[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative

[michael gurstein]

Cool, there is a now fork in this discussion!.

 

All those who think we are discussing somewhat abstract notions drawn from
International Relations theory please follow David Cake, everyone else can
stay and grind their way forward here discussing issues of concern to Civil
Society. 

 

I'm guessing that the argument appearing as an Editorial in the peer
reviewed Journal of Community Informatics
<http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/1125/1105>  won't
count (since I edit the journal) re: your challenge concerning peer reviewed
publication, but I do note via Google Scholar that the blogpost has been
cited at least once in what appears to be a peer reviewed conference paper.
(That isn't bad for an academic citation given that most journals etc. need
a minimum of 18 months from receipt to publication and the paper only
appeared about 4 months ago.)

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:57 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; Guru;
Sivasubramanian M
Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation
in NETmundial Initiative

 

 

On 22 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:





As anyone with any familiarity with Civil Society will know, the term
Neo-liberal is a very common term of art in Civil Society analyses
particularly outside of the 5 Eyes consortia countries.

 

            Yes, and as anyone with any familiarity with International
Relations theory will know, the term neo-liberal is a very common term of
art in the entire field, meaning something somewhat different (though not
100% unrelated). But I do rather suspect that familiarity with IR theory is
not common among JNC members, as I've not yet seen JNC analysis that seems
particularly informed by it. 





The current discussions concerning neo-liberalism in public policy areas
generally link directly back to "the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus> Washington Consensus"

 

            Yes, yes, just because the way you use the term annoys me
doesn't mean I don't understand what you mean by it. 

 

For a more direct linkage of these discussions concerning neo-liberalism to
IG see  <http://alainet.org/active/73028> http://alainet.org/active/73028

 

            I'm tiresomely familiar with the argument, thank you, but I
still don't agree with it. 

 

            Do you have anything on that argument that has made it into a
peer reviewed journal, BTW? It would be useful to have something to cite. 

 

            Cheers

 

                        David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141121/7a53bf64/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t