Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

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.

avri

On 25-Dec-14 10:42, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> 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 for ICANN is limited to the
> Availability and Integrity of Registrations and Resolutions.   See
> this CircleID
> post: http://www.circleid.com/posts/to_serve_the_public_interest_you_first_have_to_define_public_interest/
>  
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Bill
>
> Sent from my iPad
>> On Dec 23, 2014, at 10:07 PM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU
>> <mailto:dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 23 Dec 2014, at 5:54 am, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU
>> <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> But *within* the legitimate ICANN jurisdiction, there are broad
>>>> constituencies that need representation.  ALAC is one voice for them,
>>>> and I consider our NC/NP's to be another.  We are as close to a "public
>>>> interest" as one gets in a multi-stakeholder model, and I want us
>>>> to stand up
>>>> proudly for that representation in the abstract, even if it makes total
>>>> sense to define specific issues narrowly on their own merits.
>>>
>>> Yep, I agree. But that's also what makes the P.I. rhetoric so
>>> seductive and potentially dangerous.
>>> 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.  
>>>
>>> --MM
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141225/f0e08b1a/attachment.htm>