[discuss] A plea to refocus our efforts

Wed Mar 26 11:42:41 UTC 2014

+1 to all of Greg's comments below.

rgds,

McTim

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Shatan, Gregory S.
<GShatan at reedsmith.com> wrote:
> George:
>
>
>
> I thank you for this and agree wholeheartedly with both your observations
> and your "List Etiquette and Expectations."  Three quick responses:
>
>
>
> 1.  As others have already said, I am going to govern myself by these rules.
>
>
>
> 2.  I would encourage the /1net steering committee to (a) formally adopt
> these rules and (b) appoint on or more moderators for some light moderation
> so that we don't all have to play policeman or suffer in silence.
>
>
>
> 3.  I would add one more piece of etiquette: Don't cross-post, except to
> provide some basic information that needs to be disseminated widely (e.g.,
> NTIA announcement or Marca Civil), and even this should be avoided.  Don't
> cross-post opinions or anything that would require a response.  Don't
> cross-post replies.
>
>
>
> I do hope we can focus and make the most of this list, which is (or can be)
> a great and unique resource for working through some very real problems.
> There is a great deal at stake in the real world, and being lured down blind
> alleys won't be useful to anyone.
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
>
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
> Of George Sadowsky
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:20 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org List
> Subject: [discuss] A plea to refocus our efforts
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> * * *
>
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may
> well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on
> notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
> delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for
> any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for
> your cooperation.
>
> * * *
>
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended
> or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local
> provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> tax-related matters addressed herein.
>
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss