[discuss] A plea to refocus our efforts

[Eliot Lear]

George,

Thank you again for helping us stay on a productive path.  As may have
become all too obvious, I fully support the approach you have stated below.

Eliot

On 3/26/14, 5:19 AM, George Sadowsky 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140328/7b378cfa/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140328/7b378cfa/signature-0001.asc>