[governance] Irony

Thu Nov 29 17:09:16 EST 2007

Okay, fair enough. So...

Q. Am I attempting to 'manage' the discussions?
A. No.

Q. Am I attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse'?
A. No.

Q. Am I thin-skinned?
A. Quite the opposite. And I can give you a list of 1,000 people that would
happily testify to that. Well, some not necessarily happily. 

Q. Am I unwilling to discuss issues surrounding ICANN?
A. No. Quite the opposite - I *want* people to discuss ICANN. I'm not sure
this list is necessarily the best place for all of it, but you take what you
can find.

Q. Why am I therefore complaining about rudeness etc?
A. Because it limits conversation and discussion. That's it. Nothing more to
it. If you don't believe me, why not ask the exact same questions but
without being personally offensive, rude, dismissive or couching a question
in leading, negative terms? (And it's not just me and ICANN under discussion
here, it's this list in general and its wider discussions.)

Q. Are you going to go on and on about this?
A. God, I hope not. Particularly when in recent days the list has been very
interesting and informative re: IGF 2008 preparations. 

Q. Is that it?
A. If people want to continue having this conversation let's have it
off-list. Leave this space for real work.

Kieren

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:22 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Irony

I honestly found this response to be quite funny.  Thanks for the light
touch, Kieren.

Nevertheless, I think you are (dis)missing the substantial influence you
have as a mouthpiece for an organization that is de facto quite powerful,
even if in principle the RSOs can walk away at any time.  You have no
*formal jurisdiction* in this list-community, but you have a
disproportionate individual effect nonetheless, due to your official
affiliation and duties.

Larry Lessig, in his first book "Code," identifies four species of
regulation on human behavior: laws, social norms, architecture, and
markets.  While you do not have a legal jurisdiction over listservs such as
this, and you do not control their architecture, you do contribute
significantly to both the social norms and the "market dynamics" of
participation.  This is simply a reality, and ignoring it does not make it
go away.

You have a privileged position as a public representative of ICANN, and
that enhances the effects of your participation on the list.  Otherwise
people may not care quite as much about what you say (and *please* do not
take *that* as an "ad hominem" statement ... it's a statement about the
real effects of official affiliation, no more, and it would apply to anyone
and everyone in your position).

Anyone involved in public relations has to navigate this delicate interplay
of individual and organizational speech with fully explicit awareness.  You
should be aware of these dynamics in your position, because I would expect
that this is part of your job description.  If not, then I think it should
be.  You are in fact in a fairly sensitive role, as much as any government
diplomat (like, say, Bertrand).  People read things into your words
because, well, they *should*, due to your official role.  They attach your
words to the organization, and vice versa.

Anita is making a valid point, and to laugh it off is ultimately not fairly
warranted.  Your reply could be read as a strategic response, designed to
attack Anita's point of view by belittling it (just this side of "ad
hominem"...).  I honestly don't know what you truly believe (whether you
think the idea of your enhanced influence on discourse is preposterous, or
whether you view it as a serious threat to be actively defused by
belittling the point in a political manner).

But by deflecting away from the point through ridicule rather than
addressing it, I think you did not dampen the fire so much as pour fuel on
it.  Is that really what you intended to do?  If not, then you might well
re-examine your tactics here.  I would urge you to try to understand how
your responses are perceived by others, given the ineliminable context of
your official role at a powerful institution of governance that deeply
affects -- and even controls -- some of the important matters discussed
here.  You cannot *really* be assuming that your comments here will be
taken purely as an individual, can you?  That would not be realistic, IMHO.

Everyone here connects you to ICANN with the assumption of some official
role.  Everything you write here should take that axiom into account.  It
is not within your control to alter that perception, so you have no choice
but to work with it.  That is just "the facts on the ground" and there is
really nothing you can do about it.

Though the logic may seem convoluted, you are powerless to avoid having an
enhanced influence on discourse in this community, because of your official
position that ultimately cannot be separated from your words.  This will
not change as long as you hold your current staff position.

Dan

At 9:36 AM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>> 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

____________________________________________________________
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