[governance] Irony Unravelled
Alejandro Pisanty
apisan at servidor.unam.mx
Thu Nov 29 20:07:15 EST 2007
Lee,
and the issues are...?
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, Lee McKnight wrote:
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:03:55 -0500
> From: Lee McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, dan at musicunbound.com, apisan at servidor.unam.mx
> Cc: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [governance] Irony Unravelled
>
> Hi Alejandro,
>
> Getting back to 2) on your list, whether international Internet governance issues exists beyond ICANN, and drawing by analogy on the ITU, here's what I am now thinking:
>
> a) there are IG issues which MUST be coordinated globally (ITU analogy: satellite orbital slots)
> b) there are IG issues which SHOULD be coordinated globally but MUST be implemented regionally, nationally or locally. (ITU analogy: RF allocations)
> and
> c) there are IG issues which CANNOT be coordinated globally, perhaps SHOULD be coordinated Regionally, and MUST be coordinated locally. (well by definition this is outside ITU mandate, though we might think of the Bureau of Telecom Development, where there are international initiatives but implementation typicaly is local in a specific nation.)
>
> I suggest we consider these more variegated categories than either all-international ICANN or non-ICANN, since I suspect that 2)b and 2)c are larger buckets than 2)a.
>
> On the other hand, if it is a purely local issue, definitely take it to a local list.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 11/29/07 7:10 PM >>>
> 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