apology - RE: [governance] Irony
Alejandro Pisanty
apisan at servidor.unam.mx
Thu Nov 29 19:18:34 EST 2007
Hi,
apologies, I have mistyped Meryem as "he" and not "she". Deep sorry.
Alejandro Pisanty
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:10:02 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
> Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com>
> Cc: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Irony
>
> OK,
>
> so, no trust for Kieren or anyone who speaks for ICANN or in favor of ICANN.
> Dan's minutious dissection proves that and everybody should take that as
> dogma from now on. This may cut two ways but never mind for now.
>
> Is there still a chance for anything productive to be done in this list with
> the participation of people who think that ICANN is more half-full than
> half-empty? There are at least three outstanding strands that I can recognize
> from recent days:
>
> 1. my question to Meryem whether there is any positive he recognizes in
> ICANN;
>
> 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet
> Governance question that is not ICANN;
>
> 3. the thread started by Adam about the IGF 2008 session;
>
> 4. Bill Drake's question to me, whether we should go through the exercise of
> measuring ICANN against the WSIS criteria. He recalls correctly that I
> thought that would be a useful exercise to perform with respect to the ITU,
> and in fact that did not happen in the WGIG or any time later. It was done
> for ICANN in the WGIG in 2004, and it was done again for ICANN ("to use WSIS
> criteria as a kind of report card") in Sao Paulo in December 2006, I think.
> Once again? Bill, yes, let's do it. I call it the WSIS-o-meter, it's a nice,
> compact spreadsheet, let's, by all means, and be able to move beyond.
>
> There is a fifth strand still waving in the air, which moved from ICANN
> elections to the achievements and else of ICANN's ALAC to Karl's
> self-glorification, and general dismissal of most everyone else, which is
> begging for a "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?" from an
> eyewitness. Better spared, though.
>
> I move that we get our discussions organized around those threads and
> actually achieve something, or find a true alternative.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
> UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
> http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
> *
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Dan Krimm wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:48:38 -0800
>> From: Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com>
>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com>
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
>> Subject: RE: [governance] Irony
>>
>> Okay, fair enough, so:
>>
>>
>> At 2:09 PM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Attempts to read subjective intent into your posts are probably not going
>> to go anywhere, but the whole of your discourse here influences how much
>> others might or might not trust any statements made by you.
>>
>> Again, this is not "ad hominem" (I'm not saying that I distrust you, just
>> that people make that judgment according to the totality of your
>> participation, and if you want to be trusted you should take it all into
>> account, because everyone else does -- just a friendly word of advice).
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I wouldn't hazard a guess on this, but your responses must simply be taken
>> on their merits by the person reading them. When something comes out
>> "sounding" like an ad hominem from you, especially when it is in response
>> to something that seems not to have been intended as an ad hominem *at*
>> you, it is easy to see why people might judge you accordingly.
>>
>> Part of the duty of someone in public relations is not to allow emotions to
>> get the best of you (unless it is somehow strategically to your advantage,
>> I suppose...).
>>
>> And for those that have wrath for ICANN, you cannot take those sentiments
>> personally. Whether or not you personally feel that such wrath is
>> justified, it is ultimately not your call to make, as a representative of
>> the organization. People feel the way they feel, and usually because of
>> some substantive reason. If you respond to the wrath instead of the
>> substance behind it, you distract from any productive discussion.
>>
>> In some other cases, that would be an explicit intent (we see it a lot in
>> the US, and it is part of the general degradation of political discourse in
>> the US -- a real shame).
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If a viewpoint (or the person stating it) is merely attacked rather than
>> addressed substantively, then it suggests that one does not want to discuss
>> the substance of issue, at least not in the manner offered. The question
>> is deeper than *whether* to discuss ICANN, but *how* to discuss ICANN.
>> People here expect to discuss it substantively however they want, even when
>> it goes against the preferred policies of those who run ICANN.
>>
>> Whenever you personally take issue with someone's substantive point of
>> view, you need to take into account that you cannot separate yourself from
>> the organization, either in viewpoint or in tone of presentation.
>>
>> Even your dismissal of this list as "not ... necessarily the best place" to
>> discuss ICANN can be interpreted as a sort of collective ad hominem. Do
>> you see that? Perhaps you really meant that there are structural and
>> procedural reasons why discussions here are less effective in affecting
>> ICANN policy deliberations, which is one thing, but given the contextual
>> priming, it can also be read as suggesting that the opinions here are not
>> useful in the discussion as a matter of substance (and that could be
>> because the substantive comments are diluted with too much ad hominem, but
>> maybe also because the substance is not to the liking of ICANN as an
>> institution -- again, you can't get rid of that organizational connection,
>> so as a public mouthpiece for ICANN you have to go the extra distance to
>> clarify yourself in the face of such ambiguity).
>>
>> We are all now on hair-trigger alert for ad hominems here, so everyone must
>> be extra careful. Again, just a friendly word of advice on how we conduct
>> ourselves here, because one may be causing unintended consequences in one's
>> own expressions.
>>
>> For example, if you were to dismiss this analysis as "long winded" without
>> addressing the substance of these comments, then you would be falling prey
>> to exactly what you deplore in others. I'm trying hard here to go into
>> great detail, because sometimes the point is lost without explicit detail.
>> Repetition is part of the learning process, so sometimes a little
>> redundancy is called for, when addressing a point that is particularly
>> difficult to absorb for one reason or another.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.)
>>
>> The best way to address this here is to lead by example. I've developed a
>> fairly thick skin myself (prior to joining this list), but I still find it
>> annoying and challenging to constantly have to fend off my own emotional
>> reactions to focus on matters of substance.
>>
>> You have disagreed sometimes with policy stances taken by me and/or
>> organizations I am working for (unpaid, by the way), but when the
>> disagreement is not substantive but rather dismissive or otherwise
>> attacking the frame or presentation of the message rather than the
>> substance of the message, this cannot be considered to be leading by
>> example.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The best way to put this to rest is for everyone involved to begin behaving
>> without demeaning every other statement by someone who disagrees with one's
>> own viewpoint, and instead to address the substance of the disagreement on
>> the merits.
>>
>> I can assure you that I have been the target of a good number of ad hominem
>> attacks on this list, and it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth,
>> especially when they are later denied.
>>
>> And, frankly, I don't expect that this list will all of a sudden become
>> perfect in its avoidance of ad hominems. It's hard to change ingrained
>> habits, and flame wars are well-known online. I'll try to give you the
>> benefit of doubt if you do it in the future (as I did above), but I may
>> call explicit attention to the uncertainty surrounding your intent, and ask
>> you to clarify.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Fine, then let the real work not bring the manifestation of the substance
>> of this conversation back on the list, shall we? If we can all finally
>> begin to behave better, then maybe we might figure a few things out.
>>
>> As long as people continue to live in glass houses, they would be advised
>> not throw stones, because that would be disingenuous and counterproductive.
>> And that applies to everyone, not any particular individual.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> PS -- When people misinterpret the substance of each others' statements for
>> strategically rhetorical purposes, it is really no less undermining of
>> trust than a direct and explicit ad hominem attack. Just a thought to
>> ponder moving forward as we consider how to conduct our discourse here.
>> Let real substantive disagreements be explored on their merits. There are
>> a lot of rhetorical tactics that are fundamentally disrespectful of one's
>> opponents while falling short of abject ad hominem, and these habits of
>> discourse are unfortunately rampant in political contexts. And this list
>> is a highly political context, like it or not. That's precisely why it is
>> such a rhetorical danger zone.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list