[CCWG-ACCT] new blog

[Malcolm Hutty]

> On 25 Sep 2015, at 03:58, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> 
> I was sad to see the selective quote, which could see people thinking I think that a membership model ends fiduciary duties on board members, or that membership isn't the right approach. I don't think either of those things for the record.

Jordan, 

You are not the only person this article quotes out of context to suggest they meant the opposite of what they intended. 

The article quotes Ester Dyson as saying
"... At least the USG (US government) offers some accountability. ICANN's primary active stakeholders are businesses making money off the DNS; most users are too busy elsewhere to pay much attention..."--comment of Esther Dyson, ICANN's founding Chairman, in The Guardian, Sept 22, 2015

Her actual comment was
"Hold tightly to the hand of nurse, for fear of finding something worse. At least the USG offers some accountability. ICANN's primary active stakeholders are businesses making money off the DNS; most users are too busy elsewhere to pay much attention. Thanks for writing this, Emily."

This was attached as a comment to an article written by Emily Taylor supportive of the CCWG proposal. In the article that Ester thanked Emily for writing, Emily wrote:

"If Icann’s board can override the consensus of its own community, it casts doubt on the viability of the entire Icann model, and exposes the flakiness of the way essential internet resources are governed."

and

"The community’s solution is for Icann to become a membership organisation. I agree that this is the only outcome likely to deliver accountability. It’s feasible, it gives backstop power to the community and is a well understood model common to many non-profits."

Not that you'd realise this from reading Mr Poole's article. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150925/63950fdb/attachment.html>