<div dir="ltr"><div><div>BTW, instead of one individual asserting what he or she will or won't allow the Caucus to do, why don't we put forward the contentious statement (some version of it, whatever) for a consensus call (or some other relevant procedure of the kind) as to whether it is worth pursuing --as I believe parminder suggested? To that end, the initiators should clearly remind us of the main purpose and both should feature in the call. If that gets defeated then the Caucus drops it and move forward.<br>
<br></div>My 2 cents.<br></div>mawaki<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mawaki Chango <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>+1<br></div><br>I am far from being among the least fortunate among my fellow Africans and other people from the developing world. Yet, I am right now sitting in a cybercafe somewhere in West Africa, and this is my first internet session since my last post to IGC list yesterday -- because I don't have the luxury of a high speed internet connection at home or wherever I stay in this city -- and I have already spent 1 hour mostly reading this list posts (and not all of them). <br>
<br></div>Under conditions like those and conditions like these, you say you want people around the world, for most of whom English is a foreign language --at least for those few who can read and write it -- to participate in these processes? You better get out of your bubble, folks!<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Mawaki<br></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrea Glorioso <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it" target="_blank">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear Milton, dear all,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I am not entirely clear whether it is appropriate for me to enter in this debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of the Internet Governance Caucus but I simply read / try to participate to the discussions taking place on this list. So, if this message is not appropriate, please disregard it. <br>
<br>For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing a personal position here.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I read with great interest the exchanges on the notion of "public good", "commons" etc. Milton's substantive arguments are in my view rather correct, as it often (but not always :) happens, at least to the extent that they warn against under-emphasising the importance of private-sector initiative and consumers' choices in the past, current and future development of the Internet. <br>
<br>However, I do find the way in which such arguments have been expressed rather troubling. To focus on one single example: it might well depend on cultural sensitivities (which are a reality in a global environment and although they should not result in self-censorship, they should at least produce more self-awareness) but I do find a sentence such as "be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent [the statement being discussed] as a civil society position" rather threatening.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this or that? Having the fortune to know you a little bit, I can imagine you refer to a (very :) vigorous use of your right to freedom of expression (which, by the way, is not an unbounded right). However, others who don't know you might interpret the sentence rather differently. In Italy (or at least, among the Italians I grew up with) telling someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that does carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe people in other parts of the world might also have similar interpretations of this kind of expression.<br>
<br>(I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point).<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are trying to suppress discussion, at least for a definition of "discussion" which might not be Milton's or others' preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps that of several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep tones as polite as possible. <br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I <u>very deeply </u>respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways to express yourself.<br>
<br>Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be important (and you, Milton, as well as others, <u>are</u> important as part of the "intellectual avant-garde" of Internet governance discussions) but it's also important to be nice.<br>
<br>Ciao,<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Andrea<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Dear colleagues:<br>
I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator in action.<br>
<br>
In the message below, my substantive comments on a debate, and a proposal to stop working on a proposed statement that is going nowhere, are characterized as an attempt to "bully IGC" and as a "threat".<br>
<br>
But they are obviously nothing of the kind. I am arguing that the proposed statement does not address a well-defined problem, I am calling attention to the rather obvious fact that there is no consensus on the principles or definitions being debate, and I am suggesting that the whole endeavor is not worthwhile. My arguments were not insulting or ad hominem but quite substantive.<br>
<br>
Whether or not the caucus makes a statement is fair game for debate; the fact that the coordinator is an advocate of the proposed statement seems to have biased his judgment.<br>
<br>
This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to protest this arbitrary and biased action.<br>
<br>
--MM<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>]<br>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:00 AM<br>
> To: Milton L Mueller<br>
> Cc: IGC Coordinators<br>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good<br>
><br>
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]<br>
><br>
> Hi Milton<br>
><br>
> This posting contains an attempt to bully IGC into not even trying to<br>
> work towards consensus or rough consensus on this matter; such bullying<br>
> is most uncalled for.<br>
><br>
> Like personal attacks, also threats of any kind are absolutely<br>
> unwarranted und unacceptable on IGC mailing lists. (Your sentence that<br>
> starts with “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement,<br>
> and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to...” is an<br>
> example of a threat.)<br>
><br>
> Please make sure from now on that your postings conform to the posting<br>
> rules.<br>
><br>
> (This is a private warning in the sense of the process described in the<br>
> Charter.)<br>
><br>
> Greetings,<br>
> Norbert<br>
><br>
><br>
> Am Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:29:29 +0000<br>
> schrieb Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>>:<br>
><br>
> > Izumi's comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is<br>
> > misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously<br>
> > nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one<br>
> > faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest<br>
> > of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values.<br>
> ><br>
> > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There<br>
> > is a vague reference to "the growing danger for the Internet<br>
> > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces." I<br>
> > challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it's just false. I see<br>
> > no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide<br>
> > evidence of a "growing" trend, and show how it constitutes something<br>
> > systemic and something that end users really don't want.<br>
> ><br>
> > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend<br>
> > toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But<br>
> > somehow, we don't seem interested in addressing that. There is a<br>
> > growing danger of securitization. We don't address that. By the way,<br>
> > how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of<br>
> > privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the<br>
> > information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I<br>
> > share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment's thought.<br>
> ><br>
> > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize "public good" concepts<br>
> > over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the<br>
> > concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the<br>
> > internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many<br>
> > features of it are private goods and that much of the value we<br>
> > associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to<br>
> > create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any<br>
> > statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate<br>
> > and unlikely to get widespread support.<br>
> ><br>
> > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be<br>
> > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it<br>
> > as a civil society position.<br>
> ><br>
> > --MM<br>
><br>
<span><font color="#888888">><br>
> --<br>
> Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC:<br>
> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person<br>
> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept<br>
</font></span><br></div></div><div>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><span><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>--<br>I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.<br>Twitter: @andreaglorioso<br>
Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso</a><br>
LinkedIn: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro</a>
</font></span></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>