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

[Roelof Meijer]

I am getting rather worried about what some (unwanted) the implications of
empowering the community through the CCWG proposals might actually be, if
I (try to) follow the reasoning of Phil and Paul. There seems to be so
much time in the community to ³chase every rabbit² on the basis of all
kinds of assumptions

Like Avri, I fail to understand the crisis over this. And I agree with
Tijani when he says:  "Fadi Chehadé would never accept anything that leads
to an intergovernmental Internet Governance; at the contrary, I think it
is a way to reinforce the MSM in the advisory committee, and in the World
Internet Conference². When making assumptions, let¹s at least take one¹s
track record into consideration.


Cheers,

Roelof




On 25-12-15 16:33, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Paul Rosenzweig"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

>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-reve
>na
>nt--except-you-cant-because-of-his-federal-job/2015/12/22/32d632fe-a5c5-11
>e5
>-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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>