A Lust for Power: Is PIMCO Like Some CCWG-Accountability Members?

Video above: Bill Gross Sues PIMCO Over Forced Exit - Bill Gross has sued PIMCO (pimco.com) and its parent Allianz SE (allianz.com - ETR: ALV) for “hundreds of millions of dollars,” claiming he was wrongfully pushed out as the bond giant’s chief investment officer by a “cabal” of executives seeking a bigger slice of the bonus pool, in other words "greed." Bloomberg's Mary Childs reports on "Bloomberg Markets." Published on Oct 8, 2015
“Driven by a lust for power, greed, and a desire to improve their own financial position and reputation at the expense of investors ..." --Bill Gross Lawsuit Claims
Greed? In the financial industry? "I'm shocked."

Of course, the financial industry is not unique in this regard--it is now clearly evident, that there are a few members of the CCWG-Accountability (Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability) who have been, from the beginning, working on their own lustful power grab, or "greed," for control over ICANN, and apparently intend to impair or destroy ICANN's (and its Board of Directors') fiduciary duties to the global multistakeholder community and the global public interest. See: Domain Mondo: China (CAICT) Objects to ICANN CCWG Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal. For them, "Accountability" is a mere euphemism for "Power"--NOT enhancing ICANN accountability BUT enhancing their own Power--they intend to be "in control" of their proposed Single Member which would rule over the post-IANA transition ICANN and its Board of Directors. Remember, it is the "ICANN stakeholders" who currently select, directly or indirectly, 15 of the 16 voting members of the ICANN Board of Directors! But even that's not enough power (Carl Icahn would be flabbergasted by their chutzpah!)--they want to be able to overrule the ICANN Board even when to do so violates ICANN's (and the Board's) fiduciary duties to the global multistakeholder community and the global public interest:
"Sole Member given reserved power under Bylaws to override Board decision directly, regardless of Board fiduciary duties." - Legal counsel for CCWG-Accountability (pdf) opinion on CCWG 2nd draft Report (emphasis added)
But not all CCWG members are in agreement--and certainly ICANN community members do not all agree with the "power grab"--
"... Let¹s not suggest that the community is in full agreement on the 2nd draft CCWG proposal, it is not. Let¹s not suggest that the board is (nothing but) working against us, it is not. We have agreement on the most important ingredients of the proposal: specific powers for the community that can be enforced. We do not have agreement on the mechanism to implement these..."-- Roelof Meijer (CCWG mail list, October 8, 2015)(emphasis added)
Even one of the original supporters of the CCWG's 2nd Draft Report's Single Member Model now concedes:
"None of us know what will or won’t be approved by the [ICANN] stakeholder groups because at the moment there’s nothing for them to approve. At the moment no one in their right mind would approve our second draft proposal because of the feedback that it has."-- Jordan Carter, ICANN CCWG member, Oct 6, 2015 meeting transcript, emphasis added)
Apparently, from reading the CCWG mail list, we have some members of the CCWG who are not "in their right mind" since they have taken the hardline position to proceed with the Single Member Model (SMM or CMSM) in defiance of the feedback from the Public Comments, including that from the ICANN Board of Directors.  We may find out in Dublin, at the ICANN 54 meeting, if those who 'lust for power' will be successful in impairing or destroying ICANN's fiduciary duties to the global multistakeholder community and the global public interest. Some of these hardliners appear willing to destroy ICANN and the IANA transition in the process. Let's be clear what these CCWG-Accountability hardliners really want:

Complete power over ICANN to be in the hands of a few powerful ICANN "stakeholders," to the complete exclusion of the global internet community--

“... Having been a member or observer of many of these entities [ICANN stakeholder groups] I have found that they are often disorganized, ruled by a few strong personalities in a sea of apathy, and given to making up rules on the fly when needed. They do not even necessarily follow the rules they have agreed to in the charters, though some do, not all of them.  And for the most part, though they are supposed to [be] transparent, most aren't. So what I fear is that they are accountable to none except the few strong personalities..." -- Avri Doria, CCWG mail list, (emphasis added)

"... I agree that we have not (in this [CCWG] group) explored the accountability of stakeholder entities to their members, or the accountability of stakeholder entities (singly and collectively) to the larger community, or for that matter, the accountability of stakeholder entities to their non-member (and non-participating) stakeholders. If this is truly a deep concern, then it could be seen as a fundamental flaw in our entire plan, which is based on the existing stakeholder entities -- no matter how you design it (members, designators, delegates, etc.)…”-- Greg Shatan, CCWG mail list (emphasis added)

This "power grab" has nothing to do with ICANN Board accountability nor "enforceability"--that is a straw man argument completely refuted in a memo (pdf) from the Jones Day law firm distributed on the CCWG mail list October 8, 2015.

Caveat Emptor!

See also on Domain Mondo:



Domain Mondo archive