RSS

March 10, 2009

Christine Otsver, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Silver Contributor (53)

A suggestion:

I would be nice to have some professional-looking photographs of contributors. Having a professional photos of AC's members would stylistically improve an overall look of the website and Community's internet image. :)

March 10, 2009

Lawrence Efana

The Atlantic Community Organization definitely stands a chance to benefit from technological breakthroughs realized in practice via the internet revolution. While therefore you have many people working on the plan, it is particularly gratifying to recall Dr. Stefanie Babst and the call she also made: to capture opportunity so-offered to refine and promote NATO, looking onto "PUBLIC DIPLOMACY" as "a relatively new-era" approach to its (vital) missions.

Different steps have been taken and are still being taken to involve the public: which is a part of the efforts seen behind the various "opinion polls". The one above is one such, but I am still curious about how overall results of the polls are being coordinated within overall streams of the purpose. Are we seeing: (a) overlaps, (b) concepts/motives to further define hence focus respondents on criteria of relevant answers, and or (c) much of jumping from one thing to the other?

The components of this question are meant to serve: (i) clearer focuses, (ii) notion of good aggregates - (iii) supportive eventually of logic of delineating hence picking relevant issues to lift to the center at a time.

Transatlantic issues and debates should avoid becoming chaotic - internet planners on, especially NATO-related discourses would benefit from, and so help organize approach to involvement of the public on ensuing debates. An approach of this kind, if doesn't assume too much, could itself fortify efforts of the planners and internet users, some of whom are cleaver and can negatively "abort" some best-meant positive efforts. A good organizational approach is therefore a base for a strong security, to begin with!

Excuse me therefore, if I must say that this set of "editorial team?" questions confuse me: "idea of which sections .... are of interest"! Aren't there other missing points and senses in addition to absence of definitions of the scope/limit of each theme in question? I hope that I have not misunderstood it all, partly due to my poor knowledge of the sample structure and size aimed at with the survey, on which the 10 themes and expressions relate. Given this: a 'benefit' of doubt on my part, my opinion is as follows: (1) Best think tanks, (2) Top press commentary, and (3) Community functions], are well among what are of the most interest ....!

At the same time, I find it quite possible and reasonable to slot into (1): [your] research and probably too Atlantic events/memos; into (2): [[your] opinion; and into (3) jobs/internships, call for papers and probably too "Atlantic faces. [You must assume to choose to do this!]

It is an aggregating process perhaps offering the needed inclusive structure to narrow down in more or less useful a way. Otherwise, isn't one confronted with the challenge of either implicit or explicit talk of modes of relationship, likely to make-for: either lumping and or ranking - a situation which could have been eased if definitions and/or explanations had been added, preemptive that respondents might be left in doubt - to guess too much!. The idea of transatlantic organization with NATO at the center is so important, that all details necessary have to be streamlined, especially if idea of the new public diplomacy is to be successful, parallel to increasing use of the INTERNET to reach the ("sleeping") public[s].

March 10, 2009

David Neil Lebhar, Atlantic Community, Gold Contributor (134)

Dear Lawence Efana,

Thanks for your comment. I was wondering if you could clarify a couple of your points for me.

You say: "Transatlantic issues and debates should avoid becoming chaotic [...] and so help organize approach to involvement of the public on ensuing debates."
-- How do you think Atlantic Community (and our website) could avoid this "chaos" and better involve the public?

Also: "It is an aggregating process perhaps offering the needed inclusive structure to narrow down..."
-- What elements of aggregation to you consider important. For instance, news aggregation (as in Top Press Commentary) or think tank research aggregation (as in Best of Think Tanks). Or something else?

And: "all details necessary have to be streamlined, especially if idea of the new public diplomacy is to be successful."
-- What would "streamlining" look like for Atlantic Community?

Thanks!

March 10, 2009

David Neil Lebhar, Atlantic Community, Gold Contributor (134)

To clarify the questions in our poll: Each "section" corresponds to a section on the website. Many of these sections are featured on the home page (start page) and also have their own pages.
For instance:
-- Your Opinion (featured in center column at the top)
-- Atlantic Memos (featured in center column at the very bottom)
-- Top Press Commentary (featured in the left column at the top)
-- Community Functions (featured in the right column at the top)
-- etc.

Hope that helps!

March 11, 2009

Lawrence Efana

David nice to be in touch with you. I think your second explanation helps. Thanks.

However, about issues in the first: a) ... avoiding chaotic debates and reaching out more as well as involving the public via internet; b) news/top commentary/think tank aggregation; and c) what streamlining would, for example, imply], much might depend on the structure of your editorial board.

I signed in as member of the community and because of that I am grateful to take part where necessary as you perhaps observe from a few of my comments here and there. Naturally that does not mean that I know enough about the other things - more or less concrete for the real planning processes pursued in order to effectively adapt all the interrelated issues of NATO: a defense collaboration organization] to the internet and onward to a greater public. Obviously your editorial team is better seated.

With due regard, points a, b, c, above stimulate ideas for and beyond planning internet uses. Many opinion surveys have been made and will still be made, depending among others, on the nature of current affairs challenges for the community. Some surveys will therefore be the "updating" type - less basic by definition! Ad-hoc planning, news and top commentaries are more likely to benefit thus. My opinion is "think tank" challenges lie beyond.

Each of the phases of which many might not be stated here, generates research/analysis interests and debates. Through different news dissemination models, framed as internet outreach strategy, eyes have to be on the likelihood of chaos: curb that by organizing tight, parallel to effective efforts ahead of issue-aggregation.

That is, develop "cluster-like" - or group key issues of the moment, while not loosing sight of the sequence. I must say, this appeared to have been the style until this last survey. One might suspect aggregation steps signal control hence anti-freedom of opinion and writing. Far from it so if at all, the purpose should be to develop the culture of organized rather than chaotic debates and contributions, fully cognizant of democratic values. Internet planners and the community would benefit in this way. In this same careful and suggestive frame, it is possible to fit in the streamlining - this time as a process. In the back of my head here is a thought about the need for reasonable senses of connections - not directly a logic] which internet users have to see in the presentation of multiple transatlantic community issues to them possibly for responses - a case of the internet organizing the 'stimuli' released for "expected" objectives; for example, in the sphere of "public diplomacy" acts/expectations.

Frankly, therefore some of the comments come across sound too childish even if we also might see the whole thing as a training ground, in which all including technocrats and professionals interact by way of contributions. Aggregating and streamlining themes could act as a resource, so hopefully internet planners for the community - by way of the editorial board might benefit delving into this 'junk' of ideas. What is in mind is more than just the categorization of themes defined as 'subheadings', in which I think David nicely referred to while helping me appreciate better the website sections organization. If I am in any sense wrong on some of the views please excuse, but note that I am at your service, sharing the view that NATO is significant for world peace.