[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] Japanese Sunrise Program
My remark about the Internet was motivated by the observation that people
have written, and continue to write, things on wg-b that can serve no
purpose other than provoke hostility and work against finding agreement, and
which would never be said in face to face discussions between parties
honestly seeking to settle a dispute.
What ever happened to the idea of the "loyal opposition?" The phrase stood
for the principle that each side in a debate were working to a common goal,
the overall good. Each side may have very different views as to how to get
there, but they didn't consider each other disloyal or enemies. Much of
that, it seems, was lost in politics in the last decade; and, much of the
loyal opposition idea was missing from the wg-b debate earlier this year.
If each constituency in wg-b points focuses on the worst behavior of the
members of the other constituencies, and characterizes each constituency by
its most extreme members, common ground gets ignored.
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:01 PM
To: Hartman, Steve; 'Mikki Barry'; email@example.com
Subject: RE: [wg-b] Japanese Sunrise Program
At 15:05 6/10/00 -0400, Hartman, Steve wrote:
>I don't know what the article or what Japan did proves about the Sunrise
>Proposal, but the reaction of those wg-b members below writing about the
>matter shows that, like the Japanese discovered hiding on a island years
>after WW2 ended, they are still fighting the war.
Steve, do you mean that Victory has already been declared? :-)
>A question I've thought about alot over the past few months is whether the
>Internet lends itself to serious debate about deeply felt issues or held
>beliefs. As difficult as it is to reach consensus on such issues in
>face-to-face meetings, well established social conventions encourage
>civility and there are informal and formal rules of procedure that we are
>accustomed to. The social customs and practices that foster civil behavior
>in face-t0-face communication are lacking in on-line communications.
In the real world, when strongly held beliefs are defended , people can be
a lot less civil than the genteel conversations that we have seen so far in
Need I mention Seattle, Melbourne or other places where frustrated people
end up throwing stones?
How can people at the receiving end reach "consensus" about what is a naked
Why is it that powerful Brands (they can "squash ICANN like a bug"
according to a less diplomatic Cybersharque) want to write new rules with
consequences for us all (and great benefits to themselves) instead of
adjusting themselves and all their existing legal and lobbying power to the
promises that the Net gives to all, in terms of Brand building?
Is it too much to come out of the jungle with our hands raised and ask that
the Famous Names lobby please refrain from abusing their already
Perhaps we could reach consensus about that.
Would he-who-pays-you allow that?
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association and
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners