[WSIS CS-Plenary] Collaboration software debate

[Milton Mueller]

>>> fheinz at vialibre.org.ar 4/12/2005 8:14:20 PM >>>
>The more I read about it, the more I become convinced that the only
need
>involved in the whole thing is some people's desire to find some
>problem, any problem, real or not, for which they can push the
solutions
>they already have at hand.

We are not pushing softeware solution, we are trying to hold meetings
for real-time discussion. The alternative is US$2000 per person in
travel and lodging costs. Which is better?

I understand Taran Rampersad's frustration, but I don't understand why
he put us in the same boat with the obstructionists. Saying that we
should not hold meetings now, but instead start working on protocols,
doesn't make sense to me. This is not the time to be forming task forces
for the evaluation of software. This is a critical time in the
development of Internet Governance policy. 

The WGIG is on a fixed schedule and must develop a report by July. We
do need real time meetings. I do agree that those who refuse to use the
particular tool we have available should develop protocols of their own,
form task forces for evaluation, etc. But I am interested in holding
meetings now. So are many others.

>We are talking toys for rich people here. We are talking about moving
>part of the debate from the current platform, where anybody with a
>text-only terminal and a dialup connection can join in and
participate
>in equal conditions, to one in which the ones with broadband, lots of
>memory, fast processors and webcams are priviledged.

Nonsense. The virtue of the software we are trying to use is that it
allows anyone with a terminal and dialup connection to participate.
There is no need for and no use of webcams - get your facts straight,
please! The PROBLEM with what you call "the current platform" (email) is
that it does not allow for synchronous communication. Anyone who has
spent years collaborating and working online via asynchronous email 
lists should know that they do NOT facilitate agreement and consensus,
and that it is very difficult to reach even a common understanding of
complex issues with many alternatives. The confusions we have
experienced over procedures and statements is proof of that.

Let me also take up Francis' fear that by using this software now we
will become stuck in it, "like MS Windows." No, that is notpossible.
First, it is an application, not an operating system, so it is easy to
switch if a F/OS solution becomes available and workable. The software
is also extremely expensive on our side (still free on the client side)
so there are strong incentives to switch.

This is my last post on this thread, I think the positions are clear
and others can make up their own mind. 

--MM