[CCWG-ACCT] Cruz / NTIA: Time to Get Expert Advice

Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
Tue Sep 29 15:06:16 UTC 2015


Hi everyone,

I just want to clarify that my request for professional political advice is in no way caused by a desire to constrain or in any way affect our policy preferences. In fact, quite the opposite. Political analysis has already been introduced into our discussion by Ira in his Los Angeles address and by many others who have opined what the NTIA may or may not accept. I sense these concerns may already be affecting our policy direction, or at least there is a desire by some that they do. I'd like to hear from professionals who have an explicit duty to the CCWG in these matters, rather than our sources to date. I should note that Cam Kerry is a former head of the Department of Commerce. The expertise and professional judgement  of someone with his experience and ties is certainly something I believe would be of great value as we chart our path forward.

Kind Regards,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 29/09/2015 14:13, Arun Sukumar wrote:
>> Agree fully with Avri, and Ed's suggestion. It is important to feel the
>> pulse of the hill, but that need not be the CCWG's driving consideration.
>> 
>> It is commendable that this group has not lost its bearings on
>> accountability principles despite the noise surrounding the proposal's
>> "acceptability" to the NTIA/USG.
>> 
>> What's acceptable or who's electable are pretty subjective notions, as
>> the rest of the world is finding out from this US prez campaign :)
> 
> I agree with Arun and others.
> 
> Getting professional public affairs advice on likely reactions to our
> proposal (and to the Board's) certainly sounds like a good idea. But we
> should be careful not to mislead ourselves with it.
> 
> What are we actually planning to ask? Would Congress support our
> proposal? Would they prefer it? Would they dislike it sufficiently to
> pass legislation to block it?
> 
> These are very different questions to each other.
> 
> Moreover, any advice, no matter how well informed, is only a guess based
> on the current situation. That naturally devalues our ability (or
> others' ability) to influence the outcome. So if we were to effectively
> outsource our decision-making to professional political advice of what
> is "achievable", that wouldn't be only an improper dereliction of duty,
> it would also be foolish.
> 
> For this reason, while I am happy for us to go ahead with this project,
> I think we should concentrate less on trying to second-guess others and
> more on winning support for our own work.
> 
> Kieren's recent suggestion is an excellent starting point for a
> checklist, and it isn't even entirely new: I believe Thomas has already
> made a start on a more legible explanation of our proposal.
> 
> This is where we should focus our efforts: on building support for our
> proposal, not on assembling excuses for abandoning it.
> 
> -- 
>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> 
>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
> 
>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community




More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list