[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [wsia] Re: Economics Conference Example
Hi Rex,
Thanks for resending your request. I apologize that it escaped my
attention on the first round.
The story I told was real. I'll give you the particulars as I recall them
followed by a generic scenario and some beginning thoughts on functional
requirements.
An economist from Dept. of Treasury told me about her experience at the
GATT conference in Switzerland (about '93-94). Every evening the US
representatives spent their time trying to compare/compile notes on what
was said. There was no time to think/analyze/brainstorm - after that -
just sleep to begin again the next day. She imagined how even more
frustrating it would be for non-native English speakers - and how mistrust
could fester in the meandering swatches of uncertain, but rushed meanings.
I suggested that they employ the real-time captioning approach used to
accommodate people with hearing loss. The English text would appear in real
time on a screen behind the speaker. Everyone would leave the room with a
transcript - so the evening could be spent doing the critical thinking.
I have no idea what is in place today. I just searched on GATT - not even
realizing the connection to World Trade Organization (its institutional
successor).
I just reviewed the final declarations from the Nov. 2001 WTO conference in
Qatar - then I read statements from various country representatives.
There is an extraordinary gulf between these two sets of text - the country
representatives' carefully composed and advanced preparation statements are
worlds away from the final, collectively agreed upon declaration -which
sounds bland, technically abstract and flat. Here I really don't know
enough to suggest how to make changes, but -- its obvious the organization
could benefit from improved communications. After Seattle, the stakes are
high.
Possible Scenario -
It would be neat if during plenary/working sessions - the WTO
representatives could respond with several coded inputs (human markup
language tags) in real time to the speaker - indicating a continuum of
responses - ranging from "I agree heartily, and I have a suggestion for
making this happen" to "You have no idea what adverse impact would result
from this suggestion. - Even simple color coding might work, anything that
would increase awareness of significant difference and accordance in a
manner that levels and advances fairness in the process of participation.
When electronic transcripts were distributed at the end of a session - they
could actually be hyperdocuments (per Doug Engelbart - www.bootstrap.org)
making it very easy to find the "critical points of departure" - encoded by
all 140 participants equally throughout a presentation - This could
indicate to all participants in a transparent manner - where confusion
reigns, harmony exists, or raging disagreement/misinterpretation is clearly
evident. Perhaps an ethnologist or someone who studies the pragmatics of
language/communications would have some suggestions for coding a real time
audience feedback system. Clearly there is an urgency at the WTO level
that you could argue for in a research proposal, while actually focusing on
a simpler, close to home testbed application to fine tune improvements.
Below are a few sites I found just now with snippets of background on GATT,
WTO and the recent conference in Qatar. I'd suggest you look at this site
and compare the (limp) formal resolution language of the body with the
(spirited) ideas and concerns expressed by the 140+ country
representatives. It reads like talented jazz musicians trying to be
energized by each others' differences, but failing because the
notational/comprehension/trust/social capital gulf is too vast.
I didn't know if you wanted me to send this to those you cc'd on your
request. My apologies to these listserv members if I'm erring on the side
of inclusiveness. Let me know.
Rex, I would also suggest you track the http://www.itrd.gov site for
possible research opportunities in this and related areas.
In another vein, the proceedings of proposed US Federal regulations will
become available on a Federal portal soon - www.firstgov.gov. How could
the humanmark-up tags help people to make this 2-D representation of how we
order our relationships with one another simpler and easier to understand
both during development and implementation of regulations.
Also, our next workshop on Feb. 19 will focus on natural language
interfaces being piloted to improve government service delivery. We'll
have presentations from people at Stanford and EPA. I'll forward the
agenda soon. You're invited.
Regards,
Susan
Susan B. Turnbull
Senior Program Advisor
Next Generation Strategies
Office of Governmentwide Policy
US General Services Administration
p 202.501.6214
f 202.219.1533
susan.turnbull@gsa.gov
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/gatt/toc.htm
http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/wto.html
http://www.itds.treas.gov/WTO_dispute.htm
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995 in the
final round (Uruguay Round) of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) negotiations. The WTO is not a simple extension
of GATT, but a complete replacement of it with a different
character. The WTO embodies the negotiated results of the Uruguay
Round and is the successor to GATT. The WTO is responsible for
enforcing the GATT agreements, which are designed to reduce
barriers to world trade. During the trade negotiations global
rules for international trade were improved and extended to most
trading nations on an equivalent basis and responsibility for
enforcing these rules was entrusted to the newly created WTO.
Additionally, the WTO provides procedures for negotiating
additional reductions of trade barriers and for the prompt and
effective settlement of disputes in all policy areas covered by
the new world trade agreement. The Uruguay Round established
dispute settlement procedures for the WTO. This was called the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (DSU).
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.ht
m (snippet from the Qatar conference is below)
10. Recognizing the challenges posed by an expanding WTO
membership, we confirm our collective responsibility to ensure
internal transparency and the effective participation of all
members. While emphasizing the intergovernmental character of the
organization, we are committed to making the WTO's operations
more transparent, including through more effective and prompt
dissemination of information, and to improve dialogue with the
public. We shall therefore at the national and multilateral
levels continue to promote a better public understanding of the
WTO and to communicate the benefits of a liberal, rules-based
multilateral trading system.
snippets from representatives from Burkina Faso and India are
below:
BURKINA FASO
Statement by H.E. Mr Bédouma Alain Yoda
Minister of Trade, Business Promotion and Handicrafts
Globalization places a mark on the history of mankind and our peoples have
now been drawn together thanks to the new communication and information
technologies. Extreme wealth and extreme poverty exist side by side and
still watch each other every day on television screens in a world in which
image and information know no frontiers. We must therefore take the full
measure of this reality and these continuing imbalances, for although the
growing integration of the global economy has been the overall engine of
mutual enrichment, a large sector of the population is nevertheless still
excluded from the benefits of this new-found prosperity and the progress
achieved.
INDIA
Statement by the Honourable Murasoli Maran
Minister of Commerce and Industry
1. I am constrained to point out that the draft Ministerial Declaration
is neither fair nor just to the view points of many developing countries
including my own on certain key issues. It is negation of all that was
said by a significant number of developing countries and least-developing
countries. We cannot escape the conclusion that it accommodates some view
points while ignoring "others". The forwarding letter most surprisingly
and shockingly also does not dwell on the substantive differences and
focuses more on what are individual assessments. Even after these were
reiterated in the strongest possible terms in the General Council on 31
October and 1 November, we recognize that there is a refusal to reflect
these points in a substantive manner even in the forwarding letter. The
only conclusion that could be drawn is that the developing countries have
little say in the agenda setting of the WTO. It appears that the whole
process was a mere formality and we are being coerced against our will.
Is it not then meaningless for the draft declaration to claim that the
needs and interests of the developing countries have been placed at the
heart of the Work Programme?
After the setback at Seattle, all of us want Doha to be a success.
Success, however, does not necessarily require over-reaching objectives or
launch of a "comprehensive" round. Also the global unity achieved in the
wake of the most unfortunate and tragic event of September 11 should not
be undermined by proposing an agenda, which would split the WTO
membership. Rather than charting a divisive course in unknown waters, let
this Conference provide a strong impetus to the on-going negotiations on
agriculture and services, and the various mandated reviews that by
themselves form a substantial work programme and have explicit consensus.
Who is well represented?
Kristin Dawkins, director of research for the Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy, a Minneapolis nonprofit research and education
organization that safeguards the interests of family farmers, charges that
the deliberations leading to GATT involved little input from professionals
with expertise in public health or environmental sciences, while the
negotiators included what Dawkins calls "a lot of revolving-door types"
whose careers zigzag from corporations to government agencies to law firms
representing both. "Commercial interests predominated throughout the
proceedings and GATT's final text reflects their views," agreed the Sierra
Club's Goldman.
Dispute Resolution
Environmentalists fear that GATT dispute-resolution panelists, drawn from
the international trade profession, will automatically promote freedom of
the marketplace over human health and environmental concerns. They argue
that the Uruguay Round's fundamental principle might be stated, "First, do
not restrict international trade." In matters ranging from inspecting
cattle to banning the importation of chewing tobacco, nations are required
to do what interferes least with the international flow of goods and
services.
It's true that WTO dispute-resolution panels traditionally met quietly and
kept no transcripts. The clandestine style evolved into official
procedures as stated in the Uruguay Round. Deliberations are confidential;
the views expressed by panelists are anonymous, although a country may, if
it wishes, make its own submission public. No public hearings are held, no
outsiders participate, and no provision exists for consumers or concerned
organizations to submit information, technical comments, or dissenting
views. Only the countries involved in the dispute are represented.
Critics of GATT want the decision-making process democritized, opened up,
and made less elitist. The United States, in fact, argued strongly for
exactly these changes in GATT negotiations, says William Jordan of the
Office of Pesticides at the EPA, one of many EPA staffers who assisted
U.S. negotiators. "We didn't get everything we wanted, but the panel
decisions and explanations, like decisions of a court, are a matter of
record. Under GATT, a dispute is between countries, not individuals or
corporations. Each country decides the level of access it wants to
provide. In the U.S., we regularly consult with people other than trade
experts, and involve citizens and advocacy groups. "
Jordan likens the GATT process to that of a courtroom, with countries,
rather than individuals, filing positions or briefs. If it seems
exclusionary, he notes, it is because Americans are used to greater
openness than is traditional elsewhere. The EPA, he notes, regularly
involves interest groups and consumers in developing its positions on
trade issues. "We've never suffered from a lack of public input, but it's
probably fair to say we might do more to make the process more open."
Congress could lay out procedures to be followed by regulatory agencies in
GATT-related matters, and these might include provisions for public
hearings.
"Rex Brooks" To: susan.turnbull@gsa.gov
<rexb@starbou cc: wscm@lists.oasis-open.org, wscm-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
rne.com> humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org,
humanmarkup-comments@lists.oasis-open.org
01/21/2002 Subject: Economics Confererence Example
08:18 AM
Greetings Susan,
This is a gentle reminder about the request I sent you Dec. 20, 2001,
just before the holidays. In it I said that I wanted to revisit the
example of the Economics Conference you cited in the Oct. 17
Universal Access workshop to which Ranjeeth spoke and I attended by
teleconference. In that example, you said that in the economics
conference you attended much time was spent on translations that
could or should have been spent on the actual intended work of the
conference and its attendees.
This is a specific example of a potential applications area where
HumanML needs to ensure that it can be useful. So, in line with our
decision to solicit information on the requirements of the
application areas which we wish to serve, I am asking you to consider
penning a short description of this example which we could cite as a
use-case where HumanML could serve to improve the performance of such
work. A more detailed description might be useful for our actual
specification, but that is further along the road than we can focus
now.
If you could do this we would be very grateful, and if you could give
some thought to what requirements you see that we need to meet in
order to help build the applications to improve this kind of
performance, it would help us greatly in our forthcoming work. I
would like to make a similar request, without the specific use-case,
of course, of any other government agency or government-related
recording, reporting or information processing organizations for
which you can recommend a person to whom I can write.
I believe it is very important for our effort to be grounded by such
practical, pragmatic, reality-based examples for which we can provide
specific remedies. Work so grounded stands a much better chance for
being adopted, don't you think?
Also, in the time since I last wrote to you, I have joined the newly
formed OASIS Web Services for Interactive Applications Technical
Committee, (WSIA TC), specifically as a liaison to and with the
HumanMarkup TC. Since that TC is also gathering requirements and
using business scenarios as the first step in formally developing
those requirements, I think it is appropriate for this new TC to
consider Institutional scenarios as well as business scenarios
because Web Services will be employed by governmental, military and
educational organizations or entities as well as commercial ones.
In fact, I will be writing shortly to Susan Swearingen, of the DoD,
Air Force Communications Agency, who is also serving on the WSIA TC,
and it occurs to me that this would be an opportunity to combine
interests in a common example that can be used by all parties.
Thanks very much and I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Rex Brooks
OASIS Humanmarkup TC Vice Chair, Secretary, Webmaster
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC