[governance] abuse by the coordinator

[Milton L Mueller]

Dear colleagues:
I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator in action.
 
In the message below, my substantive comments on a debate, and a proposal to stop working on a proposed statement that is going nowhere, are characterized as an attempt to "bully IGC" and as a "threat". 

But they are obviously nothing of the kind. I am arguing that the proposed statement does not address a well-defined problem, I am calling attention to the rather obvious fact that there is no consensus on the principles or definitions being debate, and I am suggesting that the whole endeavor is not worthwhile. My arguments were not insulting or ad hominem but quite substantive.

Whether or not the caucus makes a statement is fair game for debate; the fact that the coordinator is an advocate of the proposed statement seems to have biased his judgment.

This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to protest this arbitrary and biased action.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:00 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: IGC Coordinators
> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
> 
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> 
> Hi Milton
> 
> This posting contains an attempt to bully IGC into not even trying to
> work towards consensus or rough consensus on this matter; such bullying
> is most uncalled for.
> 
> Like personal attacks, also threats of any kind are absolutely
> unwarranted und unacceptable on IGC mailing lists. (Your sentence that
> starts with “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement,
> and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to...” is an
> example of a threat.)
> 
> Please make sure from now on that your postings conform to the posting
> rules.
> 
> (This is a private warning in the sense of the process described in the
> Charter.)
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> Am Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:29:29 +0000
> schrieb Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> 
> > Izumi's comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is
> > misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously
> > nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one
> > faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest
> > of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values.
> >
> > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There
> > is a vague reference to "the growing danger for the Internet
> > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces." I
> > challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it's just false. I see
> > no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide
> > evidence of a "growing" trend, and show how it constitutes something
> > systemic and something that end users really don't want.
> >
> > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend
> > toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But
> > somehow, we don't seem interested in addressing that. There is a
> > growing danger of securitization. We don't address that. By the way,
> > how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of
> > privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the
> > information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I
> > share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment's thought.
> >
> > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize "public good" concepts
> > over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the
> > concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the
> > internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many
> > features of it are private goods and that much of the value we
> > associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to
> > create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any
> > statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate
> > and unlikely to get widespread support.
> >
> > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be
> > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it
> > as a civil society position.
> >
> > --MM
> 
> 
> --
> Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC:
> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept
-------------- 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