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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Just to add three more cents,

I personally could not be more opposed to what the Heritage Foundation stands for, but that is the Multi Stakeholder Model, conservative think tanks, and repressive governments, whether appeased or not, have the same rights as anyone else to participate.

And I disagree with members being restricted, if only if that were the case the representative of the interests of the German Internet Industry could no longer provide amusement, it would make dealing with ALAC's revolving positions easier, though. 

Hence I, to my chagrin, and on this issue only, find myself in agreement with the representative of the IP interests, and even the very civil Versign front man pushing things here.

I am in transit by the way, and hence can not increase the peace on tomorrow's call.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 23:37, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160107/27462c71/attachment.html>