[governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header)

[Parminder]

> If ICANN continues to present itself as the "merely technical"

> organization

> that it *should* be (as opposed to the more general public policy

> organization that it increasingly *is*, as reflected in its tangible

> policy

> ambitions) I predict you would get a much different response.  ........
(snip)

> 

> The core problem is that the official line ("we are only technical") is

> not

> of interest to the general public, but the reality (*we make policy of a

> more general nature*) is of much greater interest to the general public.

> 

> If ICANN were honest in explicitly describing the full range of public

> policy that is deliberated under its roof, I predict it would get much

> more

> attention from the general public.  In a strange way I suspect that ICANN

> doesn't really want that attention, but if I am wrong and indeed it does

> want that attention it has not been able to get past its erroneous self

> image to present itself properly to the general public in order to get

> that

> attention.

> 

> This is basically a matter of institutional self-denial, either

> intentional

> or accidental, that must be clarified in order to attract proper public

> input into policy making that the general public is increasingly

> interested

> in.

 

Thanks Dan for an excellent exposition of what you rightly describe as the
'core problem'. I will like to recommend you for the CIRs main session to
just put forward this simple and clear formulation of the main issue or
problem around CIR governance. 

 

>"Is you is, or is you ain't" a *general public policy* organization, ICANN?

 

I add my voice to this central question. 

 

'to be or not to be' is something ICANN must clearly decide on and come out
publicly with - whether it is merely a technical organization, whether it
does public policy, if so, in what areas, and with what legitimacy and
representation. Can we as stakeholders and those affected by ICANN's
activities just ask ICANN to come out with a public statement and white
paper on this issue. All kinds of participation into ICANN processes spoken
of on this list can only follow such a statement, and an open discussion
around it. We would then at least know what are we participating in. for
instance, I myself have no intention to participate in any technical
function - which I find myself inadequate for, as also not interested in.

 

On the issue of the public policy issues ICANN deals with 

 

>The point I'm trying to make here is that if people knew that ICANN was
>making policy that will affect things they care about deeply like freedom
>of expression and personal privacy, etc., there would be a much higher
>likelihood of expanding interest in ICANN's work to more of the general
>public.

 

I will add 'development' to the list. 

 

I mean, why

> does a "technical" organization even have an "intellectual property

> constituency" (in addition to the BC) in the first place?  If it has that,

> how about adding a "personal privacy constituency" (in addition to the

> NCUC) or a "free expression constituency" etc., etc.?

 

I will also add 'development constituency'.

 

I have no problems with ICANN that does only technical regulation and no
public policy. Someone has to do tech regulation and ICANN seems to have the
people with tech expertise and probably good systems in place as well. My
problem is with the ICANN which does public policy, in an underhand
self-denying manner Dan describes.

 

But, to take the issue to the role of the wider CS engaged in IG issues, it
is not enough to say ICANN should not do public policy. Someone needs to do
it, and if we are not able to put our finger on who should, the nearest
involved people/ organization will do it by default, through action that may
not be labeled 'public policy'.  There is no option to this - policy/power
vacuums get filled automatically. 

 

And therefore if we say ICANN shouldn't so public policy, CS should puts its
attention and energy to figure out who should. Keep the Core Neutral
campaign seem to suggest that national governments should do it, but I think
this is not an adequate solution for at least two reasons.

 

(1) in the information society there are many, an ever increasing number of,
issues that defy national boundaries - IPR and trademarks, content,
e-commerce, cyber crime etc etc...

 

(2) in a spirit of global solidarity, civil society has always looked at
international instruments - of soft as well as hard law - to ensure human
rights - civil, political, social and economic. Pushing the domain of
Internet public policy exclusively to national domains will not be right,
and not in civil society's interest. 

 

We should instead look at the necessary global Internet public policy
processes, and seek to influence them towards our cherished objectives. The
dynamic coalition on 'framework of principles for the Internet' attempts to
engage with such processes, and also seeks to initiate a civil society led
process for starting to develop a framework of public policy principles that
should be adopted globally. In absence of such principles and public policy
processes, either ICANN continues to do Internet public policy or we have
completely statist versions operating within different national domains,
which defeats many of the basic purposes of the civil society to get
together for a world summit on the information society, and try to stick
together thereafter.

 

Best

 

Parminder 

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]

> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 11:23 AM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header)

> 

> At 3:48 PM -0400 9/7/07, veni markovski wrote:

> >At 12:31 9/7/2007  -0700, you wrote:

> >>The ads must be well-designed and properly placed to be effective.  My

> call

> >>is for effective ads, not just any old ads.

> >

> >Then Adam Peake should respond to this ;)

> 

> I'll be interested if he does.

> 

> The ad that he provided as an example appears to be incoherent when one

> evaluates the combination of audience targeting, strategic messaging and

> media placement (these considerations are completely interdependent and

> cannot be separated from one another -- they must be evaluated as a

> package).

> 

> Anyone who has ever worked at an authoritative level in the advertising or

> marketing profession (like, say, at an ad agency in a creative/strategic

> role, or perhaps in the publishing/ad-sales/marketing department of a

> print

> periodical [not the editorial department], or perhaps even in a media

> placement service) would recognize this example as systematically

> unprofessional (as long as they were brought up to speed on the full

> details of ICANN's activities and the specific goal of such an ad).

> 

> 

> 

> >>Bottom line: This example does not prove that there is no audience for

> >>ICANN's work, only that the ad was flawed.

> >

> >You see, the problem is that you can't forever deny the fact that

> >generally people are not interested in ICANN. This time you don't

> >like the ads, next time you wouldn't like the newspapers they would

> >be published at, etc., etc. While the simple fact, which Kieren

> >mentioned will continue to be a fact.

> 

> This "simple fact" appears never to have been properly tested in the first

> place, at least according to the evidence of the ad presented here.  If

> the

> whole ad process is executed properly and professionally, then I won't

> object if the response continues to be weak.  But as long as the ad

> process

> continues to be similarly unprofessional, you really can't tell anything

> about the audience response.  It's as if you spoke to someone

> unintelligibly, and interpreted a non-response as stupidity or lack of

> interest instead of your failure to communicate.

> 

> I will only complain when the process is flawed.  This example was clearly

> flawed, and any competent advertising professionals can confirm it for

> you,

> if they know enough about ICANN and the policy domain it genuinely

> addresses (as opposed to the policy domain it clams to address

> officially).

> 

> 

> The point I'm trying to make here is that if people knew that ICANN was

> making policy that will affect things they care about deeply like freedom

> of expression and personal privacy, etc., there would be a much higher

> likelihood of expanding interest in ICANN's work to more of the general

> public.

> 

> If ICANN continues to present itself as the "merely technical"

> organization

> that it *should* be (as opposed to the more general public policy

> organization that it increasingly *is*, as reflected in its tangible

> policy

> ambitions) I predict you would get a much different response.  I mean, why

> does a "technical" organization even have an "intellectual property

> constituency" (in addition to the BC) in the first place?  If it has that,

> how about adding a "personal privacy constituency" (in addition to the

> NCUC) or a "free expression constituency" etc., etc.?

> 

> The core problem is that the official line ("we are only technical") is

> not

> of interest to the general public, but the reality (*we make policy of a

> more general nature*) is of much greater interest to the general public.

> 

> If ICANN were honest in explicitly describing the full range of public

> policy that is deliberated under its roof, I predict it would get much

> more

> attention from the general public.  In a strange way I suspect that ICANN

> doesn't really want that attention, but if I am wrong and indeed it does

> want that attention it has not been able to get past its erroneous self

> image to present itself properly to the general public in order to get

> that

> attention.

> 

> This is basically a matter of institutional self-denial, either

> intentional

> or accidental, that must be clarified in order to attract proper public

> input into policy making that the general public is increasingly

> interested

> in.

> 

> "Is you is, or is you ain't" a *general public policy* organization,

> ICANN?

> 

> This confusion of mission and identity is at the core of all of these

> problems.  And frankly, if this isn't sorted out then whoever designs the

> ad campaigns doesn't have the full ability to put together an effective

> general-public ad campaign, because superiors would be constraining (and

> importantly distorting and thus undermining) the message they would allow

> to be included in any ads.

> 

> This a "double-bind" situation, and it is systematically dysfunctional.

> It

> is quite possible that the failure of the execution of the ad campaign is

> simply a reflection of that institutional dysfunction, systematically

> obstructing the professionalism of the ad campaign.

> 

> Dan

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070910/b430c1ab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070910/b430c1ab/attachment.txt>