[bestbits] Why?

[willi uebelherr]

Dear George.

"Perhaps the overall purpose of these list(s) should be discussed, 
decided and stated."

This is one way. And mostly, it never works. We have to go another way. 
To do it self. Try to organize our thinking. Our goals to make ourselves 
aware. So to reflect.

We have to understand ourselve. To understand, what moves us. Then, we 
understand more and better the other people. How they act and how they 
speak.

Yes, the text from Anriette was very fantastic.
"Why not write about substantive issues, and about how to pursue a 
social justice agenda around the issues that are internet-related ...".

The "Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
Interest" i don't understand clearly. And i am not sure, that the 
questions and contradictions from Intellectual Property and Public
Interest are really discussed.

Intellectual Property

In our history it never exist. The first installation come in the 12th 
Century in England. But also after this time, the knowledge was always a 
common good.

And if we analyze ourselve, how we can create knowledge in our head, 
then never we speak about "Intellectual Property" in a positive form. It 
is robbery to the community.

Therefore i formulate: "knowledge is always world heritage". And i know, 
that the most people in our world think the same. Therefore, this is the 
"Public Interest".

Access to the Internet

I think, it is clear. The free access to this transport system of 
digital data in packet form. The, the people can communicate, can 
exchange her ideas and experiences, have a free access to the free 
knowledge. This is very simple.

We destroy all this stupid construction in the architecture, that the 
most powerful groups can decide and define. This is for me the "Public 
Interest".

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina



Am 19-May-15 um 16:31 schrieb George Sadowsky:
> Having an open discussion about what you call fundamentals is OK, although I wouldn't characterize the current discussions as respectful or progressive.  But let's not confuse that goal with the goal of advancing broader civil society agenda, as Anriette has mentioned in her recent post.
>
> Perhaps the overall purpose of these list(s) should be discussed, decided and stated.  That way people won't enter into discussions that they consider not in their interest.
>
> George