[CCWG-ACCT] Follow-up from the Word Internet Conference in China

[Phil Corwin]

Depends on the regime.

Xi is not Mao, so all can make their own judgment‎ on the current Chinese regime.

But, as Prof. Mueller has written, WIC is undeniably a ‎CCP project to challenge the prevailing MS IG model established by US and other liberal democracies.

By passively accepting the "incident" ICANN's Board has implicitly associated the organization with WIC. This is not some post-departure personal engagement by the CEO. Who thinks he would be Co-Chair if he was not the CEO and supplied WIC with a certain degree of cover? And the Advisory Committee has already met.

Maybe associating ICANN with a CCP multilateral project before US Congress has removed the freeze on the IANA transition not the best idea?

On other hand, not having transition completed might be viewed as a positive development by CCP.
‎ The Chinese play Go, not Chess.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
  Original Message
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Saturday, January 2, 2016 9:04 AM
Cc: Lisse Eberhard; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Follow-up from the Word Internet Conference in China


That is not the issue.

The issue is whether an outgoing CEO can, on the corporation dime,
fly there and add to his post ICANN portfolio ("personal capacity").

Or did the Board instruct him to do this?


However, as someone not only having been working a in a few
developing countries, but also having been living in one, since
while it still was repressive, I feel I can contribute to the
perspective:

Appeasing repressive regimes has been historically more often wrong
than not.  And, whether "working with" "progressive factions" makes
a "difference", depends on what the word "difference" means.

el

On 2016-01-02 18:57 , George Sadowsky wrote:
> Milton,
>
> I was in Wuzhen, and participated in the conference, including a 2
> ½ hour panel discussion with Bob Kahn and others.
>
> Although we may disagree more than agree in general, I thank you
> very much for an adult, articulate and intelligent discussion of
> the fundamental issue of whether it is better to work with
> progressive factions of repressive regimes or to decide that it is
> not the right thing to do, for a number of reasons.
>
> My conclusion differs from yours.  I've worked in about 50
> developing countries over the last 40 years, and in general one
> can make a difference, possibly a substantial difference, in
> working with those progressive factions.  But that is my opinion,
> and I realize that it is not universally shared.
>
> I say the above as a general comment, not related to the specifics
> of Fadi's involvement in China.  However, I am disturbed at the
> number of responses to this incident, based upon bias, distortion,
> and lack of fact or context, that have been gratuitously offered
> on this list.  The echo chamber has been very effective.
>
> I thank Siva and Roelof for past comments (not repeated below)
> that in my view reflect an thoughtful and proper perspective of
> the incident.
>
> George