[WSIS CS-Plenary] PCT and WGIG

[MJ Ray]

[Esperante super kelkaj paragrafoj]

I have finally found time to read all the replies about the
PCT caucus and WGIG. Thank you for all the interesting ones.
I am saddened to see the prejudice and lack of facilitation
on this list. It looks like a few trying to flame anyone they
think agrees with FSF at all. Why? Is CS-plenary nobbled?

Nu, al PCT kaj WGIG:

Now, to PCT and WGIG:

Unue, mi pardonpetas se "ensure" ne estas la vera vorto pri WGIG.
Mi konkludis (ankaux de postoj al cs-plenary dissendlisto) ke WGIG
necese inkluzivas nur temojn, pri kio gxi havas sciulojn. Cxu ne?

First off, I apologise if "ensure" isn't the right word to use
about WGIG. I was concluded (including from posts to the cs
plenary list) that it was necessary that WGIG only covered topics
for which it had knowledgeable people. Is that correct?

Due, cxu liberkopi- kaj patent- sciuloj estas en WGIG? Kiuj?
Cxu ili favoras kreskontajn malpermisilojn?

Secondly, are there copyleft- and patent- knowledgeable people
who are involved in WGIG? Who? Are they sympathetic to increased
protection or not? (Seems a bit of confusion about that.)

[paragrafo nur angle]

I agree it is not important whether one calls "IP" by the name "PCT",
"intellectual rights" or "kebab meat". It *is* important to see
how the P, C and T differ and not just lump them together, like our
governments do all too often.

Fine, se ne estas sciuloj pri rimarkinda malplejparta kredo en WGIG,
do cxu postulo de CS-uloj estas provi konservi temon ekster WGIG?
Se WSIS estas inkluzivema anstataux reprezentema, kial WGIG-uloj
povas nure konsulti WSIS-ajn grupojn?

Finally, if there are no knowledgeable people from a significant
minority view involved in WGIG, then is it the duty of the CS
members to try to keep the topic *out* of WGIG for now? If WSIS is
participative instead of representative, why is it allowed for WGIG
members to merely consult with WSIS groups?  Maybe this is where the
"connector" idea was going, but didn't arrive.


Now a few side notes [nur angle]:

I was a little disappointed to see discussion of a concept being
copyrighted. I know we all have different interests, but I think
that's a good illustration of the problems about PC and T.

The discussion itself was interesting to me. I think
those interested in the idea of "FSF branded free software"
should look up the failed Open Source Initiative, which was a
marketing programme for free software at first. That's almost
a case study in why it doesn't work. It also shows that you
can modify the concept and coexist if you modify the name,
but maybe should research "forking friction" too.

I have absolutely no idea why MM asked me what Free Software advocates
thought. My sig was fair clear: My Opinion Only, as far as I know. I
have not contacted WSIS-CS before because I don't know how it
works. I still don't, to be honest, but it seems I might not be the
only one. (Also, it is frustrating that both www.wsis-cs.org and the
list archive need colour overrides to be readable... W3 WCAG please!)

Finally, back to workingmethods: Are consensus/consent-based groups
comfortable with majority-vote decisions, or are there no such groups
in WSIS-CS? How does voting fit in the "consensual" WSIS process?

-- 
MJR/slef  My Opinion Only and maybe not of any group I know.