I do NOT want to get the Agenda modified now, since we need a stable version which is the one Andreas issued. Nevertheless I would bring in some points forward to our discussion, potentially also to be considered at the Geneva event?
1. General and to be discussed where to put or to enforce in the document
- going back in history on what we today call the knowledge society, we will find that most constitions of states in our age, starting with the constistuion of the US, but as well as e.g. of Germany, Austria, the German Federal States and, of course, many more republics, you can trace their preamble statements back to philosophical and science roots well formulated in the age of elicitation. I think we should pick up this history by making refference to these constitutions, since they also provide for legitimation of our endeavours.
- I would also suggest, that the document gives an indication that it aims to cover and to integrate the different "movements" in support of creating knowledge societies (and, associated, engaging in knowledge policies and knowledge economies). Many years ago I argued theat we need something like knowledge poltics and knowledge policies.
- As well I would suggest that the Agenda shall claim to convergently integrate knowledge econony / economics and management, education and ICT - usually treated seperately in their own (political) silos.
2. Specific changes / inputs suggested:
"Our vision", second paragraph: "complex knowledge ecosystems": In my 4th attachment I argue, that mastering complexity is a serious issue to be taken more profound. I mean, just to declare something to be complex is not helpful, we need to tell what we understand of complexitiy, because this is a subject of concenr for our community.
Goal 2: As an additional paragraph 2.3. I suggest to also argue on social inclusion.
Goal 3: E.g. adding by a praragraph 3.5: We aim at organising processes for exchanges between the global and the local levels.
Goal 5: Ad 5.1 As an example the (Knowledge) City of Vienna has been profiled in an article in THE ECONOMIST in Dec. 2016 as a knowledge ecosystem of the 20th century from which a series of new ideas, concepts and political agendi has been evolved, influencing mindsets and history. < This might not be a text to be introduced, but an excellent example how cultures being breeded in cities may spread over the globe! >
Goal 6: We should also include the role of private players such as important philantrophic foundations, as well as personalities, who take positive influence.
Goal 8: ad 8.3: I suggest to mention that any scientific publication (in general paid by the citizens as taxpayers) shall be open and accessible by any citizen.
Ad 8.4: We should mention that this motivates also for new economic models of a knowledge based economy.
Ad 10.2: Our aim must be to resolve contradictions and inconsistencies in law systems. They exit and often block future developments
Goal 12: Why explicitely differentiate North and Sout?We as well could make that point between East and West. We should find a better wording for the diffrences / decline between geographies.
Ad 12.2 "... of universities is multi- and transdisciplinary research..."
We should also say, that the pairing of knowledge production <> societal problem solving is one of the core concerns for us.
Ad 12.4 : UN three years ago proclaimed "Education for All". Shouldn't we refer to this slogan?
Goal 13: Ad 13.2 We should claim that technology is a tool / a means to achieve goals.
"Means for implementation ..."
3rd item: "Apply...". Call them "the agents"
5th item (and follwing): Strengthen ..." We should mention, that the "knowledge movement" induces new business models, i.e. contribute to the creation of new markets, however within the framework of a "new plural economy"
So far my hopefully constructive inputs.