[governance] abuse by the coordinator

[Andrea Glorioso]

(I was initially reluctant to react to Milton on the list, as I'm not keen
on diverting attention from what I found to be a rather welcome change
towards more productive discussions. However, some assertions by Milton do
deserve a public response, which might also be of broader value. I
apologise in advance if this creates more tensions in this group, which is
not my intention.)

Dear Milton,

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  *Andrea, *
>
> *It’s unfortunate to see you siding with those who would suppress
> dialogue and expel people from the list. Let me explain my position more
> clearly.*
>

It is unfortunate that you characterise my message in the way you do, as in
fact my goal is to help fostering more and better dialogue.I think this was
rather clear from my words, but just as you are offering with your email,
let me try to explain my position more clearly.

And for what it's worth, IF I had to decide and/or vote on your expulsion
from this list, I would certainly not do it on the basis of your behaviour
so far.

>  *[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. *
>
> *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 or to represent
> a good use of our scarce collective deliberation capabilities. If those
> kinds of objections are defined unilaterally as “bullying” and used to
> silence people, our caucus is in a very bad position.*
>
> *Norbert’s threat notwithstanding I will continue to say whatever I like
> about this proposed statement. If that means there is another casualty on
> the list, it is the list’s loss and a great loss for this noble attempt to
> have a common forum for civil society in the IGF.  *
>
Thanks for clarifying what you meant with the statement you made - which,
by the way, was just an example. As I clearly wrote, this is also what I
had concluded on the basis of my knowledge of you. But my initial reaction
reading those words was different and also led to me to ask myself whether
other persons, who perhaps do not know you, come from different cultures
and/or have simply a "thinner skin", might reasonably interpret them
differently. My conclusion is yes, they reasonably could, which in my view
is unfortunate.

And I certainly do not object to your right to object or express your
positions. However, I continue to believe that there is a difference
between the "what" and the "how". I am questioning the latter, not the
former.

> **
>
> *[Milton L Mueller] I don’t take this argument seriously. Let others
> comment. How many felt physically threatened by that comment? Please let us
> know. I think you are coming up with lame rationalizations for your desired
> result, which is to shut me up. Anyway, if you are not sure what I mean,
> ask me. Don’t threaten someone with suppression first, and ask questions
> later. Use the right to free expression, and believe in its use. Issuing a
> real threat before finding out is an abuse of the coordinator’s position.
> *
>
I do not wish to focus this discussion on the behaviour of the
co-coordinator, except to note that he explained on which basis he sent you
a private warning. I note and accept that different people have different
views on whether co-coordinators are too prone in sending such warnings; I
also understand that the Charter of this list provides the means to address
actions by the co-coordinators which you or others do not deem acceptable.

While I can not and even do not wish to oblige you to take any of my
arguments seriously, I think your characterisation of such argument as a
"lame rationalisation for [my] desired result, which is to shut [you] up"
is illogical, as (1) I have no power to do so, not even by making any
formal requests as I'm not a member of the IGC; and, most importantly, (2)
because,  as I have stated several times, I actually agree with your
substantive arguments and more in general I think you have much to offer to
the discussions on this list, as well as more generally to debates
concerning Internet governance.

> **
>
>  (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that
> it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is
> not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point).****
>
> *[Milton L Mueller] Do you consider this a polite comment? I ask because
> You are calling me names while scolding me about the need to be polite.
> Anyway, if you’d bother to attend to the facts in this case, you would see
> that many people have expressed disagreement with this proposed statement.
> *
>
> *Even if they stand alone, any individual who strongly disagrees with an
> IGC statement has a right to stand up and say they don’t agree with it and
> will work against it in other contexts. And they have a right not to get
> kicked off the list, or threatened with such, when they do. Do you disagree?
> *
>
I must say that yes, I find my comment polite within the boundaries of my
own understanding of what is polite and unpolite. More specifically, I made
an assessment of a sentence and of the logic behind it, which I do found
arrogant. It is not an assessment on you as a person, nor is "calling you
names".

Having said this, this just goes to prove that people have very different
sensitivities. If you found my sentence offensive or unpolite to you,
please accept my apologies - it was not intended as such.

My judgement of your position however remains: while I believe it is fully
within your right to privately or publicly disagree with a position taken
by a group which can reasonably be defined as "civil society" (not
necessarily the IGC, which I understand has its own rules to decide whether
a statement is an "IGC statement" or not) I believe it is "bizarre" for a
single person to claim that such position would *not* be an expression of
"civil society" only because s/he disagrees with it.

> **
>  **
>
> I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are
> quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I *very
> deeply *respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to
> express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not
> theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do
> create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people
> (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who
> might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways
> to express yourself.****
>
> *[Milton L Mueller] So polite. This attempt to divert the issue to my
> communication style turns the whole thing into an ad hominem argument,
> literally. And as an Italian I am sure you can translate the Latin. If
> style were really the issue, Parminder and Gurstein would have been thrown
> off the list and publicly warned long ago. I suspect these attacks have
> more to do with what I say and who I am criticizing than with the “way I
> express my ideas.” And to put a fine point on it, we both know, Andrea,
> that you and the EC have been the target of my criticism on several
> occasions, and I suspect that that has more to do with your intervention in
> this matter than the “distasteful” way of expressing ideas.*
>
Let me dispel this notion before it goes any further.

First of all, if I had to (try to) silence / expel from discussions every
single person who has ever criticised me or the European Commission, by
this time I would be talking to an empty room. On the contrary, I happen to
have plenty of satisfying conversations, both on a personal and on a
professional level, with lots of people who disagree with my own positions
or with the positions I express as an official of the European Commission
(the two are not always the same).

Secondly, while I cannot do much to change your suspicions, I want to put
on the public record that I have been and continue to be one of the most
vocal supporters (let me rephrase: at this stage, probably the
*only*supporter) of your intellectual contributions to the IG debate
within the
European Commission and other EU Institutions (as well as elsewhere, but
since you mention the European Commission, I'll stick to it). Not because I
agree with all of them, but because I think your opinions are (mostly) well
researched, well argued, forward looking and intellectually stimulating.

Sadly and frustratingly, it is increasingly difficult for me to convince
colleagues and superiors to differentiate between the "how" and the "what".
I think this is a net loss for everyone, including you.

> *Let me make it clear that I would never support threatening Parminder or
> Gurstein or Suresh – or you - with expulsion. It is obvious to me that
> almost all of our disagreements are based on substantive differences.
> People are getting heated here not because of their style of expression,
> but because they are debating fundamental principles, deeply held values
> and rights, with real consequences. I respect that in Parminder and
> Michael, even when I disagree with them; I am strong enough that I have no
> need to push them off the list or silence them. I would expect the same
> largeness of spirit of you. *
>
I agree that much of the heat of the discussion comes from differences of
opinions on substantive issues. However, I also believe, perhaps naively,
that it is almost always possible to express such opinions in a way which
helps finding common ground. And I really, really cannot see how stating
that a person's communication style tends to obscure that person's
substantive contributions can be seen as a "ad hominem" attack (they are a
comment on the message, not necessarily on the originator of the message)
or an attempt at censorship, expulsion or any other nefarious activity.

> *There are truly disruptive or insulting people with nothing to
> contribute; none of the issues or people we are discussing now fall into
> that category. This is about expelling people because they disagree with
> the coordinator, and with you.*
>
Since I said that I actually agree (mostly) with your substantive positions
on the specific debate of the "public good" or "commons" nature of the
Internet, the logic of this last sentence completely escapes me.

I think I have said everything I needed to. Unless your or others feel that
there are issues of public relevance, I'll be happy to continue this
particular conversation in private.

Best,

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/20130426/fceb5369/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