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

Thu Jan 7 01:14:02 UTC 2016

Dear George,

Your comments do make more sense to me than our earlier discussion. I hope i did not offend you with my initial reaction. If I did, please accept my excuse.

In particular I like the comments towards the end.

> 
> The nature and level of trust among staff, Board, and community is one of the largest factors that affects how we work together.  

We should be working together, yes. But my personal feeling is that we are at a point were the most of us are afraid that  the proposal does depend less on the NTIA, Commerce Department and the US Congress all bundled together, than on the internal balance between the SO/AC´s (if we may group them as one, an assumption nobody would have done not so long ago) and the Board. The terrifying position the Board may take or not, seems to be the largest stumbling block to the fulfilment of the transition to a private sector led, bottom-up policy developing, global, multi-stakeholder community, etc. etc.. I know it is a tall order. But it would be a pity if it gets stuck because of internal mistrust between members of the same community, just be cause they see red when they happen to wear different hats, or change musical chairs and do not realise they sit in the same boat.

> I think that it would be very useful to address this issue directly, and probably in a larger context than just the accountability process.  

Yes, I agree with you that we are trying to selectively put too much under the hat of the "transition accountability” as if it was the last opportunity change things. I fully support your large context view. I also missed a larger context in ATRT2. I don´t know enough of the history of the Corporation to understand  what drives this (maybe only recent) “bunker” mentality between SO/ACs and Board, while staff flies (temporarily leaderless) under the radar screen. 

As Larry Strickling memorably noted in Buenos Aires (Sunday evening I think) there seems to be no larger transformation between one and the same individual, when she goes trough the metamorphosis  from being a mortal member of the community and becomes member of the Board (my words, not Larry´s).  If you ask me, I don´t think the Board should be "more equal" than the SO/ACs in this process, and should have NOT the last word on what goes out to the Beltway and what not. My early understanding was the the Board would send “anything" the community would propose to the higher political instances. But that was long time ago and a few million US $ later in legal fees in a non-contentious competition for the best blueprint for a internet-age institution. We seem to be locked in a rather early phase of the 30 year War and nobody seems to remember  the way to Westfalia (funny, Wuzen also starts with a W)

> I speak only for myself here.   

Me too! 

> Does this make sense to anyone?

As an avid reader of everything you write, let me thank you for adding this reflection after today´s exchanges and bringing the conversation to another level, while I cannot hide my disappointment, as I was expecting more on why the “Heritage Foundation” raised questions in the first place. I would have easily found another 100 serious people in Central America that also have serious doubts about its past role in policy making :)

>  If so, what can we do about it?  

I strongly suggest to go back in a quiet hour to the “Road ahead” section of the Net Mundial declaration; read it; use it as a sensible check list; and hire Architects for a good blueprint of what kind of institution (as opposed to Corporation) we want, instead of California Law experts to fix holes in the roof at the discretion of a rather small group. 

The Checks and Balances I would be looking to add to the discussion, are less focused to the risk of a fired Director suing its detractors……. They should be focusing between public interest on the one hand vs profit motives on the other. Between national vs global interests (the jurisdiction issue that flew nowhere, for example). Between policy making and the direct day to day management of the corporation. Between all the good will community members and the external individuals, judges, impartial experts etc. that hopefully will solve over all IRPs, reconsiderations and other eventual rights violations. Are they really going to solve all our problems? Fairly?

Cheers

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg at isoc-cr.org
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160106/8e2a3631/attachment.html>