[WSIS CS-Plenary] Final Draft for the Joint CS-PS statement

[Federico Heinz]

On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 20:19 +0100, Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE wrote:
> Please find attached the last version of the draft CS PS 
> joint statement. If there is no strict objection to this text 
> tomorrow morning in Plenary, we will be able to have it 
> distributed. 

YJ and Lisa have been doing a wonderful job of explaining why this
should not be a CS PS joint statement. Our organization won't sign any
such document either. Hard as I try, I can't figure out why anybody
would endorse and commend the multi-stakeholder approach taken at WGIG,
when WGIG's output has been, in one admittedly rude word, crap. I have
not read all of the papers, but I have read a statistically
representative sample of it, and their quality can only be described as
abysmal, they are full of factual and conceptual errors, the comment
process was fundamentally flawed (10 days to comment on a large number
of papers that had taken months to draft), and no formal correction or
discussion process outside the group of "experts". This is an
unmitigated disaster, why would we want to endorse it?

Another point: *why on Earth* are you distributing this paper in a
proprietary format? There is no reason why you couldn't have circulated
it in plain text, in the body of the message. I don't use the particular
word processor you use, and have to jump through hoops in order to read
the text.

	Fede

-- 
GnuPG Public Key: gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-key BD02C6E0
Key Fingerprint: 04F4 08C5 14B7 2C3D DB21  ACF8 6CF5 0B0C BD02 C6E0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050225/911ddaa8/attachment.pgp