papers were not
released on the website.

Anyway, I guess you could say there's a little disjuncture between the
template for the papers and the template for the comments, but I wouldn't
read too much intentionality or significance into it.

Best,

Bill



> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> Behalf Of Adam Peake
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 5:44 AM
> To: vb at bertola.eu.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] authors of issue papers
>
>
> I can see why you wouldn't name authors, the papers are the product
> of the WGIG, not the individuals, etc. etc.
>
> But why does each paper seem to address "Governance mechanisms" yet
> the template for comments asks "Has the issue as it applies to the
> question of Internet Governance been adequately identified?"
>
> You guys palming off the hard work to the free temp staff :-)
>
> I know M Kummer has said you would leave discussion of defining
> Internet Governance until later (again, I can see sense in that, you
> would likely get bogged down in it), but I don't understand why you
> would describe Governance mechanisms yet then ask if the question of
> Internet Governance been adequately identified.
>
> Federico also asked something similar.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> At 2:37 PM +0100 2/4/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >Il giorno ven, 04-02-2005 alle 13:01 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
> >>  > It would also be helpful to know who the authors of these
> papers are.
> >>
> >>  I have been wondering about the authorship too.
> >>  >
> >>  It appears that quite a few people know who wrote or co-authored which
> >>  paper.
> >>  The authorship seems not to be secrete information. So why
> are no names
> >>  attached to the papers?
> >
> >AFAIK, the papers are meant to be group releases (and, in fact, some of
> >them are actually the result of contributions by a lot of members, while
> >others instead were the result of a single individual's work, with at
> >most a few edits here and there by a couple of other members).
> >
> >This (to answer another question) is exactly why the reason why
> >intellectual property is not there yet - the paper (or, better, the
> >issue) was so controversial that some members of the group totally
> >objected to its publication, so a short summary prepared by the
> >Secretariat will be posted instead.
> >--
> >vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> >http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Plenary mailing list
> >Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
>
>