Update: CSCG & IGF Planning Retreat

[Shane Kerr]

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 <wjdrake at gmail.com> 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 <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:
> > 
> > William,
> > 
> > At 2016-06-03 11:13:55 +0200
> > William Drake <wjdrake at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >   
> >>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 02:06, avri doria <avri at apc.org> 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
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections
> New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
> *************************************************************
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160605/23109eba/attachment.sig>