[governance] Irony

[Kieren McCarthy]

> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is 
> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions 
>(attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by 
> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'.


Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do.

As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my role
in ICANN.

I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except
with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide.

I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other
issues as well? Like broccoli. 

Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email outlining
what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment so
people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted.



Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Irony

I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very
strange this approach to institutions'

As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps
attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to
influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on
what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that substantive
criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve'
(apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only
be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all
discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current
ig structures) or has been simply ignored. 

Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to
Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions
(and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance
institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot
afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and
indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness +
thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and
different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to
others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting !

Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this whole
process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from an
'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that
feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and ironical.

Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying
concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to
resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent /
substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..'  This
would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather
than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome.

I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that
light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults 

Regards,
Guru
Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first
posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and
its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of
black

-----Original Message-----
From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation

Hi Jacqueline,

Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit :

>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be 
>> valued if expressed within a given framework,
>
> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently 
> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for 
> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue.

I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that
this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the
dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this
geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and this
is by no way specific to ICANN discussions.

>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are
> equated to "the
>> Internet's best interests").
>
> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in 
> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some 
> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the 
> "institution".

Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best
interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren,
explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public
Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may
look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find
very strange this approach to institutions.

Best,
Meryem

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance