[At-Large] (not really about) Travel Funding

[Evan Leibovitch]

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Not all North Americans and/or Europeans have "thick skin" and use abusive
> language disguised in free speech. Actually, most of them are pretty
> civilized and able to sustain a calm conversation, and even to listen
> carefully.
>   
This is true, however I still maintain that there are some cultures and
traditions that simply shun this kind of behaviour. I suggest that many
in North America and Europe, even those who would not themselves be
aggressive, are de-sensitized to those who are. There are some other
environments where such conduct is simply shunned.

> The point is simply that if abusive language scares people away, there is an incentive in using it against your opponents, so they leave and you remain in control.

May be, but in control of what? Leading a group with few participants
offers a weak mandate.


> The GA, to make an example, is physically occupied by a crowd that does exactly this: in the name of freedom of expression they claim to have the right of saying everything in whatever form, and if there is an attempt to enforce civil discourse rules, they scream and yell against "censorship". What escapes the casual observer is that this behaviour ends up in being the very censorship it claims to be against: by driving away those who have "thin skin" (or simply do not have time to lose with jerks),
> they censor de facto the discourse on the mailing list.
>
> The only way to contrast this ill behaviour is not to be scared by bullies, and have clear rules about acceptable and non acceptable behaviour.


I myself am very concerned about the real censorship that would happen
if we made the only list restricted to good behavior. Sometimes some
good ideas and important news comes from the aggressive people; that is
why I am suggesting a group of "ambassadors" who monitor both lists and
pass news and ideas between them. Did that happen in the GA or were both
lists completely isolated from each other?

A two-list system would provide forums for all; one bully-free, one
censorship-free.
If you have a better idea, I would eagerly like to hear it.


> Evan's idea of dual lists is the solution that, many years ago, has been applied to the GA.

Based on your account above, the current bullying in the GA indicates
that this dual-list tactic is not being applied anymore. If there were
two lists, the bullying you describe above would not be able to take
place (at least, in the restricted list).


> I respect Evan's idea, but hope that we do not have to get to that point.
>   

I am not sure what you mean. Look at the lack of participation here from
regions outside North America and Europe -- we have more than 100 ALSs
but rarely more than 10 different people post here. Read the comments of
people who have been agreeing with my analysis of the problem. Look at
how the GA deteriorated after abandoning a two-list scheme, according to
your own account.

To me the issue is not whether or not there is a problem; the problem
certainly exists. The issue is what solution would work best.

In other words, we are already at "that point"; indeed IMO we've been at
that point for at least as long as I've been involved with ICANN.

As I said, if my suggested solution is considered too harsh or
unworkable, I welcome alternatives.

- Evan