<div dir="ltr">Hi again,<div><br></div><div>On 12 December 2013 04:12, Michael Kende <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kende@isoc.org" target="_blank">kende@isoc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word">
<div>My current thinking is to have an Amazon style review section, wherein we can rate the report
(e.g. With stars) and then provide reviews, and as with Amazon the author is of course free to respond as well. Editorial control, if any, in this case would be limited to ensuring that the posts are professional.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>"Amazon style" will work OK, though it will be worth revisiting after a while of use. I personally like the Reddit-style "vote up/vote down" approach that enables chapters to order materials by utility. </div>
<div> </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word">
<div>Would your idea be to review each paper or select papers, and then there would be an online journal? Would it also be for new work? I had thought it might be interesting to pick a theme and then have a seminar with the resulting papers.<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The first instinct is to put up each paper whether reviewed or not. As I mentioned in my first post, my preference would be that you would be the primary reviewer but you shouldn't be expected to look at everything.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Part of my interest here is not just focusing on a given paper's accuracy and legitimate methodology, but also its utility in assisting ISOC and Chapters in their own work. Material that is accurate but archaic or too theoretical may be of limited use to us despite its academic validity.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I would also urge the collection of materials that may not be strictly considered academic research, but may be of great value to ISOC and Chapters in their efforts to make Internet Governance issues accessible and better understood. Ted Talks and unpublished "gray literature" IMO, have a legitimate place in your repository even though you might not explicitly categorize it as formal academic research. So long as they are identified as non-scientific, or analysis rather than input data, I believe they can serve real benefit to the community.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As just a recent example, I came across what I consider to be an excellent example of an accessible explanation of (some aspects of) internet governance and self regulation, in the form of <a href="http://freakonomics.com/2013/11/14/who-runs-the-internet-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/">an excelent podcast</a> by the authors of the <a href="http://freakonomics.com/">"Freakonomics"</a> books.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word">
<div></div>
<div>Also, as I have been putting together the database I would divide things into four categories<br></div>
<ul>
<li>data sources, provided by governments or IGOs (e.g. ITU, UNCTAD)</li><li>data sources, provided by companies often with accompanying reports (e.g. Cisco, Akamai)</li><li>reports written by NGOs, consultancies, etc. (e.g. McKinsey, WEF)</li>
<li>papers written by academics</li></ul></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would break it down by nature as well as source:</div><div><ul><li>Data sources provided by public bodies (governments and treaty organizations)<br>
</li><li>Data sources provided by private bodies (companies, consultancies, market research)<br></li><li>Data sources provided by media organizations<br></li><li>Data sources provided by academia (colleges, think tanks, journals, unpublished)<br>
</li><li>Data sources provided by NGOs and NPOs<br></li><li>Analysis by public bodies<br></li><li>Analysis by private bodies <br></li><li>Analysis by media organizations</li><li>Analysis by academia<br></li><li>Analysis by NGOs and NPOs</li>
</ul>and, of course<br><ul><li>Analysis by ISOC and Chapters<br></li></ul></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word">
<div>Do you envision treating any of these categories differently for purposes of review and/or commentary? I had not, at least for the Amazon style reviews, but perhaps for the editorial reviews?</div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>My criteria would not be source as much as suitability. We should establish the objectives of having this repository as it serves the ISOC mission and bylaws, from there we can determine the relevancy and suitability of materials solicited for the repository, and do our reviews accordingly.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Evan</div><div><br></div></div>
</div></div>