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

[David Cake]

On 22 Nov 2014, at 3:17 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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,

	I know you aren't discussing ideas from IR theory, Michael, but your arguments would be improved if you understood them a little. For example the standard definition of Internet Governance from WGIG derives straight from regime theory. And it might help you understand why the rest of civil society sees the role of democracy in internet governance differently (hint: when an autocratic nation casts a ballot in an international forum, democracy is not enhanced thereby). 

> everyone else can stay and grind their way forward here discussing issues of concern to Civil Society.

	Your tireless rhetoric on the issue of neo-liberal economics may not be of as much concern to broader civil society as you think, Michael. I think by this stage most of us are fairly familiar with it. 
 
> 
> I’m guessing that the argument appearing as an Editorial in the peer reviewed Journal of Community Informatics won’t count (since I edit the journal)

	It only counts as peer reviewed if it was actually peer reviewed, yes. 
	And I was also hoping for something that had references and such as academic papers normally do. But a rant that is strategically situated next to some academic papers will have to do for now, 

> re: your challenge concerning peer reviewed publication,

	So, the answer to my question is no, then? OK. 

> 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.)

	Being cited in a peer reviewed conference paper is not the same as being one. I could cite the Daily Mail in a peer reviewed paper if it was relevant. 

	But the only cite of that editorial I could find was by your JNC colleague Richard Hill in a seminar paper, not sure if that was peer reviewed. Richard must have liked it though, it was the only thing he referenced not written by himself!

	Cheers

		David

>  
> 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 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
>  
>             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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141122/173176e4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141122/173176e4/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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