<div dir="ltr">Good point made Sam.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>WISDOM DONKOR<br></div><div>Sosftware / Network Engineer<br></div>Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist<br><div><div>National Information Technology Agency (NITA) <br></div><div>Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana</div><div>Tel; +233 20 812881</div><div>Email: <a href="mailto:wisdom_dk@hotmail.com" target="_blank">wisdom_dk@hotmail.com</a><br></div><div><a href="mailto:wisdom.donkor@data.gov.gh" target="_blank">wisdom.donkor@data.gov.gh</a><br></div><div><a href="mailto:wisdom.dk@gmail.com" target="_blank">wisdom.dk@gmail.com</a><br></div><div>Skype: wisdom_dk</div><div>facebook: facebook@wisdom_dk<br></div><div>Website: <a href="http://www.nita.gov.gh" target="_blank">www.nita.gov.gh</a> / <a href="http://www.data.gov.gh" target="_blank">www.data.gov.gh</a><br></div><div><a href="http://www.isoc.gh" target="_blank">www.isoc.gh</a> / <a href="http://www.itag.org.gh" target="_blank">www.itag.org.gh</a> <br><br></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Sam Lanfranco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca" target="_blank">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<span>David
Johnson’s blog argues that the democratic potential for ICANN
membership is in
danger of being co-opted by groups that want a very narrow and
limited
conception of who the members should be and a very expansive
conception of what
their powers should be. see: <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/12/19/icann-accountability-a-coup-or-a-contract/" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/12/19/icann-accountability-a-coup-or-a-contract/</span></a>
<u></u><u></u></span><br>
<br>
<span>It is
important to go beyond the nature of this risk and look at the
source of this
risk, those pushing ICANN to be a public interest regulator.
Johnson argues
that “</span><span>If
ICANN took the “public interest regulator” option off the table,
the
“accountability” discussion could be greatly simplified.” This
touches on a
deeper question of whether or not ICANN is even the appropriate
venue for
protecting the “public interest” here. <span> </span><u></u><u></u></span><br>
<br>
<span>Using
the discussions around regulated professions gTLD (e.g. .health,
.doc, etc.) it
becomes clear pretty quickly that there is little ICANN can do to
address the “public
interest” concerns there, even if it had some regulatory power.
See my blog “<i>Rethinking,
and Redirecting the Global Health Strategy on the Proposed
.health gTLD</i>” at <a href="http://samlanfranco.blogspot.ca" target="_blank">samlanfranco.blogspot.ca</a>
.<u></u><u></u></span><br>
<br>
<span>Most
public interest concerns will have to be addresses bottom up in
struggles
around policy at various levels within countries, within
professions, and using
appropriate regulatory tools and laws at those levels. ICANN
cannot be all
things to all concerns, and attempting to do so will compromise
ICANN, while
public interest concerns will still have to be addressed
elsewhere. <span><br>
</span></span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><br>
Sam L.<br>
</p>
<span><span></span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>