[governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

[Milton L Mueller]

   _____  

From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] 



But if you wish to raise what I felt was an ad hominem attack, this is what you wrote:

 

 

“Apparently, your real job is not promoting ‘public participation’ but promoting ‘public participation on terms and conditions that ICANN's managers choose’.”

 

 

 


MM replies:


Provocative, yes. Ad hominem, no. 

 

Kieren, let’s get real. You are an employee of ICANN. Nothing inherently bad or good about that. It’s just a fact. So when you express opinions about controversial Internet governance political issues pertaining to ICANN, such as the at large elections, it is impossible for anyone on this list to know whether you are doing so in your capacity as ICANN employee or as Kieren McCarthy, individual. And sorry, no savvy person is going to take any disclaimers from you at face value. 

 

The situation is especially delicate for you. You are not just any employee, you are a publicist and someone who’s is supposed to encourage public participation. This would include ALL the public whether they agree with you or not, right? So let me ask you, how “encouraged” to participate does someone who believes in at large voting feel when ICANN’s promoter of public participation is out there slamming voting as a useless failure? 

 

The basic dilemma is this: either you are speaking with the organization’s blessing and promoting its agenda, or you are undermining the purpose of your position within ICANN, which is to be a neutral facilitator of broad public participation. Ain’t no middle ground. 

 

You may just have to accept the fact that your current employment situation makes it a no-win situation for you to express personal political positions about ICANN in public lists. I am not trying to shut you up, I am simply pointing out a relatively obvious problem that comes with your attempts to get involved in civil society discussions.

 

Still feel picked on? Suppose for a moment that there was someone on this list from the ITU, who aggressively defended ITU’s right to take over ICANN’s functions, but insisted that this was “just his honestly held personal opinion” and that he was not following any “prescribed routes by senior executives at ITU.” How credible would that claim be? You know perfectly well that every supporter of ICANN would be screaming about the person’s conflict of interest. 

 

The odd thing is that I know of no other international organization that would allow its employees to do that. Certainly not the ITU. During WSIS they monitored the public discussions, they slipped strategic information to people once in a while, they had their opinions that they expressed privately, but they were too professional to jump into list trenches and knew that it would be counterproductive. 

 

 

 

 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 5:58 PM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 5:58 PM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071125/ad2c7ada/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071125/ad2c7ada/attachment.txt>