Jeff wrote
> [The list-owner] is completely within his rights and responsibilities
> to ask anyone to unsubscribe that is not meeting those behavior rules
> and requirements. It would however be in the IDNO's best interest to
> outline those rules and requirements for the IDNO mailing list clearly
> and concisely.
and
> ... it may be necessary to in some way
> denote to the list by it's moderator to occasionally remind other list
> participants in an "Announcement Form" of some sort, of these
> individuals list behavioral shortcomings so as to put their posts in
> the perspective that they more than likely belong.
So the question of technical versus governmental matters boils
down to the question of how to run a mailing list! I can't say I'm
surprised, except by the incomprehension of participants that the
issue is a "standing question" and always before the house. In 20
years, havent we learned anything about CMC?
Certainly a list-owner can be an autarch, and do what he likes;
that's been The Rule for most of that time (but then, why object to
ICANN as autarch for the entire Internet 'list'?) But, over the years,
many lists like Joop's have declared themselves to be 'democratic'
or 'consensual' or 'open' -- but then, when a problem occurs with
subscribers who dont feel bound by the process, retreat to 'rules
and requirements.' Is the perogative of *defining the rules Joop's
alone - or does the group get to share? (Oh, only the *real
democrats?) One may depersonalize the role into a *rule, but that
is not (and never has been) enough to transform autarchy into
some kinder and gentler form of governance; it only wraps a layer
of velvet around it.
I'm quite sure that Joop is a wise and considerate ruler; and I'm
sure that the good people on the Interim Board are doing the best
they can, too. But if 'open source' society is what one aspires to,
regulating the wazoo out of the organization is no more in the
IDNO's "best interest" than it is in ICANNs. Rather, one must come
to terms with the reality of the Net: *there is always someone to
represent every position*. Democracy is not a matter of reading
Announcement Forms as to who is In and who is Out, it's *getting
along* with people who disagree.
The better interests of IDNO therefore will be served by a collective
membership which *appreciates the opportunity which nay-sayers
and iconoclasts provide, and which understands (as Tony said the
other day) that "there are multiple different potential outcomes that
evolve with time, and no intrinsically right or authoritative answers --
just directions."
What then is an open list to do? How does one 'get along'? In a
word, dialogue. It's slow and painful, I admit, but it is possible to
take up one point at a time ("stay on topic"), until the *grounds of
disagreement have been clarified. At that point, one chooses which
ground one stands on, or, collectively, each one votes on the
ground to be held by the group.
I trust the contrast to conventional rant is clear. One does not start
with the grounds and somehow try to 'convince' by browbeating or
bullshit or specious argument that 'therefore' someone else 'must'
agree. Any subscriber (or member) who gets their cart before the
horse in this 'top-down' fashion can (by The Rule, remember?) be
summarily dismissed -- but with a little practice, a sense of
*tolerance develops, the need for Ruling will rarely arise, and the
outcome will be better all around because it *maximizes the
directions one can go*. Isn't that what we wish for ICANN, for the
SOs, and for our own lives?
kerry
