<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">George,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Eliot<br>
<br>
On 3/26/14, 5:19 AM, George Sadowsky wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:595CED46-21DD-4057-8078-C075F05747DD@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
<font face="Calibri" size="2"><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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>