Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

[Carlos Raúl G.]

Thank you Milton! 

All regulatory statutes command to pursue the "public interest", because they presume that private behavior, unregulated, will diverge from the public interest. 

So if we don't want ICANN to be the regulator, we simply need another, higher instance where all USERS can go to and claim for redress if private actors of/in the DNS have undermined the public  interest.

ICANN can still remain the instance for dispute resolution between its contracted parties.

But have to sort out what we want first, then who is responsible for that, and then we might need to go and ask for a change in the organizational blueprint to reflect those responsibilities  clearly. 

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176 (New Number)
Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El dic 26, 2014, a las 8:12 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> escribió:
> 
> If ICANN regulates “in the public interest” it has an open-ended mandate to do anything, there are no limits on its scope of authority.
>  
> World you please explain or expand your last sentence, for the benefit of English as a second language readers?
>  
> That is why we should not conceive of ICANN’s authority as containing a mandate to pursue “the general welfare” or “the public interest.”
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141226/0d9640dd/attachment.htm>