Hi,


If all of the Sr. Staff's current gambit succeeds (e.g. perversion of TMCH, the unilateral RA & RAA etc) it will become easy to argue that ICANN Sr. Staff has captured ICANN and that the vaunted ICANN Multistakeholder Model is just a fig leaf.

I wonder will the Board allow this?  
Or is this perhaps the Board's doing?
Do we have the transparency in this organization to know whether the Staff is leading or the Board is leading?
I don't think so (I know that understanding is part of what ATRT2 is supposed to achieve.)

If indeed the Staff is leading, as appears to be the case, it is hard to understand how the current leadership would be allowed to keep its job.  The speed with which the policy development process has been replaced by a command and control process is startling.  If ICANN is going to be saved, quick action is probably necessary.

As for Rod, it is true there was a lot to complain about and I complained as much as anyone.  But the fundamental was that he actually seemed to at least theoretically support the Multistakeholder Model.  Our new great leader seems determined to destroy it.   Might be time to try again.

avri




On 22 Mar 2013, at 08:11, Horacio T. Cadiz wrote:

> On 03/22/2013 07:51 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> 
>> Agreed! We need to play in external forums, either as complainants or
>> supporters. I've thought we could do more by showing that we're useful
>> supporters of the ICANN model (as distinct from supporting everything
>> ICANN-the-org does) in other forums where it's challenged. We stand
>> firmly behind multi-stakeholder bottom-up governance, and in that vein,
>> demand that *all* the stakeholders have voice in the consensus policy
>> decisions.
> 
>  In the board, there is only one rep from the staff. The structure
> doesn't really represent the power the staff wields.  If they wanted
> to backdoor these proposals, they should have at least created
> the Staff Support Organization (SSO).
> 
>  So how do we go about doing changing this?
>