<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Exchange Server"><!-- converted from rtf -->
<STYLE><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Thanks very much, George! This post is the only one I’ve read from the
beginning to the end on this list since several weeks.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">It supports
my little hope that improvement of the signal to noise ratio may be possible
with regards to the tasks the community is faced.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">I’m
convinced that an acceptance of structural lines of how to lead the discussions
on the list is essential prior to start running. This was missing when 1net was
put in place. Without having a certain kind of structure it will end up again in
chaos and frustration.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">In addition
– and this I don’t know how to achieve – a kind of (self)control of these
structural guidelines is needed in case deviation from the accepted principles
seems leading to points not related to the issues to be solved.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">We should
also discuss to what extent ICANN as the “administrative” or “coordinating” arm
of the community could be of support.<BR><BR>Best regards<BR><BR>Wolf-Ulrich
Knoben<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=george.sadowsky@gmail.com
href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">George Sadowsky</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:19 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=discuss@1net.org
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">mailto:discuss@1net.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [discuss] A plea to refocus our efforts</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'><FONT
size=2 face=Calibri><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">All,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have real concern regarding the future of this list. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- some detailed description of some historical periods in Internet
technology</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- significant theoretical discussion of issues in political science</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- a schism between people who want to live with the current Internet and
others who argue for a very different approach</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- 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 </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- a great deal of negative feeling (both subtle and overt) directed at some
people who post</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- ad hominem, disdainful, impolite and destructive attacks with no stated
basis of fact</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- substantial ignorance of the Internet coupled with a lack of willingness
to learn from other posts</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This list has promise, and Internet governance needs help. At
present, we are wasting the opportunity that this list offers.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That’s the potential value of this list. Let’s exploit it. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>LIST ETIQUETTE AND EXPECTATIONS</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Based upon experience so far with this list, I’d like to suggest some
possible guidelines for list use.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3. Everyone on this list has a right to be heard, by posting on this
list.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>6. Subject lines should clearly reflect the subject of the post. When posts
diverge, the subject line should be changed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>CONCLUSION</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank you for reading this post. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>George Sadowsky </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></SPAN></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>discuss mailing
list<BR>discuss@1net.org<BR>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>