<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I support the idea of focusing some of the time with the CSG on this
subject in the NCPH mtg. And of doing a conference day with them
dedicated to the public discussion of PI.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25-Dec-14 10:42, William Drake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DDD8A5DE-45D8-49C0-8362-DDB968C04AB3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div><span></span></div>
<div><span>Hi</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span>I was slightly taken aback on the 16 Dec.
accountability call that a few good people were quickly
flocking to the Business Constituency's very narrow view that
the public interest </span><span>for ICANN is limited to the
Availability and Integrity of Registrations and Resolutions.
See this CircleID post: </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/to_serve_the_public_interest_you_first_have_to_define_public_interest/"
class="external-link" rel="nofollow">http://www.circleid.com/posts/to_serve_the_public_interest_you_first_have_to_define_public_interest/</a></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div>Not unusual though, people often gravitate to concrete
language in the absence of equally concrete alternatives.
Groupthink amidst complexity can lead to adumbrated conceptual
searching. One could argue this has happened often in many IG
processes; the WGIG definition of IG in the WSIS leaps most
immediately to mind, but there are many examples.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It still shocks me slightly that after all these years and
the AOC language that there's been no significant effort to do a
study of the term's usage in telecom regulation and other
arenas, cross-nationally not just in the US, In order to try and
come to a functional and balanced working definition for the
ICANN context. I'd love to see us put forward an alternative
and would happily partner with anyone who wanted to try. I've
proposed that NCSG and the CSG jointly organize a day long
policy conference at the Buenos Aires meeting akin to the three
NCUC has done, and there appears to be interest, we'll discuss
at the DC NCPH meeting in January. If that gets momentum, maybe
we could do a session at which we present our own view or views
for consideration. I don't see how the accountability process
moves forward well without at least one or two solid contending
formulations of this foundational issue.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill<br>
<span></span><br>
<div>Sent from my iPad</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>On Dec 23, 2014, at 10:07 PM,
David Cake <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dave@DIFFERENCE.COM.AU">dave@DIFFERENCE.COM.AU</a>>
wrote:</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>It is worth noting again that many
of the 'Public Interest Commitments' made by new gTLD
operators contain clauses and commitments that are probably
not in the public interest at all, and that go against
consensus policy recommendations. A case in point is many of
them bring in the idea of a globally protected trade mark
list, which was explicitly rejected as policy, and protects
the interests of IP maximalist trade mark owners more than
the public. </span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>David</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>On 23 Dec 2014, at 5:54 am, Milton
L Mueller <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>
wrote:</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>But *within* the legitimate
ICANN jurisdiction, there are broad</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>constituencies that need
representation. ALAC is one voice for them,</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>and I consider our NC/NP's to
be another. We are as close to a "public</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>interest" as one gets in a
multi-stakeholder model, and I want us to stand up</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>proudly for that
representation in the abstract, even if it makes total</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>sense to define specific
issues narrowly on their own merits.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Yep, I agree. But that's also
what makes the P.I. rhetoric so seductive and potentially
dangerous. </span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>I think we need to advocate
public interest-oriented goals, as we understand them, but
we need to bear in mind that other constituencies can also
claim that mantle. Indeed, if you pay careful attention to
ICANN's past 5-8 years you find that the term is most
commonly used by the BC and most frequently invoked by
GAC, Steve DelBianco and Marilyn Cade, usually to justify
policies that we don't support. </span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>--MM</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>