<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Nicolas raises some good points, and I suspect we are
talking about the same public interest here. I too at one time
felt that ICANN could be the place where protections for global
public interest could reside.
My shift in thought is from viewing protecting the public interest
much in the
way we champion (and try to protect) human rights. The shift is
from looking
for a venue to looking at ways to embed the processes where
appropriate, some
of which may evolved within ICANN’s remit, and others which likely
will reside
elsewhere. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a
Charter, it
has no regulatory authority and the pursuit of human rights take
place elsewhere,
across a myriad of venues. <o:p></o:p><br>
<br>
As an economist I am keenly aware of the difference between "a
public good" and "the public good". The first has to do with the
intrinsic properties
of a good or service, and the other is more like the UDHR,
pointing to a future
we wish to have. Trying to treat domain names as "public goods" is
problematic
at many levels.<o:p></o:p><br>
<br>
Vesting regulatory authority in any entity, ICANN or AnyCo, is
problematic as well. I agree with Nicolas' point that NCSG's
defense of the global public interest involves making sure that
there are no basis for enacting stuff, within ICANN's remit, that
goes against a global public interest. Rather than an all knowing
and omnipotent public interest regulatory body, what is needed is
greater awareness and increase vigilance of threats to the public
interest wherever they might arise, and keeping the global public
interest at the substantive forefront of an "IG system"." Let a
thousand NCSG offspring take root. <br>
</div>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>