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

[Milton L Mueller]

OK, now your initial reaction seems clearer to me. It was based on a rather lurid misinterpretation of my message, but if you interpreted my words in the way you said you did below, at least I can understand better your reaction. 
Read on....

> -----Original Message-----

So you do me the favor of quoting my own words accurately:

> “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” 

Here I express a "hope" (not a demand or a threat) that we do not waste more time on the proposed statement. 
I then say that if we do (thereby recognizing that anyone can continue to discuss it) I will not allow a statement that defines the internet in a way that excludes all private initiative, private ownership and market relations to be "misrepresent[ed] as a civil society position." Here is where I made an error. I meant, and should have said, "THE civil society position." To be even more accurate, and more in accord with what I meant at the time, I should have said "the IGC position." I thought it would be clear from the context, since we were discussing an IGC statement.  The broader statement is not as "threatening" as you have made it out to be, but it is broader than I intended when read out of context. I apologize for the use of the wrong article in that statement ("a" vs. "the").

> 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.

Public humiliation? Huh? I am just talking about how I would contradict false claims that a divisive and contested statement represents all of our views. No one is going to be humiliated unless they try to spread false claims and have the decency to be embarrassed when they are exposed as false in public.

Norbert. Surely you are politically experienced enough to know that small but determined factions often succeed in pushing statements through larger groups, and then use that success to claim that some larger category of actors (e.g., "civil society" or "the CS IGC" or "the people united...") all support their narrow ideology and are forever bound by it. This is the game Parminder is playing, in my opinion. 

It would be very easy for him and others to modify the statement in ways that take account of my critique. There has been no attempt to do so. None. The only recourse I have, therefore, is to make it clear that if this proceeds I will publicly contradict any claims that I, as a member of the caucus, am represented by such a statement. 

I still think you overreacted - you could and should have clarified, with your coordinator hat OFF. It also poisons the dialogue to be constantly threatened with expulsion from the list. Those rules were not meant to prevent the kind of exchange we are having. They were meant to prevent disruptive and deliberately insulting dialogue, not intense disagreements about the nature of policy statements from this group.

One more point. (This quote is taken out of its original order). You said:

> 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.

Whatever could have prompted this kind of fear on your part?

First, if anyone would bother to actually read it, my own work calls attention to the public good aspects of the Internet. It has just identified them more precisely as in the standards/protocols. My work has, since 2004, made it very clear that the open, nonproprietary and neutral nature of the basic internet standards should be safeguarded. I am just calling for equal time for the private goods aspect of the internet - and I sincerely believe that the internet has succeeded precisely because it creatively combines the private and public aspects. As I said before, it would be very easy for Parminder and Gurstein and others to take a few steps in my direction and recognize the important, essential role played by private goods, private ownership and private initiative in making the internet work. They never do. 

Why don't you give it a try? 
So that leads to the rest of your message:

> 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.

Even if there is an overwhelming majority, let's say 15  - 3, I would not in any way be bound by such a statement. (I could explain why such a vote does not represent rough consensus by IETF norms, but simply outvoting someone, but I don't have time.) 

I would be fully within my rights to argue against it in public. Given the small size of this group and the even smaller number who are likely to vote, I would even feel free to challenge the extent to which it represents this caucus. 

> 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.

Sure. That kind of a sign-on would not provoke any adverse reaction from me. However, a sign-on also means that the proponents of the statement have abandoned any attempt to modify it in a way that gains a broader consensus. And again I ask, why not? Is this really a statement of a group position, or an attempt by one group to ram its own ideology down the throat of the rest of us?

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

Not in this case. AFAICT, the only threats are coming from you. Understand the intent and spirit of the list rules. The discussion we are having is substantive and important. The list rules are not meant to interfere in these kinds of exchanges. The message I sent was a constructive one on the whole. It is your attempt to over-police the dialogue that is causing the problem. 

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