ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-osc-ops]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call

  • To: Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:22:50 -0400


Ray,

I really have no interest in the hypothetical conflicts of interest of ICANN staff or consultants, and with a very few exceptions, hold all of the staff and consultants I know in very high regard, for their competency and their disinterest, relative to the rather venal assembly of interest advocacy that exists in, if not dominates, the GNSO.

However, the Security weenies, the abrasive Dave Piscitello, the absurdly loud (and mercifully departing) Greg Rattray to name names, are problems. They each act as if the "security" mission has made them independent actors, and then proceed to blunder about badly.

It doesn't matter a whit if persons are motivated by lucre, academic advancement (the Milton Meuller rule), or revolutionary altruism.

Pursuit of a hypothetical -- the "what if someone asks, we SOI'd/DOI'd all the industry advocates, did we SOI/DOI the Staff?" just seems like shutting our eyes to what can be seen and is not at all hypothetical.

The problem is to construct a question about interest and advocacy that is likely to cause an ideological advocate, or someone committed to the full-employment that security theater has produced in the 9/11 hysteria zone, to pause and take stock of whether s/he is policy neutral, or a policy advocate.

Note Well: Mechanism frequently _is_ policy.

Eric



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy