[CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest

George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 21:32:39 UTC 2016


Brett,

I want to start by saying that I have no problem with your participation in the CCWG.  We've interacted personally in a work group in Dublin, and I found you to be a good and fair collaborator.  Your contributions to the list have been articulate and positive. 

What I find really bothersome is that some of the positions expressed, often emotional and unfair ones such as the recent comment asking which human rights ICANN did not want to respect, seem to be based strictly upon the CCWG members pique and their biases, and not at all related to any position that their constituency might be willing to support.

My point is more of a macro point.  I have no problem with clarification of public comments, or of assuring that they are all taken into account.  What I have a problem with is CCWG members speaking not for their constituencies but for their own personal interests or the specific interests of their external organizations, rather than for the point of view of  the constituencies from which they come.  

If you were simply pointing out that it was, among others, the comments from your organization that were not captured, then I misunderstood, and I apologize.  If you were saying that you want to put this comment in because it comes from the organization you work for, that is a different matter.  I'm glad that you clarified that you took the former position, not the latter.  I saw your post as pushing your employer's views, and I apparently misunderstood.  

But the larger point still stands.  Out of the current 6,000 posts to the list that I've retained, there have been a significant number that I believe represent personal points of view rather than constituency points of view.  AFAIK all constituencies are sufficiently heterogeneous that there exist multiple points of view, many of which oppose each other.  I would hope that CCWG members would be sufficiently judicious that they would not let themselves be swayed by their personal beliefs to bias their contributions to the process, and that they would recognize this multiplicity of views within their constituency as well as in others.

In addition, there have been repeated posts that spoke derogatorily of what they believe are the Board's intentions without any knowledge of actual facts or attempts at direct dialogue.  You are not one of the people who does this.   However, one result of this tendency is that the Board has become a punching bag for these people, and the behavior perpetuates itself in part because there is little if any pushback to these posts.   It's not appreciated, it's counterproductive, it is irritating, and it contributes to the enlargement of a divide between groups which should be working together.   Yet I have seen no sign whatsoever that their constituencies are concerned about this, or that there is any attempt to reprimand or change the behavior of their representatives.  Is their behavior condoned by their constituency?  I hope not.

For a bunch of reasons, some historical, the culture surrounding this accountability exercise has acquired a component of "us vs. them."  It has been divisive and has contributed IMO to a weakening and a lengthening of the effectiveness of the process.  While this has nothing to do with my reaction to your post, it may explain the extent of my frustration in trying to engage constructively with the process.

So in summary, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.  However, I do welcome this opportunity provided to share some observations of the CCWG process.  

Regards,

George


> On Jan 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> George,
>  
> I’m confused. My e-mail was directly related to and sought to clarify the summary of public comments/analysis circulated by Alice, which included the public comment by Heritage. That summary includes public comments by a number of individuals and organizations. Is it your position that none of those comments should be included?
>  
> Best,
>  
> Brett
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
> 
> 
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:59 PM
> To: ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest
>  
> Folks,
>  
> Brett Schaefer is one of the least personally annoying people on the CCWG.  However, this message of his displays openly what is happening.
>  
> Brett is arguing below that it is the Heritage Foundation's position that must be noted as part of the record.  In other words, Brett openly is a representative of the Heritage Foundation, and NOT the ICANN constituency from where he came.  I don't know which one, but it really doesn't matter.
>  
> Many of the CCWG members seem to be representing their personal points of view, or justifying it on the basis of congruence with their own external organization rather than on the basis of positions within their internal ICANN constituency that they represent.
>  
> To the extent that this is happening, it's just outrageous There is no other word for it.
>  
> George
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
>  
> From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment summary/analysis
> Date: January 6, 2016 at 11:44:06 AM EST
> To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>  
>  
> Alice,
>  
> Thank you for this. The Heritage Foundation’s opposition to full GAC participation in the empowered community was not noted in the Rec 1 analysis. As stated in our comment, we think that GAC should be strictly advisory.
>  
> On Rec 7 analysis, I’m concerned that our position may be misunderstood. We support including DIDP in an appeals process, but we are very much against restricting it to the engagement, escalation, and enforcement staircase because that process is dependent on the Empowered Community. DIDP appeals need to be accessible to everyone, not just the SOACs, and appeals should not require SOAC approval at any threshold. This may require moving DIDP appeals to the request for reconsideration process.
>  
> On Rec 11, the one sentence summary gives the impression that we support Rec 11. We do not and offered specific proposals on how to change the text to address our concerns, which were not included in the Rec 11 analysis.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
> Brett
>  
>  
>  
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>  
>  
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:04 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment summary/analysis
>  
> On behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> Attached to this email you will find a staff produced summary and analysis of the public comments received on our Draft Proposal.
> In preparation for our January discussions, we encourage you to read the document as well as comments available for full reference at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/ <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/>. Note: a download all page is available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613> 
> Please note that we cannot convert the spreadsheet into a PDF, the tabs and spreadsheet being too large. Thank you for your understanding. 
> Staff will post the summary on the public forum box on Friday, 8 January - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en>. In the meantime, it is located on your wiki at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613>
>  
> Thank you 
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>  
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160106/7f81afbc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list