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

Wed Dec 30 17:11:33 UTC 2015

What is being blown out of proportion here? What did Fadi do? What do
those who criticize think was his rationale for doing what he did?

In dealing with a country as large as China, it is wise to defer
differences and emphasize points on which there are agreements. It
requires such an approach to open the door for dialogue, otherwise
decades would pass before we see China or Russia eye to eye.

There is a reaction, almost as if orchestrated, that seems to magnify
something perceived to have been done by Fadi Chehade exceeding his
brief, wrongly portrayed as self serving involvement, in complete
disregard for every thing that he did during his term in ICANN's best
interest. If the rationale is unspoken, is it to be misunderstood, so
much so that the Community should forget everything he did for ICANN
and harp on the absence of his vocal opposition to parts of the
Chinese statement and his willingness to serve a committee, which
might in reality turn out to be for the good of the multistakeholder
governance?

When someone in a highly responsible position comes under such a
severe attack, often the cause for attack is not what is apparent.

I observed from a distance that he wanted to bring about certain wider
changes which would alter the existing order in several ways (other
participants in various roles might know better), appeared to enjoy a
certain degree of freedom to initiate and execute programs in his own
style, for a year or two. He talked about values, he talked about
various imbalances, he showed respect for good people in the Board, he
reached out to the world by taking the initiative to organize an IGF
like multistakeholder event with Government participation which was a
successful event, and went on to further this good work by seeking to
involve the larger Business Community in the intended follow up as the
NetMundial Initiative. He improved participation in GAC, reached out
to Russia and China. There is more that he probably wanted to do. It
was meaningful leadership.

I recollect that, at the At-Large summit in London, he said "It is
time for the interests to move out of ICANN, and for the community to
come in". Sometime later, in Istanbul, he sought to introduce the
concept of ICANN "Townhall" meetings but arrived at the first meeting
severely discouraged (or so I thought). It appeared that he was
challenged for including certain public iana/accountability comments
in staff summary. Shortly afterwards, he was challenged in his
initiative to appoint External Advisors on ICANN Accountability, was
criticized on the process he was to adopt, and the process went
through some changes as a result; he was challenged in many other ways
whilst performing his role to its fullest actualization. The highest
of the orchestrated opposition was to the progress of NetMundial.

All these, for different reasons, threatened an existing order. Any
reform that has been brought about (by the Board and Fadi's team
together) is not even close to being even half done, because and only
because, the pressure against change must have been overwhelming.

Must have been severely stressful. A case of a CEO not empowered
enough to survive an overwhelmingly powerful community.

Sivasubramanian M

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org> wrote:
> Thank you Milton!
>
> Very good article from my perspective, but still it is difficult to define
> how and at what level it is best to engage with your main (internet)
> equipment supplier.....
>
> Have a nice "rutsch" into the new year.
>
> Carlos
>
> On Dec 30, 2015 5:49 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Here’s my view of ICANN and Fadi’s support for the Chinese Wuzhen Internet
>> Conference. (Spoiler: it’s not about Fadi)
>>
>>
>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/12/29/the-chinese-netmundial-initiative/
>>
>>
>>
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Carlos Raul
>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 10:35 AM
>> To: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Follow-up from the Word Internet Conference in
>> China
>>
>>
>>
>> @Roelof +1 on the last comment. Having somebody as bright as Fadi but
>> choking his efforts to follow up on the IMHO GREAT results of the Net
>> Mundial meeting in Brazil, has been the main explanation to me on why he is
>> leaving.
>>
>> For those critical of his entrepreneurship they may consider NOT hiring
>> private sector CEOs in the future, but "secretary general" type of
>> management that just follow up orders.
>>
>> Happy holidays
>>
>> Carlos Raul
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2015 9:05 AM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Might be the reason why someone like Fadi is actually NOT working for
>> you...
>>
>> And no, I do not agree at all that this is a "great example of lack of
>> accountability"
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Roelof Meijer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26-12-15 13:19, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
>> behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> on behalf of nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Paul
>> >
>> >If Fadi worked for me, then his leaving date would just have been
>> >brought forward dramatically, and he would have, as we say in the UK,
>> >found a number of pressing reasons to spend more time with the family.
>> >
>> >But the Board don't collectively have the cojones to do that.
>> >
>> >That's not really a criticism of the institution or the current members
>> >of it, just a recognition of how much power that the Board of
>> >non-profits (don't) have over their General Manager (as I saw over 20
>> >years ago as a board member of the Radio Society of Great Britain, which
>> >despite being an office I could trace back in history to a certain Sr.
>> >Marconi, had exactly the same level of power(lessness) than the ICANN
>> >Board has, in some aspects).
>> >
>> >Indeed, were I an ICANN Board member I might take that view -- in that
>> >the damage to the organisation from further inflaming the situation
>> >might be greater than just crossing my fingers and waiting for the
>> >problem to go away naturally in the Spring.
>> >
>> >However, it's a great example of lack of accountability, wouldn't you
>> >agree?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 25/12/15 15:33, Paul Rosenzweig 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-rev
>> >>ena
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>nt--except-you-cant-because-of-his-federal-job/2015/12/22/32d632fe-a5c5-1
>> >>1e5
>> >> -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
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian M