[Poll] Reminder topics of interest for the ICANN Board-NCSG session in Buenos Aires

[Edward Morris]

As usual,  Robin has hit the nail on the head. No matter what we do with
Accountability, and we're doing a lot, as long as this vague concept of
public interest exists in ICANN  it will be used to further special
interests and nullify policy properly developed through community processes.

I don't believe public interest can be determined. That said, I do
recommend folks take a look at a study done by the Institute of Chartered
Accountants in England and Wales on the topic,  if we are required by ICANN
in good faith to try to do the impossible. It may be found here:
http://www.icaew.com/en/technical/ethics/the-public-interest .

Ed

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Indeed it does seem that in reality we have two different policy
> development processes that sit on top of each other for GTLD policy.  There
> is the GNSO developed policy pursuant to Annex A of ICANN's bylaws, and
> then there is the board-staff developed policy based on what they
> unilaterally decide is "in the public interest".  Just slap on the label of
> Public Interest Commitments on them, and voila, an entirely separate set of
> policy requirements to sit on top of the GNSOs (and over-ride GNSO policy
> in some cases).
>
> After all, who can be against The Public Interest?   It would seem this is
> one place where ICANN's staff-board is able to circumvent bottom-up policy
> development processes and it is unclear where the authority to do this
> comes from since GNSO policy is supposed to be developed pursuant to Annex
> A of ICANN's bylaws.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On May 12, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> You mean as issues that the GNSO process did not deal with adequately
> and
> >> are therefore a good reason for sending a recommendation back to the
> >> GNSO for further work?
> >
> > No, I mean as yet another example of altering agreed policy on the fly
> in response to demands by privileged interest groups (GAC, trademark) who
> could never get their views accepted in a consensus process.
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150512/7df24d91/attachment.htm>