Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez]

Hi Rafik,

As long as you keep in mind the original sin of the discussion:

....If the board could separate itself from the community's proposals, based on THEIR definition of public interest......

It may be an interesting and worthwhile effort.

If it is only an intent to preempt the Board from dissenting with the community, by forcing them into an ex ante definition of PI that they most probably wont accept as such, I'm not so sure is worth the ink. Better just to keep discussing and having the knives ready for the time when the dissent comes, if at all.

Cheers



Enviado desde mi iPad

_________________________
email carlosraul at gutierrez.se
skype carlos.raulg
cel   +506 8837 7176 (New Number)
home  +506 4000 2000

Apartado 1571-1000
San jose COSTA RICA


El 25/12/2014, a las 18:10, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> escribió:

> 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/20141225/7612f8a9/attachment.htm>