[Chapter-delegates] Balance Interactive to Redevelop Website for The Internet Society

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello Marcin

Thank you for your response.

My suggestion of Web 2.0 was not with the connotation of any undesirable
model for participation. It was a simple suggestion to make the ISOC website
technically rich, advanced and easy. (I do share your concerns about the
unseen models for commercial exploitation of open and shared content, but
that is besides the point here)

Irrespective of whether it is called Web 2.0 design, Web 3.0 design, a
collaborative design or a gadget rich design, the suggestion is just that we
should make use of the new web technologies.

This could simply mean embedding a web application for chat or video
conferencing (a 'ready-to-use" conference room), embedding a calender, a
doodle applet, a blog interface and anything that we can think of as useful
for inter-chapter and chapter-isoc interaction.

A short while ago I was exploring giftag, an application hosted by Google.
http://www.giftag.com This application lets users share their shopping
lists. (This as an idea has privacy implications, the application developers
/ owners gather data related to the shopping patterns of their users. We
will leave this aside for a while and focus on the technology behind this
web application ) This application is an example of what Web 2.0 can do.
Such creative web applications could be custom designed and built into the
ISOC Web to enable chapters to share project ideas, to share knowledge and
resources. These are hints at various possibilities. The possibilities are
endless.

The idea of a "technically rich, advanced and easy" website for ISOC is also
to showcase the current Internet technical advances. ISOC as the Internet
Society also needs to be a positive showcase of present Internet advances.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy




2010/2/28 Marcin Cieslak <saper at saper.info>

>
> (This is a reply to an old email by Siva, not to the Khaled's
>  unrelated recent inquiry)
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>>>
>>>> One more suggestion would be to make this new website rich with
>>>> collaborative interfaces and integrate visual links to isoc's official
>>>> facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc. presence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh, come on.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What is wrong with what I have said? Is it just that what is stated is
>> naturally bound to be there, so unnecessary to have made a mention of, OR,
>> that it is a bad idea to think of collaborative interfaces and links to
>> ISOC's official presence elsewhere on the Internet, which are suggested
>> for
>> ease of participation?
>>
>
> Siva,
>
> I still owe you an explanation for this.
>
> If you ask me, what's Web 2.0 - stripping lots of buzztalk - this basically
> comes to two things:
>
> 1) improvement in Web technology, dating back to the Microsoft Outlook
> Web Access component and related ActiveX control (from 2000), that
> brought more dynamic Web experience, bringing technologies
> like AJAX or Comet on board. Interesting technology, sometimes very useful,
> with some issues (i.e. accessibility etc.).
>
> 2) model of distribution of copyrighted works - where original authors
> licence their works for free to some Internet-based aggregation
> service, that in turn redistributes them to a wider public.
> Most of the aggregators generate advertising (or similar) revenue
> riding for free on the material provided by the contributors (notable
> exception: Wikipedia).
>
> I will focus on the latter. In my opinion, "ease of participation"
> is not everything - the real question is what's the model behind
> the participation.
>
> We need to ask ourselves how do we (as the Internet Society) want
> to position ourselves against the new developments. If we want to
> stay ahead and re-acquire the leading edge (something IMHO we don't
> have), we should explore new directions and follow-ups on the
> existing technology.
>
> For example, we could possibly be investing in the creative use of
> the federation technology, that - in my opinion - fits the original
> Internet model better than Facebook or Twitter, both being huge
> single points of failure.
>
> Still somehow HTML 2.0 guy when asked:
>
> -- Marcin Cieślak
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20100228/0bd11dd3/attachment.htm>