Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:31:44 +0200 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi
Thanks Shane. I’m familiar with the rule. We don’t use it in the IGF, for various reasons, at least not since the early tense days of the MAG.
Bill
> On Jun 3, 2016, at 12:13, Shane Kerr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> William,
>
> At 2016-06-03 11:13:55 +0200
> William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 02:06, avri doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chatham House style (content w/o attribution)
>>
>> In true bottom up transparent community driven IGF fashion….not.
>
> To be honest, that doesn't seem too horrible. The Chatham House rule is
> there for a reason:
>
> Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
>
> A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views
> that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it
> encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if
> they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications
> if they are publicly quoted.
>
> https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane - speaking only for myself ;)
*************************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
www.williamdrake.org
The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections
New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
*************************************************************
|
|
|