[governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols (was Re: Open consultations)

[Roland Perry]

In message <20110519150245.E271B15C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 17:02:45 on 
Thu, 19 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> In message <20110519075934.696A515C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 09:59:34 on
>> Thu, 19 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> >> If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one
>> >> works, now, and we should embrace it.
>> >
>> >Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists does not
>> >help someone for whom this "solution" does not work (like it
>> >is the case for me, with a rather ordinary Ubuntu setup with
>> >Adobe flash installed from the "Canonical partner repository",
>> >so according to Roland's assertions the "solution" should
>> >work, but in my actual experience that is not the case.)
>>
>> What I said was that there were more than two platforms available.
>
>Your exact words were:
>
>:: We have to be practical, and covering Windows, Apple and Linux (that's
>:: three, not two, even assuming you can count Linux as only "one") with a
>:: zero-cost application will satisfy almost everyone.
>::
>:: If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one
>:: works, now, and we should embrace it.
>
>In my understanding, that was an assertion that it "works" under
>"Windows", "Apple" and "Linux",

Versions are available for all three.

>which is at odds with my experience with a very typical set-up of the 
>latter.

One of the problems with *nix is that its advantages are traded off 
against what seems to me to be a much restricted degree of "plug and 
play". Not surprising given the almost infinite combinations available.

>Maybe I should also mention that assertions that the "solution" "works
>now" and "we should embrace it" are rather unfriendly things to say to
>someone who was just locked out from being able to participate because
>what "works now" doesn't for everyone and even the fall-back option of
>live transcripts + email isn't made avalable, presumably as a result
>of a mistaken belief that the Abobe "solution" works for everyone?

Email was available (although I didn't see any evidence that it was used 
by anyone) and the streaming text was done on a separate website (not 
via Adobe). The lack of integration of the streaming text made it harder 
for those of us who were using Adobe, but potentially easier for those 
who weren't.

>(Yesterday the "live transcript" was working but a timely intervention
>that I submitted by email got ignored, probably because nobody was
>watching the email address that had been provided, and today the "live
>transcript" links just give the message "Event is not active".)

There's a new link for each session, and I did notice that this 
afternoon's link was erroneously pointing at the morning session.

eg: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGam&chat=no
vs: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGpm&chat=no
                                                  **
That's a webmastering/editing issue, not a technology one!

But having got past that minor finger trouble, it was fine.

>> >Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists also does
>> >not help to address the fundamental internet governance problem
>> >that --because of the insufficient emphasis on strictly open
>> >standards in key communication related areas-- there is strong
>> >socioeconomic pressure to avoid using e.g. GNU/Linux.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I don't think Operating System Wars is anything to do
>> with Internet Governance.
>
>Governance is always primarily about ensuring some kind of fairness.
>
>In the case of Internet Governance, if that isn't about fairness in
>internet communication, what else is the goal of Internet Governance
>supposed to be? Protection of "Western" economic dominance at the
>expense of others, while giving just enough aid and concessions to
>"developing" nations that they don't rebel???

You can't pull everything in the world into "Internet" Governance. 
Remember how there was a survey last year which showed that people's 
most critical resource was their laptop battery. On that basis, battery 
technology, and also the shape of electrical outlets to plug my laptop 
into, are also "Internet Governance".

>I find your choice of words interesting in referring to "wars".

It's a commonplace description of Microsoft vs Apple, Intel vs AMD, or 
any other set of rival technologies.

>The metaphor of a "war" implies the presence of some kind of violence.

Not physical violence. Can be played out other ways eg "war of words".

>Isn't the kind of violence which is present here precisely the
>refusal of fairness with regard to openness of interfaces?

The fairest thing to do is deploy a solution that's instantly available 
to the largest number of users. It would be even more unfair to deny 
that to them. Fairness is not ensuring that everyone is equally poorly 
serviced.

>Consider the example of bread. In itself, bread does not have anything
>to do with any kind of ethnic conflict. But if in any place, bakers
>and shopkeepers refuse to sell bread to members of a specific ethnic
>group, then these bakers and shopkeepers become a party in an ethnic
>conflict.

What if Windows and Apple supported a wider language/character/script 
set than a random installation of Linux. Would that mean the Linux was 
the most discriminatory, and least preferred?
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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