Roeland wrote:
> We all have one real good and visible example of such conflict of
> interest.
> Mike Roberts, the ICANN CEO. Instead of recusing himself, during the final
> votes, of the IFWP Steering Committee, wrt the wrap-up meeting. He did his
> best to sabotage it because his promised CEO slot would not have been
> worth
> the powder it takes to blow it to hell, if the wrap-up meeting would have
> happened. I intend for folks not to forget his perfidy. It is a lesson
> begging to be learned. Too bad the learning doesn't seem to be taking
> hold.
>
One uninformed reader could think that the vote of Mike Roberts was
essential in making the IFWP SC decide for not holding the wrap-up.
In fact, the vote of the IFWP SC has been in favour of the wrap-up (so the
fact that Mike did or not vote did not change the result).
The wrap-up was canceled for completely different reasons, as already
discussed ad-nauseam here and elsewhere, one of which having been the
refusal to hold it anywhere else than in North America.
Also about the polemic on Hans Kraaijenbrink, it looks to me like that
there's a similar tendency to try to change the facts: the ICANN Board did
not at all choose to endorse the BMW Draft (i.e. the one Hans' company
supported). Moreover, there's no evidence that this was the vote of Hans.
Last but not least, I fail to see the conflict of interest. Which is the
business advantage ETNO would have had in case of choice of the BMW draft? I
even invite you to go read the ETNO statement, which had interesting
passages about the good points of the Paris draft.
What makes us think that it is not the other way around, i.e. that Hans in
his quality of ICANN Director has not smoothed up ETNO's pro-BMW position
into a more balanced one?
It is very easy to paint the world in black and white, but this does not
eliminate the existence of the shades of gray.
Regards
Roberto
