[governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...)

[Norbert Bollow]

(this posting is intentionally sent informally, without "coordinator
hat")

Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> [Milton L Mueller] Of course, that is what I meant. I made it clear
> that I will speak up against and challenge any attempt to force
> through a poorly-crafted statement as a "civil society" position or a
> position of this caucus.

You are of course the ultimate authority on what you meant, and I am
personally glad to take note of the implied promise that you will not
take other action, such as public humiliation or perhaps disruption of
a young academic's career, if someone should proceed to promote,
contrary to your desire, something that involves emphasis on public
good aspects of the Internet as *a* civil society position.

Getting back to the specific sentence that I reacted to in my private
email to you, “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” - that is a statement
which can be reasonably read as much more than what you have described
as its intended meaning. While I agree that in the present context it is
not plausible to interpret it as a threat of physical violence, it can
be plausibly interpreted as a threat of public humiliation by means of
words in case the draft text proceeds to becoming a statement of some
kind. 

I see two paths in which such *a* civil society position statement on
this topic could plausibly be created:

One is that even if full consensus of the IGC may not be realistically
possible, the proponents of such a statement could eventually ask for a
rough consensus call -- in which case, if the procedural requirements
according to the Charter are satisfied, I would think that the
coordinators would organize a poll in order to determine whether there
is an overwhelming majority in support.

The other plausible path is that someone --anyone, really-- could on
the basis of the discussions that have been taking place here
formulate a sign-on statement. I could easily imagine a well-formulated
statement on this topic getting broad support, and it could in my
opinion easily become an influential civil society position quite
independently of whether it has “IGC statement” status.

In view of the quite broad variety of viewpoints that are represented on
the IGC list (which I view as a great strength of the IGC, it
definitely isn't something that I would want to attempt to change), the
reasonable role of the IGC in regard to substantive statements with
some specific political thrust might be primarily in catalyzing
processes of creating sign-on statements which would then be supported,
for each particular statement, by those who agree with the political
message as well as the substantive content of that particular statement.

It is in the context such plausible development of the draft text into
a civil society statement that I read the threat that was posted to the
list.

Again, the literal text of the threat that was posted was “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”.

It does not really matter whether the intended meaning of the threat
was only in reference to preventing an IGC consensus process from
being successful, or whether the intended meaning was broader
(certainly the actual words used support interpretation in a broader
sense.) 

It is quite possible for a threat, especially a vague threat, to take
on a seriousness well beyond its intended meaning. 

For this reason I consider it very well justified that the posting
rules of the IGC Charter [1] contain a very clear, very strong, and very
explicit rule against threats.
[1] http://igcaucus.org/charter

Threats are disallowed on the IGC list even when the action that is
being threatened is not in itself disallowed.

For example, suppose that caucus member A posts something about caucus
member B which goes so far beyond any reasonable exercise of free
speech that B wants to take legal action against A over the issue. The
steps of taking such legal action are not disallowed by the IGC Charter.
However, *threatening* A with legal action is disallowed by the IGC
Charter.

So, please understand that IGC has a rule against threats.

It was my intention, with that private message, to warn you about this
fact, in private. It is one of the (rather unpleasant and thankless!!!)
responsibilities of IGC coordinators to do this kind of thing.

> Anyone can and should have the right to
> object to the group doing a statement on a topic which does not seem
> to be well-defined

Yes, that is a valid ground to object - and a kind of objection that
needs to be taken into account during consensus processes, with the
goal of defining the topic better.

> or to represent a good use of our scarce collective deliberation
> capabilities.

It is acceptable to express this as an opinion, but if others still
want to go ahead, I don't think that there is any reasonable grounds
to tell them not to do so. In the same way you, and everyone really,
similarly have the ability to create discourses that others would
consider noise and a waste of time.

> This is about expelling people because they disagree with the
> coordinator, and with you.

No. It is about (trying to) have an environment of discourse in which
it is possible for people to productively participate who (for whatever
reasons) do not have the habit of metaphorically wearing the equivalent
of a full-body asbestos suit in order to not have to worry about flames
(in the sense of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29 .)

I personally don't worry about getting flamed, and since many years it
doesn't personally hurt me anymore. I am capable of participating in
online environments where ability to continue substantive work while
getting flamed is a de-facto requirement for effective participation,
and I'm also capable of participating in environments where the relevant
social norms are what I would consider more civilized.

IGC has clear rules (which I have not invented) that it is intended to
be a place of civilized discourse, in which personal attacks and
threats have no place.

Please do whatever it takes to learn to express your opinions and
arguments in ways that clearly do not violate the posting rules. The
problem with your postings is not all about the substantive content
of the opinions that you express; it is only about the ways in which
you express them.

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
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