[discuss] A plea to refocus our efforts

Wed Mar 26 07:56:51 UTC 2014

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 26 Mar 2014 15:36, "Pindar Wong" <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I affirm and commit to your proto-guidelines until such time as they are
superseded by something from the Steering Cmte,

+1 I think however that the steering committee should formerly implement
this. So that appropriate moderation can be implemented when necessary.

Cheers!
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140326/49be0c97/attachment.html>