William,
It seemed to me that you were implying that the Chatham House style is
obviously bad. It is not. There are benefits and drawbacks.
I'd be interested to hear what the "various reasons" are that the IGF
does not use it. You know, for transparency. ;) (Ideally you can just
point me to the documentation about this...)
Cheers,
--
Shane
At 2016-06-03 13:31:44 +0200
William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
> *************************************************************
>
|
