<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Organization/Communication
Reposted from the @Large forum:
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00130.shtml
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> Karl, can you give all of some useful and concrete suggestions about how to
organize and communicate with individuals. I think that part is still missing
from your suggestions.<
You are raising a very critical issue.
Let me try to begin my attempt to answer by suggesting that there is a
difference between an election and between the communications that occur
among electors and between electors and candidates.
As for elections - they can be regional or global or whatever; that's a
matter for another discussion.
The issue here is how we can allow individual electors to organize and
communicate.
First off - my own experience tells me that a global Hyde Park - i.e. an open
forum - is necessary but hardly sufficient. My experience is that a global
forum is merely an entry vehicle for ideas, but that the maturation of
discussion and evolution of ideas won't happen except in smaller fora that
have evolved fora-based notions of who has credibility, who is a demagog or
fifth columnist, or who is simply singing off key.
My sense is that most of us who have watched ICANN or who have participated
in large discussion spaces have some lesser or greater degree of skepticism
of such spaces.
So, what's the means by which these more focused fora arise?
There are probably an infinite number of means, but I've had experience with
only a few.
Self-organized clusters of roughly similar-minded people are a very valuable
mechanism.
My experience with the Boston Working Group (BWG) is illustrative. When the
final IFWP "wrap up meeting" was cancelled several of us were left with
non-refundable air tickets to Boston. So we simply went and gathered -
physically gathered - face to face - and worked. The result was mutual trust
and understanding. We've built on that foundation and expanded the group so
that it serves as a pretty solid vehicle for the evolution of ideas. We
don't depend entirely on electronic communications - there are frequent face
to face interactions among the members; I consider that a
valuable characteristic. Yes, it is a closed group - that's one of its
strengths. And since it has no intrinsic voting power except insofar people
might be convinced of the value of ideas, I have no trouble rejecting those
who attack it as a closed group.
It takes a great deal of work to form and maintain this kind of ad hoc group.
One should not expect others to do the work for them - ICANN should not be
expected to facilitate such formations. But equally, ICANN should not do
things that impede such formations - for instance, ICANN should avoid things
like anonymous public mailing lists that make it
difficult for people to identify one another for purposes of initiating those
critical off-list contacts that serve as the nuclei about which coalitions or
fora may coalesce.
As you know, I'm a strong opponent of censorship in public spaces. However,
in private spaces, the ability to impose a degree of etiquitte is essential
to the long-term survival of the group and the maturation of its thought
processes and the growth of its political strength. In the Boston Working
Group we have a rule that requires mutual respect and another that demands
that nothing be leaked without permission. Of course we aren't perfect in
this, far from it, but we've survived and grown since before the era of ICANN.
Another very important mechanism is an active press - Journalists build their
own visibility and credibility and that, in turn, serves as a sieve that
helps us identify those in the global forum who are simply oddballs from
those who are modern day Aristotles in the rough.
Just as it takes time for interest-coalitions to forum out of the inchaote
cloud of global-forum partipants, it takes a great deal of time for
journalists to realize the importance of issues, much more to comprehend them
sufficiently to write about coherently. The press is not simply an observer;
it is a partner, in the evolution of a mature body politic - we have to give
them the time, materials, and patience so that over time they can do their
job well.
You ask how people can remain engaged in this process without burning out...
Lord knows. ;-)
In my own case I look at ICANN as an historical event - It is my sense that
we are creating a new kind of sovereign governmental institution - something
that hasn't really happened since the nation-state reached modern form in the
years following the Napoleonic Wars.
This is simply too interesting (to me) to miss.
(I don't see treaty-based entities or NGO's as being independent sovreign
entities and thus really not the same kind of thing as is being created with
ICANN.)
As for getting work done - That's a hard one. In the global forum it simply
isn't possible to depend that organized work efforts will reach fruition. In
the smaller fora it is important that there develop a kind of management
structure - nothing formal, but rather a sense that members can ask others to
help and that once a committment is made, it is
important that the committment be honored. Again drawing on the BWG
experience - we had the luck of starting life in a compressed weekend in
which we had to essentially review the entire initial ICANN proposal, agree
upon limited changes, and put those into writing. We litterally gathered
around a dining room table and pounded out our ideas until we were exhausted.
That kind of thing builds a lot of strength in a group.
As for resources, it is my sense that a viable ad-hoc forum requires some
degree of network support - A mailing list and archive are important, as is
easy access to private and public web servers so that drafts can be floated
and final documents published. This kind of thing is not particularly hard
or expensive to establish - in the BWG case it was
particularly easy because several of us have strong technical backgrounds and
were already running 24x7 e-mail and web-server systems with decent
constant-on connectivity.
My own experience tells me that the process of maturation of an electorate
involves a lot of unrecognized work, a lot of ego, piles of frustration, a
strong dose of hyperbole, and the catalyst of face-to-face contact.
I'm kind of running off at the keyboard here... I hope I've made some useful
suggestions.
--karl--
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|