[PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon....

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

The point I?m trying to make isn?t why something is or isn?t in the GPI. It?s that the answer to ?WHAT is the GPI? is purely subjective (at least in my opinion, it is). A group?s appropriation of the definition of this term is not a prospect I relish. Nor do I believe that a negotiation of its definition (or framework) by different groups with conflicting ?special interests? will be necessarily constructive. So what?s the harm is just sticking to the specific reasons, as opposed to misusing the label?

Regarding CCWG vs. GNSO WG?, the main advantage I see to GNSO WGs is that they are more open to ?membership? as opposed to ?participation?. I?ve never been too fond of participants in CCWGs not being a part of the formal consensus call of the group?s recommendations.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I remain in favor of this as a CCWG activity.
> 
> And I think we need to stop setting ourselves up as the foes of the
> global public interest.  Yes, we need to explain why something is in the
> global public interest and need specific reasons to do that, but we
> should not fight against the global public interest or even against the
> terminology 'global public interest'. It is just that whenever someone
> says that something is in the GPI, we should ask why it is.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 14-Jul-15 09:16, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> While I agree with this sentiment as well?, I would prefer that we avoid ?public interest objectives? as a rationale. More specific reasons why biz shouldn?t get their money back will be more constructive.
>> 
>> For what it?s worth, the GNSO Council is scheduled to get an update on this from Jonathan and Marika during the next council meeting. I was previously in favour of a CCWG taking this on, but now regret taking that position. Wish I had argued for a GNSO working group instead.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:26 AM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 8 Jul 2015, at 1:01 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YORKU.CA> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 07/07/2015 10:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote (among other things):
>>>>> Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.
>>>> I have interests in this at two levels, first respect to the resulting process for handling auction proceeds (without expanding ICANN staff :-( ), and second as a development economist. I am willing to be pressed into whatever hard labour is needed here.
>>>> 
>>>> I hear the business community suggesting, in effect, "It is our money and we would like it back". My presumption is that if there is business consensus on that position they would resort to a private auction, and if it is an ICANN auction, broader public interest objectives should apply.
>>> 	I agree with this position. The private auction path has been there all along, it has been obvious that in some respects it is a better deal for the businesses involved, and revisiting that choice now is inappropriate.
>>> 	Of course, this is just the drafting team - hopefully more of us will get involved with this discussion once it leaves the terms of reference stage.
>>> 
>>> 	David
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg