[ccwg-internet-governance] fyi: a note i wrote about my feelings on /1net
avri at acm.org
Wed Feb 12 13:59:02 UTC 2014
Thanks for reading my blog. I am always happy to hear it was read, I
don't expect that many people do. I do not think I ever sent it to
/1net or any other list. Perhaps some one else sent the URL at some
point, but I do not recall. I tend to just write these things, tweet
that they exist and hope a few people read them. Mostly I think I am
just shouting in the wind.
In my long experience in WGs, I find that the collegiality we mostly
experience in ICANN is the exception - every group I have ever been in
has its unreasonably disruptive elements - and it is chairs etc armed
with list rules of netiquette who keep them from getting too outrageous.
It takes a delicate touch. Take the IETF list, for example.
Historically it has had its cast of characters (some can be found on
/1net to this day), and sometimes they erupt in a storm of nonsense.
But for the most part they are kept under control. There were a few
years when the eruptions were distracting, but eventually the IETF
created the task of Sergeant-at-Arms (RFC 3005 BCP 45) and since then
the list has been far more reasonable - and in fact as far as I can tell
the Sergeant-at-Arms has only had to intervene a few times before people
My problem is that often the most disruptive person is a smart person
who is hiding a significant nugget in the midst of the BS. I think we
have to look for that content. And sometimes I have found that once
these people's PoV is understood and they feel understood, they become
better list members.
This is hard work. Work for the /1net-sc and its secretariat-equivalent
to deal with. I wish them luck.
As for this group, in which I think I am an observer, I am not sure we
have gotten to the point where there is much to disrupt. But that is
On 12-Feb-14 00:41, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> I belatedly read your blog post (link below) about /1net, and I have to say that I agreed with just about all of it. If you were seeking signatures, I would have signed on.
> My only reservation is how well /1net actually works, now and in the future, both among the hoi polloi on the discussion list and in the more rarefied air of the Steering Committee and the various committees on which MS representatives (and I use the word optimistically) have been seated. I think most participants want it to work and are working to make it work. There are a few participants (who take up a lot of bandwidth) who seem constitutionally skeptical/dismissive of multistakeholderism (and especially ICANN multistakeholderism) and seem to view it as a tool in used by certain government and private actors to maintain the IG status quo and, by extension, seem to view each of us as either a dupe or a secret agent. So, perhaps I would to your last concern (MS participants squabbling with each other) the concern that some "stakeholders" would dismiss the entire multistakeholder effort as little more than a "show".
> I don't recall if you posted this link to your post on /1net. I'd be curious to see the reaction.....
> Greg Shatan
> Gregory S. Shatan
> Reed Smith LLP
> 599 Lexington Avenue
> New York, NY 10022
> 212.549.0275 (Phone)
> 917.816.6428 (Mobile)
> 212.521.5450 (Fax)
> gshatan at reedsmith.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] fyi: a note i wrote about my feelings on /1net
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance