byte.org
19962013
Random Bytes, 2003–2009

ICANN on RSS and Syndication<sup>1</sup>

in Code

GNSO Whois Task Force Chair: "...when making a post to a blog (which may get republished elsewhere),
can you please make sure that people know it is your opinion..."
I wonder if this is Jeff's personal opinion or the official position of the Task Force. Maybe Neustar's policy position.
Policy nonsense nothwithstanding, there are some interesting syndication related issues here. Although I've never publicly stated this, I wouldn't be too impressed if someone started editing my content post-syndication for re-publication elsewhere. I don't mind the republication, but modifying my words to state something else (even if it is consistent with my position) is just uncool. Just because what I post is easily accessible doesn't mean that what I post is in the public domain.
1BTW - the headline is a wisecrack...don't take it seriously. ICANN has no position on RSS.

See this post as it first appeared on Blogware.

4 comments

Comments are closed - these are kept exactly as they were left.

  1. (name not saved), December 27, 2003

    Wouldn't a Creative Commons license clarify this? For example, you can set your use to allow no modifications.
    By the way, you can also create a handy CC module in blogware, as I've done on my weblog.
    -- Bret

  2. (name not saved), December 28, 2003

    Off topic
    you need new "Recent Photos" dude.

  3. (name not saved), December 29, 2003

    FYI. That was my own personal opinion. After that article was posted, I got a couple of e-mails as the Chair of Task Force, both from members of the Task Force and Non-members asking how it was that we came to a conclusion so fast and that we were not doing our job (which is to collect information). The Task Force was accused of having an agenda and that there was no way the work could be done in an objective manner.
    I sent the e-mail out for people to be careful when making posts. Again, blogs are valuable, but we also need some sort of balance without unnecessary distractions. We want to get the work done, solicit opinions, but not prejudge the results.
    That was my only personal objective.
    Jeff

  4. (name not saved), December 30, 2003

    As an occasional author and publisher, I'd have to say, I agree with Ross here:
    "I wouldn't be too impressed if someone started editing my content post-syndication for re-publication elsewhere. I don't mind the republication, but modifying my words to state something else (even if it is consistent with my position) is just uncool. Just because what I post is easily accessible doesn't mean that what I post is in the public domain."
    Weblogs and Collaborative Open Publications (COPubs -> think weblogs plugged into amplifiers) are quietly shaking the traditional news-publishing world -- partly because they are delivering first-hand non-manufactured news/opinions/information directly from source to readers and vice versa. Modifying the words of the author in this process would be like serving diet pop with sugar. Since discussions on the issue of modifying content appear to have been initiated from Wendy's post, I should also point out that CircleID firmly holds this standard regarding modifying content (even grammatical corrections) as I have clarified here and here. The issue expressed by Jeff is not (the way I'm reading it) about CircleID modifying what the author had intended to say but an overall suggestion to authors telling readers that words are their own opinion and not the opinion of the organization they belong to. And of course authors can freely choose to add this byline, be it on their own Weblog or CircleID.