[governance] Revised version of letter to IGF re Web site - Few questions

[David Goldstein]

Adam,

I beg to differ on Amnesty's interest in online censorship and human rights issues. They've had a long interest, although admittedly it's not as high as other issues. I can recall news releases over the years on issues. The irresponsible.info is a leap up though.

David


----- Original Message ----
From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Thursday, 16 November, 2006 3:26:26 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Revised version of letter to IGF re Web site - Few questions

Nope, Amnesty didn't worry about much before rolling up in Athens.

Anyway, you could well be right.

Secretariat's given space for the community section, there's already
menu link to the coalitions from the main page www.intgovforum.org,
workshop reports (people really should get on and submit those) are
online, so why not the coalitions.

But, if it were my coalition, I'd prefer to start with
<http://www.intgovforum.org/coalitions/privacy/> rather than
<http://coalitions.intgovforum.org/privacy/> with a links out to pages
controlled and owned by the coalition.  As more coalitions send in
information the flat listing page
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Dynamic%20Coalitions.php> could soon be
pretty unusable (lengthy.) Individual pages (of some kind) make sense
anyway you look at it.

Adam




On 11/15/06, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:
> Nnenna wrote:
> >    1. Is the service that is needed purely technical?  I did use the
> >       community portal to track events during Athens.  I also would like
> >       to be of help, maybe in content and operationability appraisal but
> >       not hard core tech.
>
> That would be ideal.  Thank you!  Nobody is committing themselves to
> anything yet, anyhow.
>
> >    2. Is this letter from the Coalition or the individuals?  It will be
> >       good to clarify.  Will individuals endorsing the letter be
> >       understood to be members of the coalition?
>
> Just individuals, it's too hard otherwise... and not really necessary.
> This is intended as a pretty informal document.  But for it to come from
> just one person would have made it too easy to ignore.
>
> >    3. How far will a service to the IGF last?  The letter does not
> >       clearly indicate so.
>
> It will evolve over time, no doubt, but we would like to be setting
> something in place that could carry on for the term of the IGF's mandate.
>
> In response to the suggestion that we are asking too much, I'd rather
> ask for too much, if I strongly believe in it, than too little.  Did
> Amnesty worry about how much they were asking for before presenting
> their irrepressible.info petition?  (Sorry, rant off now.)
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance





Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance