Possibly a few of you were part of the ‘Polis’ conversation we ran at the last Global Congress in September 2018. Polis is a participated-directed survey tool that we’ve been using to hold large-scale conversations. In this case, the conversation brought together 335 past and present Global Congress participants into conversation over over two weeks.
Here, finally, is a write up of the results. And with the strong caveat that participation was not randomized, they’re pretty interesting.
We reached out to over 1000 Global Congress alum and current attendees. Some 335 participated over two weeks. The results are not based on and do not have the statistical power of a random sample. Nonetheless, they’re individually and collectively a pretty interesting portrait of the community.
Among the major takeaways: Polis does some some clustering of voting to identify major tendencies within the participating group. In this case, the results suggest that there is both a larger ‘strong IP’ contingent in the community and a more distinctive ‘US law school copyright reformer’ perspective than I would have guessed. Both are differentiated from a larger group of–let’s provisionally call them–‘global IP skeptics’.
There results also contain snapshots of community opinion across a wide range of issues:
http://www.civic-assembly.org/the-5th-global-congress-polis/
Among the major results: there is both a larger ‘strong IP’ contingent in the community than I would have guessed and a more distinctive ‘US law school copyright reformer’ perspective. There are also a bunch of snapshots of the community across a wide range of issues like these:
(Green=Agree, Red=Disagree, Grey=Pass, White=Did not vote)
For those of you who have been part of or who have an interest in the contours of the IP ‘public interest’ community, the full results are worth a look.
