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

Sun Nov 25 21:06:24 EST 2007

With respect to this response and to a response by Judith Oppenheimer
earlier.

You both appear to view ICANN as a singular organisation whose staff work
together to some pre-determined goal. The problem with this supposition is
that it completely ignores the entire raison d'etre of ICANN: to co-ordinate
between different supporting organisations and advisory committees. 

There is no "management agenda" beyond making sure that ICANN's processes
work as effectively as possible; that due consideration is given to how to
implement agreed policies; and that the model holds together, with tweaks
and changes made where circumstances demand.

As for me personally. The reason I am at ICANN is because I want to make it
work. The organisation has been through several reviews and reorganizations
and come through the other end. It is the model in place and the one that
will stay in place for the foreseeable future. I want to strengthen that as
far as possible for the good of the Internet. I think many in the ICANN
community feel the same way.

Just for clarity though: in my role - I think I've been with ICANN eight
months now - I have never been told what to do; or not to do. I come up with
ideas and I implement them. I try as far as possible to co-ordinate with the
other staff and explain what I think the advantages are to what I am doing
because usually it involves other people doing more work on top of their
normal work. 

I speak to everyone. I listen to everyone. I am quite open about ideas for
changes and improvements. And I try to implement the best ones. That's it.

THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY. 

If people would only involve themselves in the work a little more, and try
to work together rather than accuse others of being up to something, they
would pretty quickly realise that outside the shouting and arm-waving are a
lot of dedicated people working hard to do the best they can for the
Internet.

But that isn't the point of this thread. This thread isn't about me, or
ICANN. It's about rudeness and the enduring lack of professional courtesy on
this list - and that issue is not going to go away.

Dealing with criticism by throwing accusations at the critic is a classic,
if cheap, form of misdirection popular with politicians. I would hope that
this list could hope to aim a little higher.

Once we are done trying to paint me as somehow up to something, could we
please move on to David Allen. And then David Goldstein. And then Norbert
Bollow. And then Jacqueline Morris. And then Jeanette Hoffman. And then all
the others on this list who have expressed the same sentiments about rude
behaviour. 

Is everyone up to something? Is everyone trying to silence the brave few who
are courageous enough to throw unrelated insults at individuals over email?
Or is the reality that this list would hugely benefit from people being a
little less dismissive and a little more respectful?

Kieren

  _____  

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:57 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

  _____  

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/20071125/5068909c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071125/5068909c/attachment.txt>