<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 14 August 2013 03:19 PM,
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH8bNkA5kcNaTzZQBWT9aBPvJvzG_obTTipCbc_Wx1pUSw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Parminder,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You will excuse me, but I do not intend to engage in a long
exchange on this.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sorry Bertrand, I cant excuse you. You made a sweeping personal
accusation and I ask you to justify it with some instances. You will
have to do that. There is no escape or excusing. Ok, let me give you
another way. You can do this off-list to me with cocos cc-ed, or
include a wider group of all earlier co cos. But you cant get away
with making personal characterisations on the list and then not
justifying, what in default will be, your most objectionable
conduct. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH8bNkA5kcNaTzZQBWT9aBPvJvzG_obTTipCbc_Wx1pUSw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> I have said what I felt.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
:) . I can assure you Bertrand, if it comes to that, and I have to
say what I myself feel about some people who have been going around
expressing their feelings openly, it will be fully as I really
feel. The normal rule of public behaviour, especially on elists
like this, however, is that even if you get some negative feelings
about a person as such, beyond just his/ her arguments, dont bring
it out publicly. You know what happens; if one consistently doesnt
like the political view point of another, it can begin to tend
towards personal dislike as well. Just a psychological fact. Not a
good thing but that is how often it is. But one has to control
oneself in public and stick to discussing issues rather than people.
You (and some others) have broken that rule, and you must justify
it. You can disagree as violently with a viewpoint as you want, but
dont target the person. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH8bNkA5kcNaTzZQBWT9aBPvJvzG_obTTipCbc_Wx1pUSw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> I think it is time to move forward and not waste people's
time that could be devoted to something more useful. One can
survive with egos bruised.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can survive with bruised ego, but not with people having exercised
power over me... I have a gut reaction against bowing to power.
Maybe an activist's normal training. <i><b>For me this is a
political act.</b></i> Especially on this political field of
this elist. The manner in which some members here think that they
have superior rights than others to pass judgements, and others
should then simply move on....... It cant be accepted. It wont be.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH8bNkA5kcNaTzZQBWT9aBPvJvzG_obTTipCbc_Wx1pUSw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> It's a proof of moral strength and willingness to work for
the common good. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Your response below however seems to imply you have little
desire to help calm things down, let alone recognize when your
attitude may hurt others. If you are looking for a
confrontation, I regret it but will not be the sparring
partner you are looking for. Flame wars are not my cup of tea.
Besides, I am now on well deserved holidays and intend to
enjoy them. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We will have other opportunities to address this in person
in the coming months, if the grudge persists after a few
weeks. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For now, I wish you and the list a very happy month of
August and a good preparation of what awaits us in September.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best as always</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bertrand</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:49 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Bertrand,<br>
<br>
Pl see inline. <br>
<div class="im"> <br>
<div>On Friday 09 August 2013 06:46 PM, Bertrand de La
Chapelle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Parminder,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have stopped posting on this list for a quite
some time now for exactly the reasons that Avri
has mentioned. And as one of the people who were
at the origin of the creation of this very list
and caucus to empower civil society, I am
extremely saddened by the way it is currently
evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the
most recent exchange. You wrote: "<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><i>Ad
hominem is when one says something like "you
tend to twist people's words in order to score
political points</i>"".</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would like to differ. <span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"<i>You
tend to twist people's words in order to score
political points</i>" is NOT an ad hominem
attack (see Wikipedia) because it does not use
your behavior to weaken a specific argument of
yours. It is rather a judgement </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">about your
behavior, about whether you display (or not) the
necessary fairness in representing somebody
else's position. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">To
illustrate the point: </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">An ad
hominem attack, would be for instance: "This
person is usually lying, hence, when they
(really) say A, this must not be true".
However, </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">if someone
says A and another person says: "this person
said B and therefore this person is wrong and
should be condemned", this IS twisting people's
words. In this case, you are basically saying:
Anriette did not explicitly denounce something,
therefore she supports it. This is putting words
in somebody else's mouth. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">To be frank, I
understand the tactic of discarding as an ad
hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to
avoid having to respond to it or ask yourself
whether it is true. But it would be more
credible if you did not yourself frequently
attribute ulterior motives to other people's
comments just because of their alleged political
preferences, ties to certain types of actors
(for instance business), geographical origin,
lack of civil society purity, etc... </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">This behavior is
harming the civility of discourse on this list
and actually weakening its influence in the
global debate. </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">I
always respect your expressing positions, even
when I disagree with them and engage in debates
with you. </span><font face="arial, sans-serif">But
I resent your becoming one of the main sources
of ad hominem attack on this list. </font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
I have many things to say about your email, but for the
present, would you be so good as to provide instances to
substantiate your above sweeping statement(s). You have
made some serious allegations against a civil society
colleague with whom you have worked for around 8 years
now. I sincerely hope you would not shrink from standing
your ground on this, and not slip away.
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">There
are moments when one must call a spade a spade.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Quite true. In fact I am considering availing some such
moments presently. Although this current 'controversy'
really arose from an incident of calling a spade a spade,
however mildly - a spade that laid in full view of the
list members, in the text of emails exchanged on the list.
<br>
<br>
regards<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder</font></span>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">
I wish the co-coordinators of this list </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">had
called your attitude to accountability
earlier, for the sake of a sound debate.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">This
is below you. You have more to contribute. </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Respectfully
still.</span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">
Bertrand</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at
8:37 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri
Doria wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">On
31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">ad
hominem comment<br>
</blockquote>
(to misquote an old IETF adage -
comments made wearing asbestos -<br>
i tried to ignore this the first time
hoping it would just go away and we
could all get back to rational calm
conversations)<br>
<br>
an ad hominem attack would be an attack
that: because someone is a bully, their
views are illegitimate/irrelevant.<br>
It does not include the content of
calling a bully a bully.<br>
<br>
I am not sure I have ever heard an ad
hominem attack on this list.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Then you are not quite right in your
understanding of what is ad hominem.
Literally, attack against man, it occurs
when, in a discussion, someone attacks a
person's character or personal traits,
instead of, and with a view to undermine,
her/ his argument. You are making a
specious distinction above that does not
hold. In middle of a discussion, personal
attacks are almost always made - certainly
in conditions like of this list, where
people otherwise have little or no offline
relationship and thus no particular reason
for animosity - with a view to undermine
that person's argument.<br>
<br>
On the other hand there is indeed some
difference between just an allegation and an
ad hominem attack.<br>
<br>
Saying something like , to stick to present
case of Anriette's email to me, 'you are
twisting my words' is an allegation.
(Allegations themselves could become quite
serious, like you are deceiving, lying,
cheating etc, whereby they may be tending
towards ad hominem.)<br>
<br>
, Ad hominem is when one says something like
"you tend to twist people's words in order
to score political points". That is
attacking someone in terms of ones character
and personal traits, and as in this case,
obviously to distract from the argument made
- which in this case what that Anriette
seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the
Indonesian document, which I said was
problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to
say, which is just my view. Nothing personal
here.
<div> <br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">For
example a comment one might hear: X is a
terrible bully, but sometimes, if you
can get past the bullying, X makes a lot
of sense.<br>
Another comment one might hear: I think
I agree with what X is saying, but X is
such a bully I am afraid that if I put
my agreement in the wrong way I will get
beat up for it.<br>
<br>
One could also say, I agree with a lot
of what CX says, but X is just so mean.<br>
<br>
(I have versions of all of these about
certain unnamed IGC participants)<br>
<br>
Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks
against you, are among the greatest
defenders off-list of some of the
positions you represent.<br>
Many of us disagree with you but would
never dare say so on the list for fear
of starting a flame war.<br>
Many of the rest of us just try to
hunker down and wait for the storm to
pass.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on
one's character is made directly or rather
more subtly. Your above statements
themselves tends towards such an ad hominem
attack, and you have very often said such
things about me. And I claim you say it to
undermine my arguments rather than anything
else. However, I would give you an
opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope
you will take this challenge. Please point
out the precise language in the current
exchange over the last few days that you
find problematic in my emails, that is
something other than a critique of someone's
views, that I have a right to make, and
rather of the nature of a personal attack.
Please just give even one example. You may
even go back further to earlier emails,
becuase from the above it appears you are a
very good record keeping and retrieval
methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue
with the example/ instance you provide, I
wont even respond, I just want it to out
for everyone to see, rather that your be
subject to your insinuations.
<div> <br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Someone/everyone,
please stop the venom.<br>
It has rendered the IGC nearly
irrelevant.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
I have a different theory of what has
rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am ready to
enter a discussion about.
<div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">When
the IGC is discussed, pretty much the
main content is the outrageousness of a
few individuals.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Certainly, I do often express strong
feelings on some views - not people, never -
that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is
that there enough degree of difference in
views on this list that at times one side
and at other times the other side will feel
strongly about things.) But, never against
any person as such, unlike what I am almost
regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to
be given an instance to prove my statement
wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart
from Anriette's email, even your reference
above of not responding to me with the fear
of starting a flame war is such an attack,
although a somewhat lighter one, given the
normal standards.<br>
<br>
(Another thing - yes, I have a structural
critique of the role and positions of a good
part of civil society involved in IG space
- often dominant in its expression - and its
support for certain power structures, which
I do often voice, which I understand may not
go well with some people. But I always voice
it in a collective structural manner and
never directed at an individual, or even a
set f them. This is the view I have - and I
consider it very important in the current
global circumstances - and I cannot desist
from offering when the occasion so demands.)
<div> <br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">The
words of a few serving to delegitimize
the efforts of many.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many'
itself needs to examined.... That is always
the million dollar democratic question!<span><font
color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder</font></span>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">please
stop<br>
<br>
Note to coordinators. I would never
quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive
being kicked of the list would bring
great relief.<br>
I have heard others say similar
things.<br>
<br>
And now back to hunkering down hoping
the storm will pass.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on
the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle
<div>Internet & Jurisdiction Project
Director, International Diplomatic Academy (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net"
target="_blank">www.internetjurisdiction.net</a>)</div>
<div>Member, ICANN Board of Directors <br>
Tel : <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2011%2088%2033%2032"
value="+33611883332" target="_blank">+33
(0)6 11 88 33 32</a><br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir
les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than
uniting humans")</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle
<div>Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International
Diplomatic Academy (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net" target="_blank">www.internetjurisdiction.net</a>)</div>
<div>Member, ICANN Board of Directors <br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes"
Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>