[CCWG-ACCT] Follow-up from the Word Internet Conference in China

[Paul Rosenzweig]

We must live in a bit of a different world, I think. Where I come from, any
public official (and let's not kid ourselves -- that is what Fadi is) who
did what Fadi did would be subject to discipline if not removal.  While
acting in a public role, the official has no private capacity -- none at
all.  At least in the world I inhabit that prohibition is so stringent that
it applies even to actions that would be (under any reasonable test) so
clearly distinct that the likelihood of confusing the public role with the
private role was virtually non-existent.  

For a particularly telling recent example of this, consider this story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/meet-the-author-of-the-revena
nt--except-you-cant-because-of-his-federal-job/2015/12/22/32d632fe-a5c5-11e5
-ad3f-991ce3374e23_story.html.  A minor Federal official wrote "The
Revenant" before he joined the government.  Now, the book is a major movie
just released today, starring Leonardo DiCaprio.  In the normal course of
events, the writer of the book on which the film was based would be doing
publicity for the film.  Here, the author cannot -- because he is a Deputy
Trade Representative of the US.  Now, I don't know about you, but for me the
likelihood that people will associate the movie publicity with the USTR
office and draw an inference of official US government approval is
vanishingly small -- so on the merits I would say that this is a place where
the officials private life could diverge from his public responsibility.
But as I said, here we are so cautious about even the appearance of
impropriety that the author is not doing any public relations for his movie.

As others have pointed out for Fadi the possibility of confusion is clearly
much higher -- the press and the public will (and have) linked his new
"personal capacity" job to his current status as CEO of ICANN -- which is of
course exactly why he was hired and exactly what the Chinese wanted.
Frankly, as Nigel said, I find his behavior troubling and remarkably tone
deaf.

I should add that the purpose of the restriction on trading on your public
position works both ways.  We worry not only about the new "private"
connection currying favor with public official, we also worry that the
official may make decisions in his public capacity that are now to benefit
his future private actions rather than the public interest.  It isn't the
connection and the cooperation that is troubling (as Eric notes) -- it is
the promise of future employment with unknown benefits that was made while
the public official was still working for the public that raises the
questions.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key


-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel at channelisles.net] 
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2015 5:47 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Follow-up from the Word Internet Conference in
China


> Are we tending a bit much toward micromanagement of the CEO?  I have 
> never been one of his fans, but this seems a bit much to make an issue
over.
>
> avri

This is not just a matter of judgment, but a matter of cross-cultural
judgment. The CEO gets paid to get this right. And I REALLY expected better
from Mr Chehade' in that department

Actually, I would not have expected this kind of behaviour from recent
previous CEOs.  Certainly not from Paul.  In fact not even from Rod, who
  despite his public persona and irritating Hollywood rockstar ways was, in
many was, quite sensitive to non-US cultures!

In China, relationships matter.

Appearance matters. A lot.

Both of those things can be as important, if not more important than the
'letter of the law' as to whose dime he was on when carrying on the
discussion with the relevant actors inside China.

The American way (and the British, to a lesser extent) is based on a
cliteral interpretation of the rules (with a seasoning of 'wiggle-room' 
for peccadilloes).

So while it's understandable to hear from some of you that you don't see the
problem, some of us really, really see a big issue here.

I'm not going to complain loudly about the ethics side, although I
personally find it curious that Fadi was there on ICANN's dime, yet once
again making announcements 'in his personal capacity'.  A CEO can never be
in his personal capacity, in my view until he gets his cardboard box. 
(It was strange how the reporters describe him as ICANN's CEO, though. 
Oh yes, that's because he IS. Even yet.)

The issue is that the head of ICANN, voluntarily handed in his resignation,
choosing to leave early, before transition was complete, and in another
revolving-door shocker joined an organisation with an apparently completely
different world view, and chose Wuzhen to make supportive statements of them
and their backers.

Once again, 'it's not what they say, its what others hear'.

UK public servants have a purdah period before moving to organisations that
operate in the same sphere.  Why, in the name of accountabaility, does ICANN
still not? (Have we forgotten and already discounted the terrible optics of
Dengate-Thrushgate?). A mere xix months would not be onerous.

Please don't dissect Fadi's actual words. They don't count.

Hardly at all.

It's the nature of 'who', 'where', and 'when' that counts much more than
'what', or even 'why'.


> '
> And with that, I shall stop and simply add -- Happy Holidays!
>


Likewise.


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community