Esther Dyson wrote: >I was thinking about the NYT this morning. Why such a negative reaction? As >a (former) journalist, I respect journalists as the people who ask the >questions the others don't think of or don't have time to. They are indeed >filters, and the good oens are good filters. They listen to you guys and >make sure the tough questions get asked - and yes, leave out some of the >spurious ones. On the other hand, sources (both official and leakers) talk >to reporters as a useful way to get the word out, to touch on topics that >the source might not volunteer of his/her own accord. They are >market-surfaced representatives of the public. >What's so bad about that? It's not instead of the lists, but it's a good >supplement. > It's not all about press releases, but also about encouraging *us* to talk, >getting our story straight (not "spun," but so that we can articulate it >clearly, etc. etc.). I believe the board should be free to speak for itself >as individuals, but when you want to know about "ICANN," we should be >providing consistent answers. There appears to be a real disconnect between you what you think you are doing and what the world perceives. Lets start with the basic problem that many people have complained about the closed nature of the Board and how some of its pronouncements have sounded (lets skip the inevitable debate on whether this criticism is justified or represents a majority of the world or a vocal minority, Esther asked why people are complaining about the PR firm). The apparent response to this criticism has not been any of the steps that one might logically conclude are designed to address the substance of the complaint: i.e., opening board meetings, increased communication. Rather, the apparent response is to hire someone to be more convincing. Now it may be that you intend that this new firm will, in fact, help the Board communicate better in the sense that the Board will open new channels of communication and learn how to become generally responsive to people. But this is not how people perceive PR firms. People generally perceive PR firms as a means of "spinning" the truth, of repackaging content that might otherwise prove objectionable and selling it as positive. So, understandably, the people who complain that the Board is not getting it are upset, since this seems to be further proof that the Board does not understand that being "open" is a rather simple process of improving information flow. (It also sends the signal that the Board critics are more numerous, widespread, and effective than the Board would like. Presumably, if the ICANN critics are but a tiny minority of fringe elements, a PR firm is unnecessary. Those who disagree, however, will point out that this is merely a matter of making sure that the press understands that the ICANN critics are but a tiny etc., but this quickly digresses into the rather nasty back and forth which we know too well). In fariness, I am minded of the time at DOE when the Secretary got in trouble for monitoring which reporters reported negatively on DOE. The Secretary explained (and I am inclined to believe her) that what she intended was to track the DOE's critics and try to explain DOE's intentions and message better. The rst of the world accused the DOE of using public money to fund an "enemies" list. So perhaps Esther has really intended that this PR firm help the Board better understand how to communicate. Sadly, however, when coupled with Mike Robert's unfortunate comments, it is easily open to the wrong interpretation. The only thing that can overcome these difficulties is trust, a commodity that ICANN had little to start with and has squandered rather recklessly. Harold
