[CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest
avri at acm.org
Thu Jan 7 04:48:34 UTC 2016
I agree with most of what is said in this note.
I think we should worry less about trust. As one of the better papers I
heard at the IGF explained, the reason we set up processes and find ways
to regulate our behavior and interactions with bylaws and the like, is
because we do not trust; often we cannot trust. If we all trusted each
other 100%, why would need codified processes and rules? It is these
processes and guidelines that help us get beyond the distrust. As long
as we live up to the agreements that is.
I suggest we worry less about how much we do or not trust each other and
just move on with finding a sustainable basis for working together
effectively without malice and rancor, even if distrust persists.
The last consideration I would add is that one does not build trust by
claiming that we should trust. In the best of all possible worlds, or
I* organizations, we would just trust each other. At ICANN, at this
point in its development, we need to find a way to work without
necessarily trusting each other.
On 06-Jan-16 20:14, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez wrote:
> Dear George,
> Your comments do make more sense to me than our earlier discussion. I
> hope i did not offend you with my initial reaction. If I did, please
> accept my excuse.
> In particular I like the comments towards the end.
>> The nature and level of trust among staff, Board, and community is
>> one of the largest factors that affects how we work together.
> We *should* be working together, yes. But my personal feeling is that
> we are at a point were the most of us are afraid that the proposal
> does depend less on the NTIA, Commerce Department and the US Congress
> all bundled together, than on the internal balance between the SO/AC´s
> (if we may group them as one, an assumption nobody would have done not
> so long ago) and the Board. The terrifying position the Board may take
> or not, seems to be the largest stumbling block to the fulfilment of
> the transition to a private sector led, bottom-up policy developing,
> global, multi-stakeholder community, etc. etc.. I know it is a tall
> order. But it would be a pity if it gets stuck because of *internal*
> mistrust between members of the same community, just be cause they see
> red when they happen to wear different hats, or change musical chairs
> and do not realise they sit in the same boat.
>> I think that it would be very useful to address this issue directly,
>> and probably in a larger context than just the accountability process.
> Yes, I agree with you that we are trying to selectively put too much
> under the hat of the "transition accountability” as if it was the last
> opportunity change things. I fully support your large context view. I
> also missed a larger context in ATRT2. I don´t know enough of the
> history of the Corporation to understand what drives this (maybe only
> recent) “bunker” mentality between SO/ACs and Board, while staff flies
> (temporarily leaderless) under the radar screen.
> As Larry Strickling memorably noted in Buenos Aires (Sunday evening I
> think) there seems to be no larger transformation between one and the
> same individual, when she goes trough the metamorphosis from being a
> mortal member of the community and becomes member of the Board (my
> words, not Larry´s). If you ask me, I don´t think the Board should be
> "more equal" than the SO/ACs in this process, and should have NOT the
> last word on what goes out to the Beltway and what not. My early
> understanding was the the Board would send “anything" the community
> would propose to the higher political instances. But that was long
> time ago and a few million US $ later in legal fees in a
> non-contentious competition for the best *blueprint* for a
> internet-age institution. We seem to be locked in a rather early phase
> of the 30 year War and nobody seems to remember the way to Westfalia
> (funny, Wuzen also starts with a W)
>> I speak only for myself here.
> Me too!
>> Does this make sense to anyone?
> As an avid reader of everything you write, let me thank you for adding
> this reflection after today´s exchanges and bringing the conversation
> to another level, while I cannot hide my disappointment, as I was
> expecting more on why the “Heritage Foundation” raised questions in
> the first place. I would have easily found another 100 serious people
> in Central America that also have serious doubts about its past role
> in policy making :)
>> If so, what can we do about it?
> I strongly suggest to go back in a quiet hour to the “Road ahead”
> section of the Net Mundial declaration; read it; use it as a sensible
> check list; and hire Architects for a good blueprint of what kind of
> institution (as opposed to Corporation) we want, instead of California
> Law experts to fix holes in the roof at the discretion of a rather
> small group.
> The *Checks and Balances* I would be looking to add to the discussion,
> are less focused to the risk of a fired Director suing its
> detractors……. They should be focusing between public interest on the
> one hand vs profit motives on the other. Between national vs global
> interests (the jurisdiction issue that flew nowhere, for example).
> Between policy making and the direct day to day management of the
> corporation. Between all the good will community members and the
> external individuals, judges, impartial experts etc. that hopefully
> will solve over all IRPs, reconsiderations and other eventual rights
> violations. Are they really going to solve all our problems? Fairly?
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> email: crg at isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> +506 8837 7176 (cel)
> +506 4000 2000 (home)
> +506 2290 3678 (fax)
> Apartado 1571-1000
> San Jose, COSTA RICA
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community