[governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

Sun Nov 25 13:52:27 EST 2007

I rather hoped that you wouldn't feel the need to try to justify your
rudeness Milton.

Well, in fact, you haven't tried to justify it, you have attempted to
deflect attention from the words you wrote by claiming that anyone that is
offended by your comments is being overly sensitive. And then suggested any
effort to bring social norms to a discussion is akin to censoring people.

Neither are true as you most likely know.

But if you wish to raise what I felt was an ad hominem attack, this is what
you wrote:

"Apparently, your real job is not promoting 'public participation' but
promoting 'public participation on terms and conditions that ICANN's
managers choose'."

Going back to my definition of rudeness: "The deliberate use of provocative
language intended to irritate or annoy an individual; ascribing negative
connotations to an individual without evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery
or dismissal of someone's else's honestly held viewpoint."

Your sentence was deliberately provocative - it applied I was following
someone else's agenda and as such I wasn't being straight with people. This
can have no other effect except to irritate and annoy me. 

You ascribe negative connotations - that I am someone acting as a conduit
for others - with absolutely no evidence or reasoned analysis. If you would
care to talk to me or to others, you would recognise that you could not be
further from the truth when you imply that I am following prescribed routes
by senior executives in ICANN. 

And finally by implying that I am following someone else's agenda, you are
dismissing the honestly held views I express in my posts. 

This isn't me being overly sensitive - this is you being dismissive and
downright rude for no good reason. It contributed nothing at all to the
points under discussion and effectively brought an end to what I thought was
an interesting discussion. All I - and others on this list - are asking for
is some simple professional courtesy.

I should say that it really is not my intention to pick on you in particular
Milton. I only drew attention to your rude comment to Jacqueline because
that was one that had appeared just a few hours earlier and so it seemed
particularly timely as an example.

There are others on this list that are equally rude and dismissive. And I
defy anyone to point to the benefit that has ever been achieved by such
rudeness. But I do think we would all benefit if everyone became just a
little bit more respectful of others' views and opinions.

Also, since people are taken with the argument that claiming something is
rude is somehow an attempt to avoid talking about issues - then I actively
encourage people to raise issues without being rude, or without unfairly
pre-defining the discussion, and see what the response is.

If Milton, or Danny, or anyone else, wants to post the exact same posts but
without the personal insults and dismissive attitude, then you will find I
quite happily respond. 

I'm not sure it can be any clearer: don't be rude, don't be personal; don't
be dismissive and we might start using the significant intellect and
experience of people on this list to get somewhere.

Kieren

  _____  

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 1:07 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

Kieren:

I agree that we need to avoid ad hominem attacks. More about that later. 

But your example below is precisely what people fear when there is talk of
"moderation" of the list and an attempt to enforce standards of civility. It
can easily transform into the kind of censorship Rony Koven is warning
about. What I see in my response to Jacky is a substantive discussion of,
and disagreement about, the nature of global democracy and the At Large.
There is nothing personal about it. There may be different styles of
communication but that's always going to be an issue in a global forum
combining different cultures. Fundamentally, we are having political
debates. Some of us believe that the stakes are high. Any attempt to
de-politicize these disagreements by calling one side "rude" is not any sort
of progress. 

I have difficulty understanding how my claim that a certain position is
"more accurate" than Jacky's view is provocative or personalized. It simply
calls to our attention a real and important logical contradiction between
those who (like Jacky) are claiming that global voting for Board members is
not in the interest of smaller countries and the developing world, and those
who believe that it would significantly shift authority over global
governance to them. I think Jacky's position is not correct. She no doubt
thinks it is. I'm willing to hear more about her position. It's an important
debate and it should not be disrupted or pushed aside by overly sensitive
claims of "rudeness." Your claim basically short-circuits that debate. 

The same goes for an earlier comment you tried to dismiss as "ad hominem." I
made a comparison between the China-imposed electoral system in Hong Kong
and ICANN's so-called "bottom-up" consultative system. I cannot fathom how
such a comment was interpreted by you as "ad hominem." It was about
political structures; it was not about you. Unless you mean that you will
interpret any political criticism of your employer as a personal insult.  

"Ad hominem" means that the argument relates "to the man [person]". My
arguments are not about personalities. They are about ideas and principles.
>From my point of view, both you and Jacky are fun and interesting people. No
reason and intention to attack either of you personally. Frankly, I am not
the least interested in personalities, practically to a fault. You have seen
me agree with you online (something that has of course never been
reciprocated) and you will see me disagree when our ideas differ. The same
can occur with any other person on the list. That's all it's about. This is
to be contrasted with, e.g., Suresh, almost all of whose comments about me
are motivated entirely by personal animosity and have zero substance (e.g.,
I am "full of bile"). Which brings us to another point: sure, in the heat of
debate I may stray over the line and offend people once in a while. Let me
know when I do that. But if you want to be credible when you do, try
applying the same standards to Veni and Alejandro and Suresh and all others.

  _____  

From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 1:18 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

> i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality.

I think you're spreading too far afield with this approach, Avri.

I would define rudeness in the context that I was complaining about as:

"The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy an
individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without
evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone's else's
honestly held viewpoint."

I think it is fine to refer to individuals' comments and suggestions, and it
is also fine to disagree with them - in fact, that is exactly what works
best with these sorts of discussions. As an example of what I think is fair
comment, I will refer to a comment inserted by Milton this morning as a
perfect example of the sort of rudeness that this list could well do
without.

In response to a Jacqueline comment, Milton responded:

"Well, all I can say is that the reason most American business people are
terrified of such voting is that they conclude (more accurately than you, I
am afraid) that such a mechanism would empower the "new Internet world" of
tens of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in relative terms, erode their
current power. "

The "more accurately than you, I am afraid" was deliberately provocative,
added nothing to the discussion, came with no evidence or reasoned analysis,
and both mocked Jacqueline and dismissed her honestly held viewpoint.

It has no place in reasonable discussions. Which is a shame because Milton
then went on to raise some interesting ideas about ALSes which I personally
would be happy to discuss but which I won't respond to because of the
unpleasantness earlier in the email.

Kieren

  _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 8:57 AM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote:

Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with

the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their

viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group

dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the

substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this

problem should be addressed.

i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality.

we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness

in their tactical role in internet discussion.

while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if

i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to

support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be considered

a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate.

a.

ps, was this rude?

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007
10:06 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007
10:06 AM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071125/1dc5004e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071125/1dc5004e/attachment.txt>