Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

I support the idea of having written proposal or position paper about
public interest as suggested by Bill (who is asking for another volunteer).
that can propose an alternative and also list the different interpretations
and points we are hearing here.  we have a discussion here but that needs
to be materialized in something that can be shared and publicized .
otherwise it will remains just as mailing list thread

Best,

Rafik

2014-12-26 1:03 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>  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> 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/20141225/81f5ce4b/attachment.htm>