[Icommons] Research at the Summit [was: Speed Geeking]

Guibault, L. L.Guibault at uva.nl
Thu Jan 10 01:55:58 EST 2008


Hi everyone,

I would indeed support a more scientific approach than at last year's iSummit. Time permitting, I would probably be interest in submitting a paper and under the same caveat, in participating in the organization of the legal day.

One of the best places to post a call for papers would probably be the Legal Scholarship Network:

http://www.ssrn.com/lsn/index.html

Best regards,

Lucie Guibault

_________________________________
Lucie Guibault
Instituut voor Informatierecht
Rokin 84
1012 KX Amsterdam
Nederland

Tel: +31.20.525.3947
Fax: +31.20.525.3033
Email: L.Guibault at uva.nl
Web: www.ivir.nl
__________________________________



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: icommons-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org namens Mathias Klang
Verzonden: do 10-1-2008 7:45
Aan: icommons at lists.ibiblio.org
Onderwerp: Re: [Icommons] Research at the Summit [was: Speed Geeking]
 
Hi,
I agree that the research event is a good idea and could help draw in 
new groups. There are also several researchers within iCommons who can 
help to send out the call for papers.

What is important is that we set up a group to create the call for 
papers and handle the review process (also to decide upon how rigorous 
we want this process to be).

If we want this to work we really need to get the call for papers out by 
mid-February since the authors need time to write, we need time for even 
a light review process.

So where do I sign up?

Mathias

J.C. De Martin wrote:
> hello everyone,
>
> just a quick word to say that I like a lot the idea
> of making a research event at the iSummit.
>
> In that regard, a call for papers and a standard
> organizing structure (even just a lightweight one)
> would be almost mandatory to ensure participation
> by the academic community at large.
>
> As far as I am concerned, I could contribute, if deemed
> appropriate and useful, in two ways:
>
> 1. involve COMMUNIA [1], at very least by informing all our
>     members. We will all meet in Torino soon, on 18 January,
>     for a workshop on "technology and the public domain" [2];
> 2. contact the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology [3],
>     to whom I belong, to explore whether they could conceivably
>     sponsor in some way the event. See http://istas08.ca/ for
>     their 2008 focus, i.e., "Citizens, Groups, Communities and
>     Information and Communication Technologies ". Being the IEEE [4]
>     a well-respected learned society, their sponsorship would make
>     our event more attractive to the ICT research world.
>
> let me know your thoughts.
>
> best
>
> juan carlos
>
> [1] http://communia-project.eu
> [2] http://ws1-2008.communia-project.eu/
> [3] http://www.ieeessit.org/
> [4] http://ieee.org
>
> Heather Ford ha scritto:
>   
>> This sounds very exciting :) We'll probably use Pentabarf this year 
>> again - it has a function for the communal review of papers 
>> - http://pentabarf.org/Submission_System 
>>
>> On 06 Jan 2008, at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Stark wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> This could also be a great way to recruit academics and researchers to 
>>> the event who have not attended before. I think we should definitely 
>>> have a call for papers, and publicize it widely among relevant 
>>> communities.
>>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2008 2:18 AM, Giorgos Cheliotis <giorgos at smu.edu.sg 
>>> <mailto:giorgos at smu.edu.sg>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     I concur with Elizabeth, let's let academics do what they do best,
>>>     i.e. talk about their research, no matter how theoretical it is,
>>>     as long as it's relevant to the topics we generally care about. No
>>>     need to dumb it down, but it would be good if we all take into
>>>     consideration the diversity of the fields that we are involved in
>>>     and present accordingly. I like some of Gavin's suggestions,
>>>     though I'm not sure there is a need for the microphone session in
>>>     the morning.
>>>      
>>>     Herkko brings up a good point I hadn't thought of: having a proper
>>>     process and an official call for (perhaps short) papers will give
>>>     the workshop a certain academic legitimacy which will make it
>>>     easier for research folks to justify to their organizations why
>>>     they should come to the workshop (and potentially get funding for
>>>     it).
>>>      
>>>     Now I have a rather tough question in my mind: who should chair
>>>     such a workshop, i.e. set a preliminary time and agenda, send out
>>>     a call for papers and review submissions? Especially for reviews,
>>>     even if we apply relatively relaxed criteria, as it is the first
>>>     time we attempt the workshop and would rather be inclusive rather
>>>     than exclusive, we need at least a little program committee and a
>>>     review process (which does not need to be very formal or lengthy
>>>     of course).
>>>      
>>>     Let me give this a try. The following people would qualify as they
>>>     have shown interest in the workshop, are doing relevant academic
>>>     work, and are affiliated with an academic or research institution:
>>>      
>>>     Elizabeth Stark
>>>     Prodromos Tsiavos
>>>     Herkko Hietanen
>>>      
>>>     But there are many more who could be involved in that commitee.
>>>     Anyone else wants to add more potential names to the list or
>>>     express their personal interest (not in presenting, but in
>>>     organizing the event)? By the way, having at least 1-2 very senior
>>>     professors/researchers in the team would also help.
>>>      
>>>     Giorgos
>>>
>>>      
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     *From:* icommons-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>     <mailto:icommons-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> on behalf of Elizabeth
>>>     Stark
>>>     *Sent:* Sun 1/6/2008 8:40 AM
>>>     *To:* Gavin Baker
>>>     *Cc:* icommons at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:icommons at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>     *Subject:* Re: [Icommons] Research at the Summit [was: Speed Geeking]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Jan 5, 2008 6:09 PM, Gavin Baker <gavin at gavinbaker.com
>>>     <mailto:gavin at gavinbaker.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>         Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>         I've been happily following this conversation and now would
>>>         like to add
>>>         my thoughts.
>>>
>>>         To paraphrase Heather, it seems there are 2 purposes for an
>>>         iSummit
>>>         research program: to share knowledge and ideas amongst
>>>         academics, and to
>>>         share knowledge and ideas from academics to others. As an
>>>         armchair
>>>         academic (someone interested in research but not a researcher
>>>         myself),
>>>         I'm most interested in the latter, but there should be
>>>         something of
>>>         value for the researchers too.
>>>
>>>         What about this? A half-day or day session in this format:
>>>
>>>         * A call for abstracts. Abstracts can present previously-reported
>>>         research, but should be written for a non-specialist audience, and
>>>         include a "praxis" section (practical implications of the
>>>         research). 
>>>
>>>
>>>     I think part of the point of this session would be to present
>>>     research and writing related to the commons to an audience that
>>>     has a familiarity with the issue. In that sense, I would probably
>>>     rather leave it up to the individual researchers to how they
>>>     present it in the abstract ( i.e. they may not want to "dumb" it
>>>     down too much). If it's theoretical research, I'm not sure we'd
>>>     want require people to have to explain practical implications.
>>>     Basically, because research, theory, and writing in this field can
>>>     differ quite a bit, I think it would be best to leave it up to the
>>>     researchers to determine would would be best for the abstracts and
>>>     for the presentations themselves.
>>>
>>>     All in all, though, I think hosting a session like this would be
>>>     productive for those working on or interested in academic research
>>>     in this field.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         * In lieu of speed geeking, a breakfast session where a
>>>         microphone is
>>>         passed around, and everyone gives a few sentences to describe
>>>         their
>>>         research or interests. Seating can also be arranged at random to
>>>         encourage meeting new people, perhaps with a facilitator at
>>>         each table
>>>
>>>         * 60-90 minute panels, composed of 10-15 min. presentations plus
>>>         questions & discussion, organized around themes (to be
>>>         determined by the
>>>         topics of the abstracts submitted)
>>>
>>>         * A concluding panel of open discussion, a la the 2007
>>>         education track,
>>>         to synthesize the research reported and discuss next steps
>>>
>>>         * On the iCommons site, post abstracts, summary & commentary
>>>         of each
>>>         panel, video/audio, and links to all of the participants' research
>>>
>>>         * A report-back in the main summit program
>>>
>>>         This format presumes there are at least 10 or so people who'd
>>>         want to
>>>         present. However, since 1/3 of the summit attendees are
>>>         professors, I
>>>         don't think that will be a challenge!
>>>
>>>         Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
>>>         | Heather, thanks for pitching in. Your email made me think
>>>         that, as some
>>>         | have already suggested, the workshop itself should be more
>>>         focused on
>>>         | research themes and with a limited number of participants,
>>>         but maybe we
>>>         | should have a slot in the main summit where we present a
>>>         summary of what
>>>         | was discussed at the workshop and how ideas can be
>>>         transferred into
>>>         | 'practice'.
>>>         |
>>>         | The workshop itself can be just before the summit, like the
>>>         legal day,
>>>         | but ideally not overlapping, as some of us would want to
>>>         attend the
>>>         | legal day I believe, or it could be a track in the main summit.
>>>         |
>>>         | However, it is still an open issue how to organize the workshop
>>>         | presentations and discussion. I am worried that speed
>>>         geeking may
>>>         | be more appropriate for cases when a broader audience wants
>>>         to get an
>>>         | overview of several proposals/projects, whereas our goal is
>>>         more that
>>>         | we, i.e. the different researchers, get an overview of what
>>>         each of us
>>>         | is doing and give feedback directly to each other. This
>>>         means that every
>>>         | participant should focus on one presentation at a time.
>>>         Doesn't it
>>>         | therefore follow that a 'classical approach' with each of us
>>>         presenting
>>>         | with a projector is better? If I am standing somewhere with
>>>         my laptop
>>>         | and all other presenters are doing the same, I don't get to
>>>         see their
>>>         work.
>>>         |
>>>         | The presentations themselves could anyhow be short, i.e.
>>>         5-10mins. If
>>>         | it's a half-day workshop, say 4 hours, then we can have about 4
>>>         | presenters per hourly session, and with say 3 sessions we
>>>         can have about
>>>         | 12 'top-down' presentations. Then, when we're done with
>>>         presentations
>>>         | and having seen what each of us, or at least what some of us
>>>         are doing,
>>>         | we could devote the last hour to a 'bottom-up' discussion, for
>>>         | participants to discuss ways of moving forward,
>>>         opportunities they see
>>>         | for collaboration, etc. Finally, those of us with an
>>>         interest in doing
>>>         | so, could try to summarize the workshop proceedings into a
>>>         presentation
>>>         | for the main summit, so as to communicate with the broader
>>>         audience of
>>>         | the summit.
>>>         |
>>>         | Would something like this work well?
>>>         |
>>>         | In true academic tradition :), but following the more
>>>         relaxed standards
>>>         | of a workshop as opposed to a full conference, we can make a
>>>         call for
>>>         | abstracts and based on the quantity and quality of
>>>         submissions we can
>>>         | then discuss how to move forward. If we only have 3-4 people
>>>         wishing to
>>>         | present, it will be simple. If we get 30 over submissions,
>>>         we will have
>>>         | to select some of them (independently of whether we do
>>>         projector
>>>         | presentations, or speed geeking, as I imagine that both
>>>         formats don't
>>>         | scale well and it is not possible to fit 30 presentations in
>>>         half a day
>>>         | - unless we make it a one-day workshop, but that would still
>>>         have
>>>         | constraints on the total number of presenters)
>>>         |
>>>         | Again, these are just some thoughts... feel free to
>>>         criticize or
>>>         | counterpropose.
>>>         |
>>>         | Giorgos
>>>         |
>>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>         | *From:* Heather Ford [mailto:heather at icommons.org
>>>         <mailto:heather at icommons.org>]
>>>         | *Sent:* Sat 1/5/2008 1:58 AM
>>>         | *To:* Anas TAWILEH
>>>         | *Cc:* Burobjorn; Steve Foerster; icommons at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>         <mailto:icommons at lists.ibiblio.org>; Giorgos
>>>         | Cheliotis
>>>         | *Subject:* Research at the Summit [was: Speed Geeking]
>>>         |
>>>         | Great discussion!
>>>         |
>>>         |  From what I'd read on this the goal is to get people doing
>>>         research
>>>         | together to:
>>>         |
>>>         | a) raise awareness of who is doing what;
>>>         | b) but also to facilitate joint research
>>>         projects/comparitive research
>>>         etc.
>>>         |
>>>         | And that some of the ways we could do this would be:
>>>         |
>>>         | a) speed geeking to start the discussion (good for getting
>>>         general
>>>         | understanding of the basics of a wide range of projects)
>>>         | b) other ways to facilitate discussion/debate by more detailed
>>>         | project/thematic discussions
>>>         |
>>>         | In relation to Paul's relevant comment, we should identify
>>>         the areas
>>>         | where it would make sense for researchers/academics to
>>>         |
>>>         | a) have specific workshop/meetings around the 'research'
>>>         theme, and
>>>         | b) where something like a 'research collective' could feed
>>>         into the
>>>         | 'practice' themes of the summit.
>>>         |
>>>         | e.g. A workshop on what kind of research is being conducted
>>>         in the
>>>         | cultural heritage arena with a goal of perhaps forming a
>>>         collective that
>>>         | applies for joint funding on cultural heritage and IP
>>>         policies globally
>>>         | would make sense as a workshop for researchers/academics;
>>>         whereas we
>>>         | would also want these researchers to feed into the
>>>         'practice' side of
>>>         | the iSummit where we model different projects and discuss
>>>         approaches
>>>         | creatively and practically.
>>>         |
>>>         | I've noticed some of the great research coming from Communia
>>>         and people
>>>         | like Jordan and Giorgos and Eric Kansa and so many others,
>>>         and I've been
>>>         | thinking how great it would be if we could broaden some of
>>>         their great
>>>         | research and apply the same methodologies to develop
>>>         | more comparative research that can be used by governments
>>>         etc in making
>>>         | new policy decisions for cultural heritage, public
>>>         broadcasting policies
>>>         | etc. e.g. Comparitive research on the use of open IP
>>>         policies in public
>>>         | broadcasters around the world.
>>>         |
>>>         | I really like Giorgos's thematic breakdown - especially
>>>         since it covers
>>>         | a lot of the current research. And I'd be so thrilled if at
>>>         the Communia
>>>         | meeting, the Asia Commons meeting and the Jhb meeting, we
>>>         could match
>>>         | individuals to research areas and have more discussions on
>>>         what the key
>>>         | priorities are.
>>>         |
>>>         | Thoughts?
>>>         |
>>>         | btw, the programme is wide open i.e. completely open to
>>>         suggestions - I
>>>         | gave a proposal, but we'll be making these decisions this
>>>         month as we
>>>         | discuss here and at the various meetings. So please fire away!
>>>         |
>>>         | Best,
>>>         | Heather.
>>>         |
>>>         |
>>>         | Heather Ford
>>>         | iCommons Executive Director
>>>         | http://icommons.org <http://icommons.org/>
>>>         <http://icommons.org/>
>>>         |
>>>         | The iCommons Summit: 29 July - 1 August 2008, Sapporo, Japan
>>>         |
>>>         | Phone: +27 11 327 3155
>>>         | PO Box 1453, Saxonwold, 2132, Johannesburg
>>>         |
>>>         |
>>>         |
>>>         |
>>>         |
>>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>         |
>>>         | _______________________________________________
>>>         | Icommons mailing list
>>>         | Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>         | http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
>>>
>>>         - --
>>>         Gavin Baker
>>>         http://www.gavinbaker.com/
>>>         gavin at gavinbaker.com <mailto:gavin at gavinbaker.com>
>>>         -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>         Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>>>         Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>>         <http://enigmail.mozdev.org/>
>>>
>>>         iD8DBQFHgA44tLXQdLhFpekRAlYnAKCd6HcDDs6XI42OzMyZ4RkPEMrSCgCfbpah
>>>         eG3YN/zXJjgHRtnzOgHiawc=
>>>         =E/Fl
>>>         -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Icommons mailing list
>>>         Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>         http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Icommons mailing list
>>>     Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Icommons mailing list
>>> Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
>>>       
>> Heather Ford
>> iCommons Executive Director
>> http://icommons.org 
>>
>> The iCommons Summit: 29 July - 1 August 2008, Sapporo, Japan
>>
>> Phone: +27 11 327 3155
>> PO Box 1453, Saxonwold, 2132, Johannesburg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icommons mailing list
>> Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Icommons mailing list
> Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
>   

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mathias Klang, LL.M., Ph.D.
University of Lund & University of Goteborg

Phone +46 46 2227079  Mobile: +46 705 677 910 
http://digital-rights.net/   http://resistancestudies.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________
Icommons mailing list
Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/icommons/attachments/20080110/0c2454c2/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Icommons mailing list