[governance] Reinstate the Vote

David Goldstein goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au
Fri Nov 23 06:28:09 EST 2007 

Veni,

I most definitely can't agree with you on a couple of points here. There are people on this list who feel inimidated because of the language used in discussions. I have been contacted by at least one regarding this. And as a sociologist, I also disagree with you regarding that the type of behaviour is not oriented to us males of the species. I'd argue that there is plenty of research to argue it is.

So yes, some people love the aggressive nature of the debates, but there are plenty of others who don't, and there are some at least who don't participate because they feel intimidated.

Cheers
David

----- Original Message ----
From: Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Friday, 23 November, 2007 10:21:42 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote

Jeanette and Kieren,
Fully support you. One point, though, is that being rude is not a
particularly male, or "macho" feature. It is a common bug. My
observation is that people who have some problems are trying to change
the direction of the discussion with personal attacks, knowing that
A) the normal reaction is to either respond or stay quiet
B) this will divert the real discussion

I also have noticed that attacks are usually on the email, not
face2face; in fact same people when face2face would behave normally,
and the attacks are usually at ICANN staff, who are either not on this
list, or are having too much work to bother responding.

Finally, as we say in Bulgaria, when you fight with a pig, both get
dirty, but the pig also enjoys it. I don't of course mean that anyone
here is a pig, but think that can explain why most of the people who
are attacked prefer not to engage in these mails.

Veni


On 11/22/07, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> Hi Kieren,
>
> I fully support your resistance against the rude tone on this list.
> There is no reason why one should get used to it. I've been wondering
> for years if this mixture of arrogance and personal attacks on this
 list
> is the reason why the active participation is limited to such a low
> number of people most of which are male.
> jeanette
>
> Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> > Just to be clear.
> >
> > If you review this list's history, every time discussions appear to
 be
> going
> > somewhere useful, someone throws out a personal insult and almost
> instantly
> > it descends into name-calling and nonsense.
> >
> > Perhaps everyone except me thinks this is a terrific way to
 interact. I
> > think it's what makes me stop reading comments for another week.
> >
> > So, if there is a personal insult lobbed at me, even if it comes
 amid a
> > bunch of other useful comments - which this email from Danny did,
 and
> which
> > Milton's email yesterday did - then I won't respond.
> >
> > If people would prefer that I not recognise that a personal attack
 has
> been
> > thrown into discussions as if it was somehow relevant or useful,
 then I
> > won't respond with "ad hominem attack" in future but will simply
 not
> > respond.
> >
> > My intention in responding at all is to point out that the message
> contained
> > useful comments or ideas but that I won't be responding to them -
 at least
> > not while irrelevant abuse is tagged on.
> >
> > I don't think that's too unreasonable.
> >
> > You are of course all free to continue to be rude to one another,
 and
> about
> > me, as much as you like.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kieren
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:45 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote
> >
> > Kieren,
> >
> > If you regard this as an ad hominen attack, then
> > perhaps a brief vacation to settle your nerves might
> > be in order.
> >
> > regards,
> > Danny
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ad hominem attack.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Kieren
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:07 PM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
> >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote
> >>
> >> Kieren,
> >>
> >> You know, you really should make an effort to read
> >> the
> >> public comments submitted once in a while...
> >>
> >> I earlier proposed a "solution" within the public
> >> comment submitted at this URL:
> >>
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/naralo-comments/msg00006.html
> >> Here's the gist of it:
> >>
> >> A readily-implemented, low-cost solution to seat
> >> at-large directors on the ICANN board.
> >>
> >> The solution:
> >>
> >> Those directors that are not currently elected by
> >> ICANN's Supporting Organizations come to the board
> >> by
> >> way of ICANN's "Nominating Committee", a body
> >> populated exclusively by special-interest
> >> representatives.
> >>
> >> This committee must be eliminated and must be
> >> replaced
> >> by a new committee populated exclusively by
> >> public-interest representatives.  These
> >> representatives will be drawn from the pool of
> >> candidates that previously stood for at-large
> >> election.  These voices of the public will then,
> >> through the same set of processes used by the
> >> current
> >> Nominating Committee, select the slate of at-large
> >> directors that will take their seats on the ICANN
> >> board (and ICANN will thereby finally come to honor
> >> the principle of balanced representation).
> >>
> >> By the way, I see nothing wrong with the notion of
> >> the
> >> Chairman asking "So how do we fix this?".  Prior
> >> Boards chose to put together blue-ribbon panels to
> >> study an issue (like Carl Bildt's ALSC that arrived
> >> at
> >> a consensus-based recommendation to have the
> >> at-large
> >> seated on one third of the Board).  Unfortunately,
> >> we
> >> have been blessed with boards whose wisdom is
> >> superior
> >> to that of the commmunity and who feel quite
> >> comfortable rejecting consensus-based
> >> determinations.
> >>
> >> Who knows... perhaps one day you might be heralded
> >> as
> >> the ICANN Manager of Public Representation instead
> >> of
> >> as a functionary that is charged with pushing the
> >> prospect of feeble "participation" onto those that
> >> instead are screaming for accountability via true
> >> multistakeholder representation.  Time will tell.
> >>
> >> best wishes,
> >> and again thanks for your perspective.
> >>
> >>
> >> --- Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I understand where you're coming from Danny. But
> >> you
> >>> asked me what the best
> >>> method was and that's the answer.
> >>>
> >>> What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that
> >>> participation within
> >>> those structures won't work. I don't agree. I
> >> think
> >>> it will work. Moreover
> >>> what I am saying is that *unless* people
> >> participate
> >>> in those structures,
> >>> there won't be change along the lines you
> >> suggested.
> >>> If you have other suggestions that could
> >> practically
> >>> work please throw them
> >>> in.
> >>>
> >>> The problem with your suggestion of writing
> >> letters
> >>> to the chairman is that
> >>> the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix
> >> this?"
> >>> and we end up in the
> >>> exact same place that we are now.
> >>>
> >>> Now if you could present a clear case as to why
> >> such
> >>> a change would be in
> >>> ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of
> >>> suggested routes for
> >>> getting there, then I think you'd find he would
> >>> start looking at it
> >>> seriously. If that whole case was to come from
> >>> within the ICANN structure,
> >>> it would add further weight.
> >>>
> >>> But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and
> >>> offering no solution is
> >>> not going to achieve much.
> >>>
> >>> Just my two cents.
> >>>
> >>> I should also say that if people do participate in
> >>> ICANN's processes they
> >>> not only benefit from engagement with others but
> >>> also gain the advantages
> >>> that come with participation, one of which is that
> >> I
> >>> would consider it my
> >>> duty to make sure that that participation was
> >> given
> >>> the appropriate
> >>> consideration.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kieren
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
 ____________________________________________________________________________
> >> ________
> >> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> >> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >>
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the
> >> list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
 ____________________________________________________________________________
> > ________
> > Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance






      Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

More information about the Governance mailing list