[CCWG-ACCT] A modest proposal to start the week

[Edward Morris]

Although I certainly understand Jonathan's frustration with the direction
of some of the comments on this list, I reject his call for individuals to
self censor comments that are done respectfully and that they honestly
believe further the discussion of accountability. I participate in this
project in good faith and I presume others do as well. Although everyone is
free to approach things as they wish,  I certainly will not follow
Jonathan's approach and impugn ulterior motives ("flag"..."overt
attempts"..."derail") to those who make posts in the topical area he
delineates.

We all have different background and pet peeves. Jonathan's appears to be
in the area of Board - Community history / mistrust. Some of these
discussions have actually hardened my belief that we need the strong
enforcement provisions provided by membership: if feelings are this strong
less concrete enforcement mechanisms simply won't work. In that way these
discussions have been valuable to me. My pet peeve are the many posts by
those who don't understand basic legal principles, concepts or definitions,
resulting in questions that are innane and conclusions that are inaccurate
and harmful to our progress. Yet I would never ask people not to post such
ill conceived ideas because every so often in the midst of the their
garbage there is a gem I hadn't considered. That is truly valuable.

 I look forward to reading, perhaps slugging through might be a better
description, the many ideas and opinions raised and expressed through this
process wherever it may take us. It's a frustrating process but I certainly
do not want to create a situation where folks are afraid or self conscious
about posting something because it may irritate someone else. Please be
respectful and honest in all posts and accept my thanks for volunteering
your time to help create an effective, open, inclusive  and democratic
internet governance regime.

Thanks for considering,

Ed



On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Pär Brumark <brumark at telia.com> wrote:

>  Agree totally and +1 Jonathan!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Pär Brumark
>
> Jonathan Zuck skrev den 2015-06-01 03:08:
>
>  Folks,
> I’m sure if we think about it for just a second, we can all agree that
> anyone’s recollections (whatever their tenure or status in the community)
> about the past intentions, motives and actions of the board, the community
> or some interest group, are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The exercise in which we
> are engaged involves imaging the worst of these things and attempting to
> put structures in place to mitigate the consequences should the unfortunate
> occur. Let’s stop returning to this TOTALLY USELESS discussion of track
> records and good intentions and stay on task. If you believe the community
> can do no wrong and the board represents a machiavellian force of darkness
> that needs to be throttled, you’re in entitled to your opinion. Just take
> it someplace else. If you believe the community is just a rag tag
> collection of special interest groups with political motives and  that the
> board should receive a medal, I hereby validate your opinion as well. Now
> take it someplace else. This is decidedly NOT the conversation we are
> trying to have here. Every time it comes up, it sends us down a ridiculous
> path and ends badly.
>
>  So here’s my proposal:
>
>
>    1. If you are drafting a post to the list and it begins to sound like
>    either an accusation or defense of the board, the community or some SO or
>    AC, PLEASE STOP TYPING. Back way from the PC, go for a walk, come back and
>    post something that is helpful to the discussion.
>    2. If you spot a post that slips through that reads like either an
>    accusation or defense of the board, the community or some SO or AC, DON’T
>    TAKE THE BAIT. Count to 10, call your therapist, do whatever you must, but
>    LET IT GO.
>
> That is all. Henceforth, I will flag all such posts as overt attempts to
> derail this process of developing an effective accountability framework for
> ICANN because there can be no other explanation for their continued
> existence.  If you find yourself writing something like “in all my years,”
> “it’s been my experience,” or “I don’t recall” stop typing immediately and
> think about the useless debate you are about to start or continue.
>
>  This is NOT about the current board, the current community or anyone’s
> intentions or motives. It’s about a post IANA contract world in which ICANN
> needs effective accountability to the community. That’s it. It’s not
> personal. Let’s get back to work. Thank you.
>
>  Jonathan
>
>
>
> Jonathan Zuck
>
> *President*
>
> 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck at actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
>
>
>
> ACT | The App Association
>
> [image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]
> <https://twitter.com/actonline>
>
> [image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]
> <https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org>
>
> [image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]
> <http://actonline.org/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150601/aaabecb1/attachment.html>