Dear List Admins, Thank you for the timely and welcome reminder about the KICTANet rules of engagement. The issues we are encountering could be an indicator of the need for more clarity about the forum rules, because they are indeed quite broad and ambiguous (as I will illustrate below) - which could lead so someone crossing an invisible line unknowingly and/or unintentionally. Thankfully many participants in this group believe in, and have been passionatelyadvocating in multiple fora for "free speech" and democratic ethos. It is therefore reasonable to assume that many listers are aware of the damaging impact that broad and vague rules can have in terms of creating room for arbitrary and inconsistent action. Perhaps a good test would be, if similar rules were proposed by Government (e.g. as a "Public Order" Bill/Act), would we accept them? The same high standards we hold onto governments, online platforms and others, we must hold onto ourselves, else we risk being perceived as conveniently duplicitous: preaching water, but drinking wine. Granted that current rules could have been sufficient in the past, the list has now grown and evolved, with more diverse views, perspectives and methods of expressions coming in. It is therefore important for rules (and the moderation process) to evolve and grow as well so that fresh ideas, diversity and minority views are not unintentionally suppressed, or stifled, due to the original rules becoming obsolete or inadequate. This is in line with the good spirit of progressiveness and innovation in this forum. Another insight that has come out in recent discussions is that, this being a multi-stakeholder policy forum, there will be vigorous competition of ideas and in some cases the ideas may not always be congruent or compatible, and may be driven by subjective interests which may, or may not, be known. This concept of open v/s hidden agendas is normal and expected in policy circles, but if diversity of thought and objectivity is to be protected, it means there must be rules of forum governance where no (group of) stakeholder(s) can be deemed more powerful or more privileged or above certain rules, compared to the other. This can be solved through continuous minimization of ambiguities; bringing clarity and transparency into the moderation process; rotating moderators periodically; having moderators to publicly declare potential sources of conflicts of interest; democratic rotation of KICTANet leadership/oversight/governance roles. Affirmative action rules/allowances are also important to protect minority voices (MSME / Indigenous innocators) whose issues may not be package-able into a PR-type diplomatic format, compared to large corporations who deploy teams of expert PR and Legal specialists on full time terms, and whose actions or inaction have no personal bearing or consequences to them e.g, the employee's salary keeps coming irrespective of whether policy decision are for, or against, public interest. Contributions on this list can feed into public interest decisions, with positive or negative impact at industry level or the general public. This calls for a policy where all voices have equal chance of being heard. We must define clear standards of moderation that would ensure a high quality multi-stakeholder discussion that is rich in diversity and where participants are confident that the risk of rules being applied punitively (even for accidental/unintentional breaches) or arbitrarily in order to shape/muzzle debate, is (evidently) minimal and is continuously monitored and addressed as the forum evolves. For example: It would be better if we have a graduated scale that prescribes different penalties for specific types of rule breaches. Why not have a scale that defines, for example: 1st-3rd warnings, temporary short-term suspension, medium term suspension etc? That would be far better a more draconian approach where each and every incident, no matter the circumstances, is arbitrarily subject to a single ultimate penalty: i.e. a forum ban. We must remove avenues where rules can be weaponized by a privileged few in order to muzzle opinion, shape debate and stifle diversity of thought. Now, let us look at the forum rules more closely: Rule 1. "Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life": This rule is literally impossible to use for moderation because it allows for arbitrary application of personal standards, yet everybody has different personal views of what counts as "acceptable behavior" in real life. If I aspire to pursue an intellectual standard in policy debates (i.e. the pursuit of evidence driven and/or rational insights), I might come across as more direct and undiplomatic, and thus, risk upsetting those inclined towards diplomacy for its own sake - who would place a higher premium on maintaining relationships and perceptions - even when it potentially affects clarity, urgency or stifles a rational/objective assessment of the issue under discussion. Rule 2: "Respect people's times and bandwidth". This is vague as well and can be applied arbitrarily. It would be better to have more precise definition of what it means to "respect people's time and bandwidth". For example, in an earlier Konza discussion, there was a call for a KICTANet site visit - but the goals of the site visit and its value did not come out clearly (to me at least - and to my knowledge the meeting never happened). Was that in line with this rule? Or is the goal to prescribe the number of posts, per person, per day for example? |Then let it be prescribed so that everyone is clear. What is meant by "bandwidth"? Is it internet or brain bandwidth? If brain bandwidth is an issue, to what level are we expected to simplify discussions (e.g. primary school level / secondary / TVET / Undergrad / Masters / PhD)? Is there minimum and maximum bandwidth? Are we to assume that everyone has equal "bandwidth"? As you can see this rule needs a lot of clarity otherwise well meaning members will find themselves breaking it unintentionally. Rule 3: "Share knowledge". What happens to members who only consume but don't share knowledge on the list? Should the rule require each list member to contribute one comment every day/week/month or risk sanctions? Should members share all types of knowledge and how would this rule reconcile with rule 2 (respect bandwidth). Should this even be a rule? If rules has consequences, then the bounds of their application should be clear and upfront. Do you agree? Rule 4: "Don't flame or abuse or personalize": Again this is very broad and general and creates room for arbitrary moderation. Some general examples from a positive perspective: a. There is a practice known as Rule Baiting, where rules are applied tactically to suppress views deemed to be against status quo interests. One example is where a member can claim to have been offended by an innocuous comment - in order to trigger the rules - yet it is evident to objective observers that the targeted member's contribution was fair, legitimate and not offensive. b. Another practice is called Off-siding (a variation of rule baiting): For example, party X, Y and Z break the rules, the moderator does not intervene - creating a contextual precedence - but when party A responds in line with already established precedence, suddenly the rules are invoked and applied against Party A - the goal, of course, being to harass / muzzle A. Moderators should be trained to identify rule baiting and there needs to be rules against it to discourage the more politically savvy members of a group from leveraging the inconsistent application of "rules" to illegitimately prevail over other members' contributions. c. If an action by person X (who may be a popular list member or a well known personality in policy circles) creates potentially serious cybersecurity risks for policy makers, is it deemed personalization to associate those risks with that person's activity - especially if, without context, the alert would be useless (not actionable or beneficial) to the recipients if presented in general form? We should avoid a situation where we persecute a messenger simply because the message, despite being valid and useful, touches on person X. Otherwise we risk creating a situation where some people or groups are feared as untouchables / irreproachables. Rather than rushing to enforce punitive measures, moderators should invite contributors to rephrase comments that are deemed objectionable so that useful debates or ideas are not suppressed/muzzled on subjective emotional grounds. This is a more mature approach that recognizes different people have different styles of expressing themselves - hence the focus should be on the ideas and their merits/demerits. d. When a member engages in what appears to be a scam that predates on other members (e.g. someone acts in a manner that makes it appear that they are pretending to be an investor in order to steal trade secrets), should the member be called out / challenged to substantiate? Such practices are illegal in many countries (but sadly, legally ambiguous in Kenya - with costly consequences for MSMEs and Indigenous Innovators). e. I have also noted inconsistent application of this rule where some members appear to easily (and repeatedly) get away with a pattern of ad-hominem attacks - including subtle attempts to discredit a contributor via innuendo. Are there members who are exempt to this rule? Exemptions need to come out clearly in the spirit of multi-stakeholderism so that the less privileged members do not mistake the lenient moderation for the more privileged members as informal precedence to that can be adopted (leading to Off-siding poblems). Rule 5: "Respect Privacy": Again this is subjective and would be more clear if supported by some explanation. Is the respect for privacy applicable to the platform itself? To my knowledge, the KICTAnet platform does not have a privacy policy and/or statement - despite being composed of members who are passionate champions of online privacy. This confirms that the platform could be operating with an obsolete rules / policies framework that needs to be updated in line with 21st Century trends. These kinds of lapses are also why organizations need fresh thought, openness to new ideas and leadership rotation. Rule 6: Do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. Again there have been several instances of lax application (examples below) of this rules which could suggest precedence (and lead to an unfair Off-siding scenario). a. I have seen promotions being offered here (the .Africa offer) which led to a vigorous (and arguably spammy) debate about the pricing of a ~$20/per annum product for example - to the extent where I thought it wise to intervene and bring in some perspective. I believe a higher-value debate was taking place in parallel but was getting overshadowed by the $20/year debate! Check the archives. b. Some events posted here are clearly commercial and/or motivated by sponsorship and/or donor funding. What kind of "wares" are allowed and where do we draw a line? Should there be a limit on the posting of for-profit events? Keep in mind that the idea of beneficial value to members applies to both products and events. c. I have seen people posting requests for experts - and the responses have not been moderated. Again this sets precedence and creates avenue for arbitrariness. Notwithstanding, I'm not sure why people are not allowed to market their qualifications - yet evidently it can be of great value to members. How can we discuss opportunity and jobs creation when we are not open to it? I would propose that people be allowed to market their qualifications (because they are doing it anyway e.g. via events advertised here where they are panel members). Due to the highly subjective nature of current rules, one would hope for very high levels of restraint in moderation and a precise and rational explanation showing in what way a specific contribution is considered in violation, within context - but not others. Rules of precedence should also be considered as mitigating factors and guide the application of other rules. We also need new rules on well known internet groups phenomena - such as online mobbing, harassment and bullying - which tend to occur when there are ambiguous rules of engagement (as is evident in this forum) and/or high potential for arbitrarily moderation. Let us upgrade the rules so that we can have more free, productive, diverse and democratic discussions guided by evidence, truth and reason. I'd be happy to participate in improving the forum rules within a concrete initiative and a team setting. Thanks again List Admins for bringing forth this important issue of rules, moderation process and governance. Have a great evening! Brgds,Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] On Friday, June 14, 2019, 9:55:10 AM GMT+3, Odhiambo Washington via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: As a reminder to fellow listers, The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi stakeholder network of members from civil society groups, academia, private and public sectors, development partners and media.The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the governments mission to enable Kenyans to gain maximum benefit from the opportunity offered by ICTs The rules on engagement, aka KICTANetiquette, as defined at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet for those who haven't had a chance to read them, or those who might haveforgotten, are simple: 1: Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life2: Respect people's times and bandwidth,3: Share knowledge4: Don't flame or abuse or personalize5: Respect privacy6: Do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. Let's observe these 6 cardinal rules. We do not want to unsubscribe you from this interesting list, you know! :-) Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. [From the List Admins] -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223 "Oh, the cruft.", grep ^[^#] :-)_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pmaina2000%40yahoo.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.