Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, July 10, 2014 13:20 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 10/07/14 13:13, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> On 10-Jul-14 07:47, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> > But its really now more
>>> > about the ham-fistedness of icann in how and why they
>>> > are closing that than the list content itself.
>> 
>> Ah, I am sure the ham-fistedness complaint line is quite
>> long.  Probably just need to wait in the queue.
> 
> Or not. For a case like this where we're running an open
> process that kind of error needs to be openly beaten up
> on IMO. I think fixing it only via a quiet word in the ear
> is actually less desirable

Usually, I would agree.  But --deliberately stating this as a
hypothetical and without commenting on or trying to extrapolate
from prior ICANN behavior -- suppose you had an organization
with a long history of reacting to public criticism with
defensiveness, denial, stonewalling, coverups, or what, in some
cultures, would be called "fancy footwork".  Even if there were
less of a pattern but some tendencies toward reactions of that
type, someone observing the problem would be faced with a
tactical choice between a pair of goals:

	* If the main goal was the get the problem fixed,
	pointing out the problem quietly would probably have
	better odds of success.
	
	* If the main goal was to hold the organization's feet
	to the fire with the hope that similar situations would
	be avoided in the future but little expectation of
	getting the present one fixed (at least without loss of
	a lot of time and the shedding of real or virtual
	blood), then making a public stink would probably be the
	better choice.

And this sort of thing and the need to consider the possibility
of reactions other than "yes, that is a problem, let's get it
fixed" is why many people in our community prefer working with
emotionless computers and networks to dealing with humans.  :-(

    best,
      john