<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><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 style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">for ICANN is limited to the Availability and Integrity of Registrations and Resolutions. See this CircleID post: </span><a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/to_serve_the_public_interest_you_first_have_to_define_public_interest/" class="external-link" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); text-decoration: none;">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 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 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></body></html>