[governance] Discussions, negotiations, argument mapping

[Andrea Glorioso]

Dear all,

it seems to me that as of late, too much of the traffic on this list has
been occupied by rather heated discussions on what constitutes an
acceptable way of arguing for one's own positions.

I personally think that heated argumentation is not a problem "per se". Of
course, 'ad hominem' attacks and other ways to short-circuit discussions
with the sole purpose of seeing our position winning should be avoided. But
I'm very conscious that different people have different ideas of what is an
'ad hominem' attack etc.

Unfortunately, I have the impression - as others have written before me -
that these "meta-discussions" are creating a serious threat to what I still
consider to be one of the best places for reasoned exchanged on matters
related to Internet governance.

While I consider myself as having a rather thick skin and I do believe that
sometimes people take offense a bit too quickly, I also think we have to be
conscious of the personal and cultural sensitivites of people who might be
productive participants in these discussions, but due to a simple
cost/benefit calculation refrain from engaging.

In this spirit, I do not wish to take a position on the specific
responsibilities (if any) of any particular participant; but I do wonder
whether the following non mutually exclusive steps could be useful in
trying to re-create an environment which would be more conducive to
peaceful co-existence (which is not the same as agreeing on everything):

(1) Have a look at some of the existing research on conflict resolution and
negotiation. One article that I particularly liked, and which I think would
apply rather well in the context of this group, is L. Ross, "*Perspectives
on Disagreement and Dispute Resolution", *in E. Shafir (Ed.), "*The
Behavioural Foundations of Public Policy", *Princeton University Press
(there is an extended snippet at
http://books.google.be/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tyWqtkjyx3cC&oi=fnd&pg=PA108&dq=%22perspectives+on+disagreement+and+dispute+resolution%22&ots=VOS7M4aD9e&sig=6YzD1w5lyJIL0Cg6nJX5Y67o3YA#v=onepage&q=%22perspectives%20on%20disagreement%20and%20dispute%20resolution%22&f=false).
Another good source is the Stanford Center on International Conflict and
Negotiation (http://www.law.stanford.edu/node/149750);

(2) Once a particular topic for discussions comes up, use more structured
tools than e-mail to conduct the argumentation. Examples of so-called
"Argument Mapping" software abound. I personally used ArguNet in the past (
http://www.argunet.org/) but other tools such as aMap (
http://www.amap.org.uk/) or Glinkr (http://www.glinkr.net/). I strongly
believe e-mail is NOT the best tool to handle arguments in a productive
manner.

(3) When sending e-mails, avoid sending more than two e-mails per day
(prioritising what really we MUST reply to) and, once an email is drafted,
wait 24 hours before hitting the 'send' button unless the response is
urgent. I have no problem to admit that this is very personal rule, but it
has served me well in the environment where I work, i.e. the European
Commission, where we deal with sensitive and politically contentious topics
with colleagues from 26 other countries (each with their own history,
culture and understanding of what is an acceptable behaviour and what can
be categorised as being an a**hole).

Just my two euro-cents, hoping this will spur some thought on how to move
beyond rather sterile finger-pointing.

P.S.: perhaps unnecessary to state it, but to avoid any misunderstanding:
none of the above is meant as a criticism to the co-coordinators. I am not
in their shoes and I do not necessarily have all the facts at hand, but it
seems to me that they are trying to handle difficult situations to the best
of their abilities. Whether I agree with them or not, they certainly
deserve my gratitude for doing their utmost to preserve this space as a
good instrument for discussions. So my thanks to Sala and Norbert.

Ciao,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130416/4606af1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t