Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

Thu Dec 25 16:13:41 EET 2014

What I learn in this debate is to see if ICANN needs a lexicon or thesaurus to explain terms and expressions relating to its communication so as to avoid confusion and harmonize information level.

Mamadou

Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:01:17 -0500
From: emorris at MILK.TOAST.NET
Subject: Re: Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Hi Bill,

That call disturbed me as well. My immediate reaction was that we 
needed to compete with the BC by coming up with our own definition of public 
interest. I foresaw disaster if Steve’s definition was accepted. I 
immediately reached out to some of our more experienced members, learned a 
bit of the history involved and received some very generous offers of 
assistance to craft our own working definition of public interest. I want to 
thank Kathy and Joy, in particular, for their kind offers in this 
regard.

I should note that my preference from a philosophical standpoint, as I 
mentioned in our discussion earlier this year on the Council of Europe 
paper, is to do away with the term 'public interest'  all 
together. I reject the notion that there is any such thing as “public 
interest”, at least one that can be determined. I was tempted to 
bring out a bunch of mathematical formulas, write about Arrow’s 
impossibility theorem, Pettit's discursive dilemma and demonstrably 
prove that true social choice, or public interest, can never be truly 
determined. Tempted, but fortunately I’m not an academic so I was able 
to resist that temptation. :)

I then prepared to suggest that we make a collective NCSG effort 
to craft a definition of public interest,  but discovered that some in 
our community felt we were best served by the ambiguous undefined term we 
have now. Yes, it allows the powers that be to define the public interest as 
they see fit, but over time it just may be that our members may benefit from 
that more than they would from any tightly formulated strictly defined term. 
It’s something to think about.

Going forward:

1. I think the first step is not to immediately start working on an 
official NCSG definition of the “public interest”, but 
rather first to  determine whether we want such a definition or 
would prefer to argue that “public interest”, like pornography, 
is just something you know when you see it. What is in our member’s 
interest?

2. If we are to proffer a definition of “public interest” 
I’d suggest we view it more as a defensive effort than an offensive 
one. Usually in drafting quasi – legislative text you want narrowly 
defined terms to limit the scope of application. Not so here. We’re 
doing this primarily to shoot down the BC effort.  I’d prefer 
general definitional terms in our bread and butter areas, such as 
“human rights”, “free expression”, 
“privacy”, rather than more narrowly defined terms such as those 
favoured by the BC. In the inevitable compromise I’d suggest that 
broad terms would give us a better ability to pursue our goals in the future 
than as opposed to more  narrow ones.

3. If we can come to a coherent position, I agree that this would be an 
ideal topic for our NCPH discussion with the CSG. It’s current, 
important and allows us to attack the BC proposal at a time when we’re 
a bit more equal numerically than we are in the Accountability effort.

Happy Christmas all,

Ed

-----Original 
Message-----

From: William Drake <wjdrake at GMAIL.COM>

To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:42:26 -0600

Subject: Re: Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

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> 
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> 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/20141225/0f026be4/attachment.htm>