I'm sympathetic to both points here, as they converge on the fundamental
issue of systematic, intentional non-representation (of non-commercial
interests).

My question is: what kind of *external* leverage could we possibly bring
to bear on the matter?  When a middle manager is causing a problem, you go
up the ladder to address the issue -- ICANN's ladder does not end at the
Board.  Granted, NTIA oversight of ICANN is rather weak, and Department of
Commerce oversight of NTIA is probably on the weak side as well.  I'm not
expert on the connections here, but regardless of the role of GAC, at
least on paper the USG has a special role here in terms of oversight by a
government that is purportedly accountable to one national public, the
American People.

If we were to enlist the assistance of American public-interest orgs such
as Public Knowledge, EFF, Open Technology Initiative (New America Fnd.),
etc., in a public-awareness campaign, perhaps also involving a petition on
the White House "We The People" petitions page (petitions.whitehouse.gov),
maybe we could bring some real political pressure to bear on this wild
QUANGO, to rein-in its quasi-authoritative behavior and tame it from the
outside once again(if the multi-stakeholder model is reaching a point of
real failure, then there is the option of reducing the independent
authority of the org and bringing it back into a more formal
public-accountability structure).  Far more than we managed with an
"internal" public-participation campaign back in 2007 (I worked with Robin
on the Keep The Core Neutral campaign).

I don't know, I'm still only tangentially aware of the nuts and bolts here
these days, but what we need here is a good structural analysis of the
flow of power in and around this organization, and enough internal
intelligence to detect what is going on behind closed doors ("my kingdom
for a little transparency") and to figure out who really calls the shots
here and how. Then design a power strategy based on that reality,
including the *full* political-organizational context, not just the
internal power structure.

It may require activating some dormant authority pathways, and that does
entail the danger of possible unintended consequences.  But when the Grand
Experiment is in danger of real, terminal, imminent failure, drastic
action may be warranted.

Maybe we start internally: demand explanations from Fadi about
decision-making process (and appropriate modifications).  If he does not
satisfy, then go to the Board and demand that they demand the same from
him (or else: can the board fire him for cause?  Can we "recall" him?). 
If they do not satisfy, go to the NTIA, and if NTIA does not satisfy, go
to Secretary of Commerce and/or White House.

We've only really tried to play the "outside game" once to my knowledge,
and while I tried my best to make something happen with Robin (and
Milton), I'm not sure we did anything more than suggest a shot across the
bow.

If we are to try this again, I think we would need to think bigger and
broader, and to enlist external public advocates in a broader messaging
and mobilization campaign (citizens contacting the agencies and
representatives -- heck, maybe this even goes to Congress if the executive
branch does not respond).  When the "inside game" is co-opted by a local
authoritarian, the outside game can bring pressure from higher up.

My sense from the discussion here is that Fadi may be bringing this to a
point where "exclusively internal" strategies may no longer suffice.

Real authoritarianism merits real push-back.  If Fadi is making ICANN his
own little fiefdom, he deserves to lose his job one way or another.  (Or
else he needs a real, tangible threat of losing his job to keep him in
line.)  He seems to perceive that there will be no meaningful response. 
If that is true, then the whole framework of this organization is
fundamentally flawed and deserves to be reconsidered from the roots up.

We should look for allies that are already engaged in similar
public-interest endeavors, if we need them.  Don't be isolationists, here.
 Marshal whatever resources we can find wherever we can find them.

If this is "the nuclear option" then we need to consider how we can get
nuclear.

Dan


-- 
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



On Fri, March 22, 2013 1:20 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2013, at 15:16, Edward Morris wrote:
>
>> If that's the new model going forward then I wholeheartedly agree with
>> Robin when she writes "unless the community can reign in this
>> power-grabbing staff, we should all just walk away from ICANN as an
>> experiment in multi-stakeholder Internet governance that has sadly
>> ended".
>
>
> Sure call their bluff and walk out.  They would cheer at the sight of our
> backs.
>
> And even if it further delegitimized ICANN in the eyes of the world
> (assuming that is possible outside the small bubble of those who
> believe[d] in ICANN), they would still continue to rule the root for the
> foreseeable future.  In the schemes of things disappearance of the gadfly
> may have historic implications, but in the immediacy of the hurly burly,
> it means nothing more than a better night's sleep.
>
> If we really beleive that Command & Control (C&C) has replaced PDP, then
> my recommendation is that we redouble our efforts and answer them at ever
> turn, working with any ally that wants to see the bottom-up processes
> reinforced and respected.  It should also become our charge to really tell
> the world how messed up it is.  If they won't listen when we keep it
> relatively in house, then lets tell the world what we think, but tell the
> world from the perspective of embattled defenders of the multistakeholder
> model and not embittered surrender bunnies*.
>
> Now if the Registries and Registrars were to say "enough of this nonsense,
> ICANN you have gone too far and we no longer accept your authority due to
> breech of promise," they might care.    As if.
>
> avri
>
> * for those who have been butting their heads against the wall for a
> decade or more, i understand the appeal of walking out on this dog's
> breakfast.  But surrender is always hard to live with in the long run.