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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 21:37:32 UTC 2016


I'm not going to use the word "outrageous" in responding to this email
thread, except to say that characterizing anything in this discussion as
outrageous is outrageous.  In other words, I am manifestly not outraged.

First, as Dr. Lisse kindly pointed out, Brett is a participant, not a
member, and duly provided a Statement of Interest.  I view the members as
having a heightened responsibility to act on behalf of their appointing
organization, while the participants have much greater latitude to take
personal (or employer-driven) positions.

Second, all that Brett was doing was attempting to do was to improve the
accuracy of the summaries of Heritage's positions in the quickly-cooked and
boiled-down "comment tool."  That benefits the entire process (what value
is there in having inaccurate summaries?).  I would not call that a
manifestation of "external self-interest."  So the particular activity
complained of should be of absolutely no concern.

Third, this is related only to a public comment filed by Heritage, which
was entirely appropriate, whether or not Heritage is a member of an SG/C
within the GNSO.  This is the exact opposite of a "hidden agenda."

If the larger concern is that Brett somehow "dropped the kimono" (apologies
for cultural and gender insensitivities) and revealed that he is
participating (at least in part) in his capacity as an employee of the
Heritage Foundation, I think that concern is misplaced as well.
 "Casablanca" (apologies for culturally specific and possibly archaic (?)
reference):  "I'm shocked, shocked that there are people representing
"external interests" in the CCWG."  We could probably spend a week
discussing the subtleties of stakeholder and stakeholder group
representation in this CCWG (and in other WGs of various types).

I don't think there is any expectation that each of us took some ritual
purifying bath before joining the CCWG, shed our outside engagements and
donned the robes of our SO/AC Order (the IPC robes are particularly
beautiful, by the way).

For me at least, there's an ongoing calibration and consideration of
various interests -- the Global Public Interest (whatever that is), the
Internet community's Interest, the ICANN Community's Interest, the ICANN
Interest (yes, even that interest), the Multistakeholder Interest, the GNSO
Interest, the Non-Contracted Parties Interest, the CSG Interest, the IPC
Interest, the interests of the business community, the interests of the
Intellectual Property community, the interests of accurate and appropriate
application of IP laws (however they cut), my employer's interests, my
clients' interests (NB: I do not take instruction from any client on how to
act on ICANN matters) and even my own personal opinions, beliefs and
values.

I don't feel that I can go completely "off the reservation" (apologies for
culturally insensitive and privilege-based reference) and take positions
that directly contradict those of the my "home stakeholder structure," the
IPC (especially given my position as President), but neither do I feel that
I am a mere mouthpiece.

We should each be balancing similar multiple layers of interests, avoiding
selfishness but not expecting selflessness -- this is, after all, a "multi-
*stakeholder*" process (not a "no stakes held" process), and people's
actions should be driven by the stake(s) they hold, as well as by an
enlightened interest in the larger communities and issues at stake and a
firm commitment to engaging in a "*consensus*-driven" process (which means
that you need to be prepared to move off your "home" interests (whatever
they are) in order to reach consensus (except in what should be the rare
cases where doing so would do traitorously great violence to those home
interests).

I think this contrasts somewhat with the role of a Board member (at ICANN
or anywhere else).  We have discussed many times the need for Board members
*not* to act as representatives of their designating body.  Perhaps that is
the basis for some of the views expressed by George.  But this is not
that.  It's a different model, and we should embrace it, not call it
outrageous (oops, I said it again).

Greg

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> George
>
> I literally do not understand your position. Why can’t any organization in
> the world express their own position in a public comment period?
>
>
>
> ---MM
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *George
> Sadowsky
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 6, 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>
>
> *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>, "
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <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
> *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/.
> Note: a *download all* page is available at
> 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.
> In the meantime, it is located on your wiki at
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> 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/20160106/7922d466/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list