<p dir="ltr">On Dec 28, 2015 4:00 PM, "Roelof Meijer" <<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I am getting rather worried about what some (unwanted) the implications of<br>
> empowering the community through the CCWG proposals might actually be, if<br>
> I (try to) follow the reasoning of Phil and Paul. There seems to be so<br>
> much time in the community to ³chase every rabbit² on the basis of all<br>
> kinds of assumptions<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: You can say that again, post transition there is going to be a lot of bosses within the community. The unfortunate thing is just that they will be acting on behalf of the entire community. I hope that we will have so much time to identify those acts within the community as much as we have committed to identifying every mistake/error (including those far fetched) of the board/staff.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> Like Avri, I fail to understand the crisis over this. And I agree with<br>
> Tijani when he says: "Fadi Chehadé would never accept anything that leads<br>
> to an intergovernmental Internet Governance; at the contrary, I think it<br>
> is a way to reinforce the MSM in the advisory committee, and in the World<br>
> Internet Conference². When making assumptions, let¹s at least take one¹s<br>
> track record into consideration.<br>
><br>
SO: In this process, the goal for some is not about building a better ICANN, but about building a breakable ICANN. Even though I don't agree with a number of board's comment on the CCWG latest draft, I can say I have come to understand why they commented the way they did.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Roelof<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 25-12-15 16:33, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on<br>
> behalf of Paul Rosenzweig"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of<br>
> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> >We must live in a bit of a different world, I think. Where I come from,<br>
> >any<br>
> >public official (and let's not kid ourselves -- that is what Fadi is) who<br>
> >did what Fadi did would be subject to discipline if not removal. While<br>
> >acting in a public role, the official has no private capacity -- none at<br>
> >all. At least in the world I inhabit that prohibition is so stringent<br>
> >that<br>
> >it applies even to actions that would be (under any reasonable test) so<br>
> >clearly distinct that the likelihood of confusing the public role with the<br>
> >private role was virtually non-existent.<br>
> ><br>
> >For a particularly telling recent example of this, consider this story:<br>
> ><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/meet-the-author-of-the-reve">https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/meet-the-author-of-the-reve</a><br>
> >na<br>
> >nt--except-you-cant-because-of-his-federal-job/2015/12/22/32d632fe-a5c5-11<br>
> >e5<br>
> >-ad3f-991ce3374e23_story.html. A minor Federal official wrote "The<br>
> >Revenant" before he joined the government. Now, the book is a major movie<br>
> >just released today, starring Leonardo DiCaprio. In the normal course of<br>
> >events, the writer of the book on which the film was based would be doing<br>
> >publicity for the film. Here, the author cannot -- because he is a Deputy<br>
> >Trade Representative of the US. Now, I don't know about you, but for me<br>
> >the<br>
> >likelihood that people will associate the movie publicity with the USTR<br>
> >office and draw an inference of official US government approval is<br>
> >vanishingly small -- so on the merits I would say that this is a place<br>
> >where<br>
> >the officials private life could diverge from his public responsibility.<br>
> >But as I said, here we are so cautious about even the appearance of<br>
> >impropriety that the author is not doing any public relations for his<br>
> >movie.<br>
> ><br>
> >As others have pointed out for Fadi the possibility of confusion is<br>
> >clearly<br>
> >much higher -- the press and the public will (and have) linked his new<br>
> >"personal capacity" job to his current status as CEO of ICANN -- which is<br>
> >of<br>
> >course exactly why he was hired and exactly what the Chinese wanted.<br>
> >Frankly, as Nigel said, I find his behavior troubling and remarkably tone<br>
> >deaf.<br>
> ><br>
> >I should add that the purpose of the restriction on trading on your public<br>
> >position works both ways. We worry not only about the new "private"<br>
> >connection currying favor with public official, we also worry that the<br>
> >official may make decisions in his public capacity that are now to benefit<br>
> >his future private actions rather than the public interest. It isn't the<br>
> >connection and the cooperation that is troubling (as Eric notes) -- it is<br>
> >the promise of future employment with unknown benefits that was made while<br>
> >the public official was still working for the public that raises the<br>
> >questions.<br>
> ><br>
> >Paul<br>
> ><br>
> >Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> ><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
> >O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
> >M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
> >VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
> >Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
> >Link to my PGP Key<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >-----Original Message-----<br>
> >From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>]<br>
> >Sent: Friday, December 25, 2015 5:47 AM<br>
> >To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Follow-up from the Word Internet Conference in<br>
> >China<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >> Are we tending a bit much toward micromanagement of the CEO? I have<br>
> >> never been one of his fans, but this seems a bit much to make an issue<br>
> >over.<br>
> >><br>
> >> avri<br>
> ><br>
> >This is not just a matter of judgment, but a matter of cross-cultural<br>
> >judgment. The CEO gets paid to get this right. And I REALLY expected<br>
> >better<br>
> >from Mr Chehade' in that department<br>
> ><br>
> >Actually, I would not have expected this kind of behaviour from recent<br>
> >previous CEOs. Certainly not from Paul. In fact not even from Rod, who<br>
> > despite his public persona and irritating Hollywood rockstar ways was,<br>
> >in<br>
> >many was, quite sensitive to non-US cultures!<br>
> ><br>
> >In China, relationships matter.<br>
> ><br>
> >Appearance matters. A lot.<br>
> ><br>
> >Both of those things can be as important, if not more important than the<br>
> >'letter of the law' as to whose dime he was on when carrying on the<br>
> >discussion with the relevant actors inside China.<br>
> ><br>
> >The American way (and the British, to a lesser extent) is based on a<br>
> >cliteral interpretation of the rules (with a seasoning of 'wiggle-room'<br>
> >for peccadilloes).<br>
> ><br>
> >So while it's understandable to hear from some of you that you don't see<br>
> >the<br>
> >problem, some of us really, really see a big issue here.<br>
> ><br>
> >I'm not going to complain loudly about the ethics side, although I<br>
> >personally find it curious that Fadi was there on ICANN's dime, yet once<br>
> >again making announcements 'in his personal capacity'. A CEO can never be<br>
> >in his personal capacity, in my view until he gets his cardboard box.<br>
> >(It was strange how the reporters describe him as ICANN's CEO, though.<br>
> >Oh yes, that's because he IS. Even yet.)<br>
> ><br>
> >The issue is that the head of ICANN, voluntarily handed in his<br>
> >resignation,<br>
> >choosing to leave early, before transition was complete, and in another<br>
> >revolving-door shocker joined an organisation with an apparently<br>
> >completely<br>
> >different world view, and chose Wuzhen to make supportive statements of<br>
> >them<br>
> >and their backers.<br>
> ><br>
> >Once again, 'it's not what they say, its what others hear'.<br>
> ><br>
> >UK public servants have a purdah period before moving to organisations<br>
> >that<br>
> >operate in the same sphere. Why, in the name of accountabaility, does<br>
> >ICANN<br>
> >still not? (Have we forgotten and already discounted the terrible optics<br>
> >of<br>
> >Dengate-Thrushgate?). A mere xix months would not be onerous.<br>
> ><br>
> >Please don't dissect Fadi's actual words. They don't count.<br>
> ><br>
> >Hardly at all.<br>
> ><br>
> >It's the nature of 'who', 'where', and 'when' that counts much more than<br>
> >'what', or even 'why'.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >> '<br>
> >> And with that, I shall stop and simply add -- Happy Holidays!<br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >Likewise.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >_______________________________________________<br>
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> ><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> ><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
> ><br>
> >_______________________________________________<br>
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> ><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> ><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</p>