Re: [At-Large] Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
To Karl and Carlos,
I don't believe that there is anything strange or naïve in the expectation that participants in an organization which represents a global community would conduct themselves at a level of discourse and behaviour that includes respectful communication. This is an international forum for debate and discussion, and while no one has the reasonable expectation of Platonic debate, neither do participants want to be involved in name calling and behaviours which more closely resemble a school yard at recess than an international cooperative effort.
There is no proposal that any party not vigorously pursue the advocacy of their own position, only that they do so in a manner that is respectful of others.
Dr. Frank Fowlie, DCR Ombudsman
While you are correct, in theory, it never works like that. This type of behavior 'guideline' turns into a tool for censorship and political correctness.
Agree. I said what I said for that. This type of behavior 'guideline' turns into a tool for censorship and political correctness. Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:20:24 -0700 From: icann-list@sorehands.com To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
To Karl and Carlos,
I don't believe that there is anything strange or naïve in the expectation that participants in an organization which represents a global community would conduct themselves at a level of discourse and behaviour that includes respectful communication. This is an international forum for debate and discussion, and while no one has the reasonable expectation of Platonic debate, neither do participants want to be involved in name calling and behaviours which more closely resemble a school yard at recess than an international cooperative effort.
There is no proposal that any party not vigorously pursue the advocacy of their own position, only that they do so in a manner that is respectful of others.
Dr. Frank Fowlie, DCR Ombudsman
While you are correct, in theory, it never works like that.
This type of behavior 'guideline' turns into a tool for censorship and political correctness.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ Encontrá todo sobre tus artistas favoritos en MSN http://entretenimiento.latam.msn.com/ar
This thread reminded me of a blog post Christopher Locke wrote a few weeks ago: http://www.rageboy.com/2009/04/cluetrainplus10-did-i-fall-asleep-this.html His point is that honest speech is more important than civility. Ideally you'd have both, but if one has to go, I would ditch civility in favor of honesty. I say this as someone who always has had trouble divining the real meaning behind things like the "GAC Communiques," which bury their points under so many layers of politeness that they are indiscernible to all but a handful of insiders trained in the Kabuki theater of international politics. I am not disagreeing with what Frank Fowlie wrote -- and would strongly agree that bullying and intentionally over-heated rhetoric should not be acceptable -- but honest speech is acceptable too, even if it is overly blunt or seemingly rude by some cultural definitions. Bret
At 9:04 AM -0700 5/12/09, Bret Fausett recently said:
indiscernible to all but a handful of insiders trained in the Kabuki theater of international politics.
GREAT metaphor!!!! I recently read something that resonated with me: "Argue like you're right. Listen like you're wrong." Jean Armour Polly BTW I haven't had much to say lately but I'm still here. -- "These young kids today don't remember the packet wars of the early 90s, when we had to carry a SPARC station through the snow for hundreds of miles until we reached a POP...." -- Jean Armour Polly http://www.netmom.com/
I wonder - given that some of it is from the already existing Transparency Framework, and we have had no censorship issues based on that document (as far as I have heard) - what are the additional penalties/rules here that would allow for censorship and/or political correctness? I agree that one should attempt to be respectful in communication, and see nothing wrong with this reminder. Jacqueline Bill Silverstein wrote:
While you are correct, in theory, it never works like that.
This type of behavior 'guideline' turns into a tool for censorship and political correctness.
participants (5)
-
Bill Silverstein -
Bret Fausett -
carlos aguirre -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jean Armour Polly