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@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@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@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@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

 

 

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@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:04 AM
To: accountability-cross-community@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

 


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community