That is not the issue. The issue is whether an outgoing CEO can, on the corporation dime, fly there and add to his post ICANN portfolio ("personal capacity"). Or did the Board instruct him to do this? However, as someone not only having been working a in a few developing countries, but also having been living in one, since while it still was repressive, I feel I can contribute to the perspective: Appeasing repressive regimes has been historically more often wrong than not. And, whether "working with" "progressive factions" makes a "difference", depends on what the word "difference" means. el On 2016-01-02 18:57 , George Sadowsky wrote:
Milton,
I was in Wuzhen, and participated in the conference, including a 2 ½ hour panel discussion with Bob Kahn and others.
Although we may disagree more than agree in general, I thank you very much for an adult, articulate and intelligent discussion of the fundamental issue of whether it is better to work with progressive factions of repressive regimes or to decide that it is not the right thing to do, for a number of reasons.
My conclusion differs from yours. I've worked in about 50 developing countries over the last 40 years, and in general one can make a difference, possibly a substantial difference, in working with those progressive factions. But that is my opinion, and I realize that it is not universally shared.
I say the above as a general comment, not related to the specifics of Fadi's involvement in China. However, I am disturbed at the number of responses to this incident, based upon bias, distortion, and lack of fact or context, that have been gratuitously offered on this list. The echo chamber has been very effective.
I thank Siva and Roelof for past comments (not repeated below) that in my view reflect an thoughtful and proper perspective of the incident.
George