[discuss] A plea to refocus our efforts
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Wed Mar 26 10:11:45 UTC 2014
A good idea that we can all abide by immediately in our individual
capacities, but perhaps we should also ask the steering committee to adopt?
We (Adiel? sorry that collective action results in singular work, and
thank you for it...) may also wish to send a mailing to subscribers to
the list who may have moved Discuss into a filter that there is am
emerging focus which may be reason for them to give it another go?
On 3/26/2014 2:04 AM, Stephanie Perrin 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
> <mailto: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.
>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 12:24 PM, "George Sadowsky"
>> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> - 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
>>> 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.
>>> 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 <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss