Question: Sitting here trying to challenge, to rethink my beliefs about the nature of organizations, I wonder how well we understand the value of conflict in uncovering ideas and new information?

What's missing from this education process?

How do we inspire one another to contribute far beyond current levels?

Nominee Replies

Donald Langenberg - posted on 2000-09-24 13:30:46 This one's worth an extended conversation over a couple of beers somewhere. A personal comment: I am a physicist. Two eternal truths about my native field are encapsulated in the following two assertions: Physics is a social science. Physics is a contact sport. Conflict is both essential and endemic in physics. It grows out of the fact that one cannot in principle prove an idea correct, but one can prove it incorrect. Therefore, the way the physics game is played is that physicist A comes up with a theory or an experimental result. Physicists B, C, D, etc. then attempt to destroy it. If it survives this attack, it is viewed as having probable validity and is adopted (until something better comes along) into the canon. Usually, all this happens in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect. And it does seem to uncover ideas and new information at a fast clip. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-18 20:18:18 Conflict creates energy and excitement and is a vital part of this process. As you point out, it helps to uncover ideas and new information. It also helps us define ourselves and the organization (ICANN). Whether ICANN decisionmaking occurs behind closed doors, or in the open, conflict will be there. Behind closed doors, the conflict will be about the self-interested division of profits. In the open -- where there is transparency -- the conflict moves to a higher level and a debate ensues about the public good (and self-interest can also be voiced without shame). I think the organizational design of ICANN should encourage the following order of processes: Information Gathering, Debate, Reflection, and Decision Making. Many would argue, with some credibility, that thus far the reverse order has occurred with ICANN on many issues. Harris Miller - posted on 2000-09-17 13:21:18 You raise an excellent point. As potential Board Members, how do we view our role in creating an environment which encourages participation? First, to be explicit, for ICANN to be successful, I firmly believe that its processes must be more transparent. And not just in words. This may be the single most important step in securing greater participation from the community. The user community and all other constituents must have confidence that contributions to the conversations will be respected and treated fairly. As many know, when I testified before Congress about ICANN, I specifically stated that more work needs to be done to open up the process. I believe that to be true today. Second, the premise of your question is almost dialectical. I would hesitate to embrace it in this context. For me as a potential Board Member, transparency and openness are tools to foster consensus building. In that context, a lively exchange of ideas frequently can be healthy to uncover new ideas and information. Seeking to institutionalize conflict, however, such as in adversarial proceedings in the legal system, would not be in the interests of ICANN or the user community. My experiences serving on the Boards of Directors of several technology non-profit organizations demonstrates that transparent consensus-driven policies do stimulate active participation. I would seek a similar outcome with ICANN. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-17 09:13:51 Conflict is crucial, but not the sort of conflict that drives people away, or silences opposition. My first teaching job was at the University of Chicago, where colleagues are extremely strong in their criticisms, of ideas and execution. That criticism was crucial to pushing all of us to do something more. But strong criticism is not flaming. The best draws a careful line.