Careful Patrick. The same questions may be asked of you- who are you and
what is your interest?
On Thursday, 13 June 2019, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <
[email protected]> wrote:
> As I read some worrisome replies here, I’m starting to wonder… have
> foxes been guarding our hen-house?
>
> Brgds,
> Patrick.
>
>
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 5:58:36 PM GMT+3, McTim <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, Let me help you.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Listers,
>
> This model of “*don’t worry, we’ll read the policy/research for you and
> summarize*” (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for
> negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many
> ways. It is not a wise solution to “tl;dr” (too long didn’t read) and
> should be actively discouraged.
>
>
> Nonsense, it is extraordinarily useful.
>
>
>
>
> Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to
> quip in with their thoughts/perspective please):
>
> 1. The idea of *unofficial versions of important policy documents* that
> have not been independently vetted or certified – and targeted at
> “time-poor (sic)” policy practitioners – should trigger alarm bells in this
> day and age. In the case of digitalcooperation.org/ report , what
> is wrong with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly
> written, in six UN languages*)? If policy practitioners can’t understand
> it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem?
>
>
>
> Yes, it is a competence problem. I prefer the Sam Dickinson
> version….always.
>
> She is a trusted and experienced practioner, knows the politics and policy
> inside and out.
>
>
>
>
>
> An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant *should know this*
> and *avoid doing it *because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk
> habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and
> malware.
>
>
>
> It is part of her business model.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too
> complex or too long.
>
>
> no, not the premise. The premise and biz model is that she goes to Geneva
> and sits through week long events so I don’t have to!
>
>
>
> So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don’t like
> reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are “too busy” to read
> important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here?
>
>
>
> I only see the upside.
>
>
> This model gives the site owner(s)* immense power* as an information
> gatekeepers and influencers – with a target audience of cognitively lazy
> (or negligent) individuals.
>
>
>
> nonsense.
>
>
>
> This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities
> like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that
> can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that
> have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating
> incompetence – not enabling it.
>
> 3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What
> methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is
> important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they
> choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools
> do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to
> protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination
> vectors?
>
>
>
>
> OH FFS. If you are paying, you get to ask these questions. If you aren’t
> a client of her consulting biz, then you don’t get to ask these questions!
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be
> subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny?
>
>
> Becasue there is no way to raise funds for an NGO? Why are non-profit
> rules and scrutiny better?
>
>
> Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don’t paint
> her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or
> an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea?
>
>
> neither
>
>
>
> It doesn’t make sense. What’s going on?
>
>
> it makes total sense if you understand that she goes to events and reports
> on them as part of her consulting biz.
>
>
>
>
> 5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea
> originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not
> increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much
> worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea
> by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution.
>
>
>
> it is not a bad situation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We cannot claim to be promoting internet health – and then we appear to do
> things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in
> policy circles!
>
>
> This does zero to worsen Internet “health”…whatever that means!
>
>
> What am I missing here?
>
>
>
> the point man, you are missing the entire bloody point!
>
>
>
> —
> Cheers,
>
>
> McTim
> The ‘name’ of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an ‘address’ indicates
> *where* it is, and a ‘route’ tells us *how to get there*.
>
