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

Fri Apr 26 06:27:17 EDT 2013

Norbert

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> (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.
>

there was no such suggestion in Milton's email.  If you saw such a
message rather than threaten him with a warning you should ask him
what he meant, express your concern.

You are clearly too quick with your hat and your warnings and it's
troubling that you add your own interpretation and opinion.  Your
warning to me (yes, I've been warned...) was over the Michael Gurstein
incident and what I saw as forum/stakeholder shopping to gain a seat
in the CSTD WG (my fault for expressing annoyance that someone would
attempt to manipulate longstanding and well understood process.)  Fair
enough if you thought I had gone to far.  But you added a comment that
I was in someway extra guilty because Michael was performing the
function of whistle-blower, obviously a sacred role.  As with Milton
you added your own interpretation, got rather carried away.

For someone who seems interested in human rights you are very quick to
pass personal judgement and censor.  Could you stop please.

Adam

> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-------------- 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