[governance] Discussions, negotiations, argument mapping

Tue Apr 16 09:57:19 EDT 2013

Hear hear!
/Staffan

Mr. Staffan Jonson, Member of board to ISOC-SE and  Senior Policy Adviser at
cc TLD .SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation)
BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN
Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67
staffan.jonson at iis.se | www.iis.se/en
twitter: @staffanjonson
LinkedIn: se.linkedin.com/pub/staffan-jonson/4/574/a16/

Från: Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it<mailto:andrea at digitalpolicy.it>>
Svara till: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it<mailto:andrea at digitalpolicy.it>>
Datum: tisdag 16 april 2013 14:49
Till: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Ämne: [governance] Discussions, negotiations, argument mapping

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/e9cbebea/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