[discuss] A plea to refocus our efforts

Wed Mar 26 07:36:33 UTC 2014

George,

Thank you for your important and timely post.

I affirm and commit to your proto-guidelines until such time as they are
superseded by something from the Steering Cmte, should I still be
subscribed.

p.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org>wrote:

> Very well said. I would note, as I have before, that /1net has had
> expected standards of behaviour posted on its website for months, yet
> there's been no reminders of this from SC members or anyone else nor any
> move to insist upon adhesion. That should change for all the good reasons
> George notes.
>
>
> On 26 Mar 2014, at 07:04, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> Excellent list guidelines which I shall take to heart.  Thanks for taking
> the time to try to fix this problem.  I for one, certainly need to hear
> people's views on Internet Governance, preferably prior to the Sao Paulo
> meeting.
> Kind regards,
> Stephanie Perrin
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:47 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>
> George -
>
>    An excellent post - in keeping with the terminology suggested,
>    I agree with the problem you've identified, as well as agreeing
>    with your proposed solution.
>
>    Personally, I see no reason not to follow your proposed list
>    guidelines starting now, and I shall do so.   I also would suggest
>    that the 1net steering committee take the guidelines under
>    consideration and adopt them (or something similar)  promptly
>    if they wish to maintain usability of the 1net forum.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 12:24 PM, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I have real concern regarding the future of this list.
>
> There have now been more than 2,000 posts to the list.  I'm sure that they
> have been useful for a number of proposes, including edition for people who
> read the list, presentation of approaches to =Internet governance,
> clarification of views, definitions of problems, and approaches to solving
> them.
>
> Yet for all of its richness for time to time, the ratio of signal to noise
> on the list has been quite low, and there has not been (in my opinion) any
> significant movement to defining and solving problems in internet
> governance.  I have observed the following:
>
> - some detailed description of some historical periods in Internet
> technology
>
> - significant theoretical discussion of issues in political science
>
> - a schism between people who want to live with the current Internet and
> others who argue for a very different approach
>
> - substantial circular arguments regarding political systems that appear
> to have as the goal the comparison and potential resolution of two
> particular people's points of view
>
> - a great deal of negative feeling (both subtle and overt) directed at
> some people who post
>
> - ad hominem, disdainful, impolite and destructive attacks with no stated
> basis of fact
>
> - substantial ignorance of the Internet coupled with a lack of willingness
> to learn from other posts
>
> The combined effect of these issue has been to paralyze the list's ability
> from time to time to address real problems in Internet governance.  The
> negative behavior and the lack of serious postings have caused a
> significant number of people to unsubscribe, when they could have
> contributed to the various discussions.
>
> In short, we need to do better or this list will degenerate, much as
> similar lists have done in the past.   There seems to be a kind of
> Gresham's law (bad money drives out good money) operating here, where 'bad
> posts' drive out people who are interested in making 'good' posts.
>
> This list has promise, and Internet governance needs help.   At present,
> we are wasting the opportunity that this list offers.
>
> NTIA has asked ICANN to coordinate the search for a transfer of
> responsibility for the IANA functions away from the US Government to a new
> environment.  The search should involve a much larger community that just
> ICANN.  ICANN has said that the content of the 1net list will be a definite
> contribution to this search.  Therefore anyone with an Internet connection,
> regardless of time or place, can contribute to this conversation.
>
> That's the potential value of this list.  Let's exploit it.
>
> LIST  ETIQUETTE AND EXPECTATIONS
>
> Based upon experience so far with this list, I'd like to suggest some
> possible guidelines for list use.
>
> 1. The list has a purpose: it is an open, global online forum about
> Internet governance.  It encourages multiple stakeholder discussion
> regarding issues of Internet governance, with a view to finding solutions
> for the myriad of Internet governance issues that now exist.
>
> 2. Posts to the list should be consistent with the objective of the list.
> Ideally, most threads should start with an issue, and subsequent posts
> should move the thread toward a solution (whether a solution is ultimately
> reached or not).
>
> 3. Everyone on this list has a right to be heard, by posting on this list.
>
> 4. When posting on the list, it's important to be respectful of the
> opinions of others, and to be as constructive as possible when offering
> your opinions.
>
> 5. Successful posts use vocabulary that is simple and whose meaning is
> well-understood by readers of the list.  Successful posts are formatted
> with some care so that they are easily readable by others.
>
> 6. Subject lines should clearly reflect the subject of the post. When
> posts diverge, the subject line should be changed.
>
> 7. List readers have some obligation to review posts to the list, i.e. to
> listen, and to determine by themselves the value of the information posted.
>
> 8. List readers have the right to _not_ listen to or respond to repeated
> posts with common themes that have already been posted, perhaps many times.
>
> 9. If there are no responses to a post, posters should not assume that the
> material they have posted has been agreed to by readers.  People on the
> list generally have busy lives, and often will not respond to posts.
> Statements such as "no one on the list has refuted my statement yet" should
> not lead to the assumption that others agree with it.  It is equally likely
> that the post is judged to be incorrect or irrelevant. Readers have no
> obligation to correct erroneous material that has been posted to the list
> by others.
>
> 10. When there are clearly divergent views on a subject that appear to be
> irreconcilable, then little is accomplished by continuing the conversation.
> It may be better for those participants to continue their discussion on
> separate lists.  Sometimes It's useful to do an approximate cluster
> analysis of the participants and their positions in order to identify
> like-minded groups that may be better off continuing their various
> discussions separately.
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> I would very much like to see some constructive responses to this post.
> In the next day or so, I'll post an updated problem for possible
> discussion.  To the extent that it generates discussion, I very much hope
> that it will be constructive and offer ideas that have relevance for
> attacking current issues in Internet governance.
>
> Thank you for reading this post.
>
> George Sadowsky
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140326/30f67f3d/attachment-0001.html>