[governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism

[Riaz K Tayob]

McT

There are limits to discourse. So from I guess some energy conservation 
is in order on my part.

On po-co, I think you may be on the verge of a breakthrough. You should 
pursue it. You may very well change a whole field. I waid with bated 
breath and all that...

It is not my problem that you fall into the  categories of classical 
asymmetry of power, its use and that your politics fits this.

Finally, and I don't know how to say this without being offensive: do 
not presume to tell me what to think. But if you and others don't even 
have that sensibility... enough said.

On 2013/05/29 05:32 PM, McTim wrote:
> Norbert,
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When a coordinator tells people that to criticize the coordinator is
>>> cause for discipline by the coordinator, it goes too far.
>> I strongly agree.
>>
>> However no coordinator has said or written that “to criticize the
>> coordinator is cause for discipline by the coordinator”.
>>
>> Of course discussion of coordinator actions, including critical
>> discussion, is legitimate -- such discussion just needs to conform to
>> the general posting rules of the IGC Charter, just like postings on
>> any other topic.
>>
>> Disparaging remarks about any member of the Caucus are not allowed.
> Great, then you will be taking action against people who use terms
> like "post-colonial", "hegemonic Civil Society" and "single rooter"?
> These terms are not used to describe but rather to insult, and often
> used incorrectly.  For example, the way post-colonialism is defined at
> Wikipedia:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonialism
>
> seems to indicate that those who use the term are using it 180 degrees
> from the way it is defined.  In other words, using a "third world
> lens" to view IG issues is actually practicing post-colonialism.
>
> In terms of "single-rootism", the IAB in RFC2826 says:
>
>     "To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a
>     globally unique public name space.  The DNS name space is a
>     hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root.
>     This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS."
>
> While the term is meant (IMHO) to be insulting, it actually describes
> the vast majority of us who want coherence in our DNS resolution and
> who follow RFCs.
>
> In short, I am hoping the co-cos will watch the uses of disparaging
> terminology by all, not just by a select few.
>
>



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