Re: [ga] Organization/Communication

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all assembly members,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> 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.<

  To which Karl has sense responded quite eloquently and precisely, as
did several other participants...

>
>
> 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.

  Naturally there is a significant difference in some roles and circumstances
and in others no difference in the communications that occur among and
between electors with other electors, and electors and candidates...  In some
if not most instances the candidates are also electors.  However this is not all
that astounding or particularly significant.

>
>
> 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.

  I don't think it is a matter of allowance, as Karl later posted in response
to the reference you kindly provided.  Rather is it a mater of how individual
electors WISH or CHOOSE 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.

  Smaller fora by the nature of it being small naturally lends itself to make
communication between it's members or participants simpler, and likely
easier, depending on whom are the participants.  However this narrows
the potential scope of positions and interface to a overly limited and not
possibly representative of the broad concerns, ideas, and interests of
stakeholders or other interested parties...

>
>
> 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.

  I don't, and neither do any of our members that I am aware of in this sense.
However there is a sense that some participants/stakeholders that are
viewed with some skepticism.  This is not a fault of the space, but rather
fault of the perceived and stated motivations of these specific participants...

>
>
> So, what's the means by which these more focused fora arise?

  They don't really.

>
>
> 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.

  Yes there is some value amongst those that are participating in these
similar minded fora.  But they are isolated and eventually self serve
that isolation sometimes to a degree that they believe many false
premise and conclusion and then attempt to apply them to a broader
group as if they were pre-ordained.  Small religious sects often make
this same mistake....

>
>
> 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.

  On what specifically?  Is there a work product?

>  The result was mutual trust
> and understanding.

  Yes amongst yourselves in that time frame.  However sense that time,
many have split off into other beliefs....

>  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.

  Closed groups are very beneficial amongst themselves.  The broader benefit
weakens once it is introduced amongst a larger group however...

>  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.

  Yes many political alliances were formed in just such a manner.  One of
the most successful was the Nazi Party.  The Axis states  had great
success from 1932 through 1942.  After finding out that their ideas
for world domination and order were discovered for what they really
were, the rest of the than unprepared world decided that their ideas
were no desirable.  Other examples throughout history have similarly
failed or run their course into oblivion....

>
>
> 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.

  Yes I was a member of that fora.  It had a short life, but did come up
with several what I thought were great ideas, but upon consideration
amongst the broader stakeholder organizations and groups, one by one
fell by the wayside....

>
>
> 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.

  Journalists also destroy their own visibility and degrade their own
sense of credibility as we have seen recently with several online
publications and even more printed media one time giants.  They do so
through several means, but mainly by not being daring enough, doing
good investigative journalistic work, and keeping their audience
adequately engaged....

>
>
> 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.

  To some degree this is of course correct.  But the really good Journalist
publications are well led and can expand their audience very quickly, grasp
the nature of the subjects and story's they are interested in engaging...
The remainder are, "Just the rest"...

>
>
> You ask how people can remain engaged in this process without burning out...
>
> Lord knows. ;-)

  Than I must be a god!  It is simple really, be insistent, consistent,
and persistent....

>
>
> 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.

  Interesting view for and organization that would have no existence at all
was it not for a contract with the USG....

>
>
> 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@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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