FYI:   https://omblog.icann.org/?p=192
 (my comment at end)



ICANN Ombudsman Blog

September 23, 2009

Whither civility…..?
Filed under: cases and findings — Frank Fowlie @ 11:20 am

I have been researching a complaint concerning incivility and dis-respectful online communication.

 

There are two documents which the community should be aware of.   The ICANN Transparency and Accountability Principles, approved in January 2008 and found at: http://www.icann.org/en/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-10jan08.pdf, state on Page 28: “members of the ICANN community should treat each other with civility both face to face and online.”

The Statement on Respectful Online Communication may also be found at: http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/respectful-communication-en.htm. This document has been promulgated to the ICANN community through the Ombudsman Annual report over the past two years.

 
 

I wonder if community members would consider the following sorts of dialogue to be civil and respectful?

 

“….are of course a bunch of zombie-like followers and cannot see that the right path is the one engendered and controlled by the ICANN higher powers”

 

“You are free to engage in revisionist history now if you like, but those of …know a different story very well.”

 

“Please, repeat that a few times until it sinks in:…”

 

“You and …… are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign – and we stand prepared to debunk it every time.”

Comments (7)

7 Comments »


  1. Honesty and truth are more important than fake civility. We should be encouraging more free speech, as long as it is true, rather than trying to censor people that you deem to be “uncivil” or “disrespectful.” Respect is earned.
  2. ICANN has routinely ignored the public, even when they have been thoughtful and civil. A bit of civil disobedience is a good thing from time to time (of course, no violence or any other stuff like that would be acceptable).
  3. I have no problems with any of the above (which I’ve not written). If we want people to post as “robots” without any style or flair or passion, even more would be driven away.
  4. Comment by George Kirikos — September 23, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

  1. Wither confidentiality? Since anyone can Google for the phrases you quote, haven’t you just outed your complainant?
  2. Comment by Anonymous — September 23, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

  1. Thank you for your comments. However, I must respectfully disagree with you. No one is trying to censor anyone here. One simply hopes that the level of debate in the broad spectrum stakeholder environment would be professional, civil, and ethical. Name calling, rudeness, and antagonistic dialogue do not act as a welcome opportunity to move debate forward. It also does not create a welcoming environment for participation in general.
  2. I am certainly not suggesting fake civility. I am suggesting that members of this community must see each other with genuine respect as the staring point, and with genuine civility. No one involved in the ICANN model should have to earn respect. Their involvement, no matter for what duration, purpose, or time frame should be enough of a starting point for all to be treated with civility and respect. Not just as members of the ICANN Community, but as human beings.
  3. I also disagree with you with your conjecture that the only way to have style, flair or passion is to be uncivil or disrespectful. The libraries of the world of full of the works of authors who have been able to lead and inspire without resorting to name calling, rudeness or creating intended hurt or contempt. The use of uncivil or disrespectful communication is only a tool for the bully. It does not promote conversation. In fact, those are the focus of intended dis-respectful communication are likely to drop out of debate, or organizations when they are ridiculed. Those who are watching the debate are likely either not to offer opinions for fear of being roughly treated, or to simply walk away form the table. I can’t imagine any circumstance where polite and respectful communication demeans a person to the point where they merit being called a robot.
  4. There is a huge definition gap between civil disobedience, and crass behaviour. Being uncivil or disrespectful should not create licence to own or dominate debate at ICANN.
  5. Comment by Frank Fowlie — September 23, 2009 @ 1:56 pm

  1. Dear Annonymous.
  2. Thank you for your comment. No, these are random comments I have picked up while looking at some lists. There is nothing here linked with the complainant. My object to to have a sense of some thing things which are being posted, and use them as examples of conduct which may be improved. Finally, these link back to the ICANN Accountability Framework.
  3. Hope that clarifies.
  4. Comment by Frank Fowlie — September 23, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

  1. Frank: All too often the “powers that be” are happy to label anyone they disagree with as “uncivil” or “disrespectful” in order to attempt to censor them. It’s a tool to suppress honest speech. You don’t give the public enough credit to distinguish honest, tough, but 100% fair speech from the rantings of lunatics. I think the public is sophisticated to see that difference, to see when folks can be 100% civil while also avoiding or obfuscating truths.
  2. For example, I asked in one of the Question Box segments why ICANN staff were researching my views on Obama. I gave them the exact time stamp, IP address, etc. They know exactly who did it.
  3. ICANN has been very “polite and civil” about denying that they are even aware of things, even though it’s right on the mailing lists, for example at:
  4. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg02413.html
  5. When Paul Twomey was questioned in D.C., he was certainly “treated roughly” by the politicians. That’s sometimes the only way to get answers, to the truth, when all other methods fail. Certainly everyone is entitled to the same free speech that politicians can engage in.
  6. It says a lot about ICANN itself that folks sometimes *have* to use harsh (but honest and truthful) language in order to be heard. If ICANN was actually accountable, and listened when folks speak more softly, the language wouldn’t have to be as harsh. Indeed, some of the same people that speak harshly of ICANN speak softly when speaking to other parties, because other parties actually do listen and respond, unlike ICANN.
  7. Comment by George Kirikos — September 23, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

  1. i do not find these comments to be un-civil.
  2. perhaps a bit blunt.
  3. there is no ad-hominem attack
    there is no name calling
    no curse words
    no Godwin arguments
  4. true it is not all hearts and flowers and luvey dovey.
    it was blunt and direct
  5. name withheld for fear of retribution
  6. Comment by Femme desJour — September 23, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

  1. Again, I respectfully disagree with you. The scenario exampled here is not “powers that be” attaching labels to behaviours. These were quotes between members of the same community, seemingly unable to debate without becoming less than civil. Actually, I fundamentally believe that a demonstration of thoughtful, civil, and professional discourse will create a greater opportunity to gain credibility and put forward positions in debate that bullying language will. Again, please be clear, we are talk about sample conversations between participants here, not between ICANN (however you may define that) and participants. I am absolutely certain that my inbox would be flooded with complaints should the staff, board, or appointees use this sort of language in communicating with the stakeholder community.
  2. Comment by Frank Fowlie — September 23, 2009 @ 2:48 pm

  1. Gosh Frank, your comments have taken a public decision about the appropriateness of these comments already.
    “… seemingly unable to debate without becoming less than civil…. ”
  2. Have you received a response yet from the accused (i.e. both sides of the story)?
  3. Have you considered that your comments here can be seen to be biased in favor of the complainant and may contribute to “create” community opinion in one direction?
  4. I note you claim these are “random comments” and “There is nothing here linked with the complainant.” However that has not been my experience.
  5. cc: NCUC
  6. Comment by Robin Gross — September 23, 2009 @ 7:17 pm




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]