<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
It is odd that advice about political reality is being sought from
legal advisers who I think were there, as the name will indicate,
for legal advice. Not only are lawyers not (necessarily) the best
political advisers - in any case in this area opinions are what you
mostly get from anyone whomsoever - it is dangerous to mix political
advice with legal advice with regard to people specially retained to
provide legal advice in a process. In fact the latter need to
clearly know that they should only dispense legal advice and keep it
fully free from political facts or opinions... Asking them for
political advice is to as they say in Hindi 'strike one's own foot
with the axe'. <br>
<br>
In this regard, I am surprised and find it, excuse me to say, almost
scandalous that the group seem to be officially interested in
knowing and understand the 'political reality' in Washington....
That is none of its business. And then, if it is indeed so
politically inclined, has it ever tried to understand the political
reality of the whole world and how US hegemony is not only resisted
by detested all across, something which is being preserved in the
proposed models by not touching the question of jurisdiction,
whereas it is not at all foreclosed as per the ToR of the group....
When dealing with the rest of the world how is it that this group
becomes completely technicalist and politically blindfolded? If like
trying to learn about the political reality in Washington, if the
group is in fact interested in learning the global political reality
I can help in assembling an appropriate group that can advice on
that. <br>
<br>
Anyway, coming to what IMHO is the highly problematic propensity
that I see here of seeking to tune into the political reality in
Washington, this group must understand that it is supposed to
represent global public interest, to which alone it has to be
accountable, and therefore be tuned to (of which it unfortunately
has done a pretty bad job). And make a proposal within the known and
published terms of reference or conditions under which it was set
up, where nowhere I see mentioned the condition of keeping tuned to
political realities in Washington. It has to make a proposal that it
thinks (1) best serves global public interest and (2) contravenes
none of the conditions that were expressly and openly communicated
when the group was set. Catering to any other consideration,
including and especially of Washington's sensitivity, is completely
illegitimate. (Wonder why no lawyer tells the group that simple
fact.) The fact that this kind of a thing can get openly discussed
by an empowered group which is mandated with the extremely important
political task of deciding the oversight of the technical functions
related to, and here I quote Edward's email, "the most powerful
communication technology in human history' itself shows that this
process has been (deliberately?) constituted in a manner that while
accomplishing a political function is rather politically blind or at
least insensitive. It does not accept and internalise the political
nature of its task and the ethos and methods therefore that go with
public civic roles and duties. It still likes to treat the task
largely in private law and corporate governance frameworks, a task
which in fact is clearly of public governance and of politics. <br>
<br>
While at it I may make another point which is relatively
independent. It is a pity how Board's resistance to the group's
accountability proposal is now becoming a kind of a strawman that
completely distracts from all the problems with the CCWG's current
proposal itself. It has succeeded in giving it a kind of heroic halo
which, even if I go by the numerous critiques in the public
comments, it simply does not deserve. <br>
<br>
Hope, this is taken fully as a political comment which it is
supposed to be and not personally by anyone (just think of a
congressional/ parliamentary debate!)... Thanks, parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 29 September 2015 07:16 AM,
Edward Morris wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2af2d17b3e744245b2133684e6552529@toast.net"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px">
<div>Hello everybody,</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some of the unknowns facing this group going forward are as
much political in nature as they are substantive or
procedural. Do we take the opinion and perspective of Senator
Ted Cruz seriously? Is it a threat to the transition? Is there
something that we can do to be responsive to the genuine
concerns of Senator Cruz? Are his concerns genuine?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What about the NTIA? The deference shown to Secretary
Strickling among some of us here is almost Papal in nature.
What did Larry say, how did Larry say it, what did he really
mean when he said it but really didn't say it. It's a bit
ridiculous. I admire Secretary Strickling. He's a fine civil
servant. His published salary, though, is less than that of a
first year associate from a decent law school at a mid sized
corporate law firm. He is not the all mighty. Commerce and the
NTIA are complex places. Larry has absolute control of
neither.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I've read here today a legal analysis of the Senator's
Constitutional challenge by someone I know to be neither an
American nor a lawyer. I can click both boxes and I have my
views but am I sure I'm right? No. It seems everyone here has
an opinion as to what the NTIA will or will not accept from
us. Do any of us really know? No.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Prior to the Los Angeles meeting it was suggested that we
might want to hear from ICANN's lobbyists, that they could
explain to us their version of political reality. We properly
rejected that offer. I think we've reached the point, though,
where we do need to call upon the expertise of
some Washington political professionals to help guide us
through this part of the process. No more guesswork by
amateurs or implied threats by those with some self-interest
in the matter. We're talking about who is going to run a vital
part of the most powerful communications technology in human
history. We need to do this right. Fortunately, we've already
retained two such individuals who, if we wish, have the
expertise and ability to assist us in this area.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Back in the early days of this project when we were all
young, innocent and hopeful :) we retained not one but two
law firms to help guide us. In retrospect that decision and
two firms we chose to hire were amongst the best decisions
we've made in this CCWG. I have complete faith in our lawyers
and that is a rarity for me. I note that one of the specific
reasons we hired Sidley was for their Washington ties and
expertise. During our interviews with the firm we were able to
meet two of their professionals with the greatest knowledge of
DC and government operations : Cam Kerry ( <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry">http://www.sidley.com/people/cameron-f-kerry</a>) and
Rick Boucher ( <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher">http://www.sidley.com/people/rick-boucher</a>
). Both men were extremely impressive. It is time to tap
their talents. We need serious advice in these areas from
serious professionals.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would respectfully ask our Chairs and the full CCWG to
consider inviting either Rick or Cam to Dublin to meet with
the CCWG early in the week, preferably during the initial F2F.
I think it's important that everyone has a chance to question
them. We need this type of policy expertise from a politically
astute professional who owes a duty of care to us, no one
else, and whose rolodex allows him or her to reach out to
those whose decisions will most impact our work. We need to
know what political reality is if we are to maximise our
potential as a very special and unique group dedicated to
helping create a truly open and accountable governance
mechanism for this small part of the networked world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for considering.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed Morris </div>
</span> <br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>