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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

As I have argued it is the BUMP (bottom up multistakeholder process)
that allows us to discover/identify what is in the GPI that is within
the ICANN's mission.  So while we start out from so called subjective
input (and how can public interest not be subjective - as it is about
subjects), look for reasons and come to consensus on what we will treat
as ICANN view on the GPI.

This is not a missue of the term in my opinion, but rather us doing the
work that needs to be done.  It is an ICANN requirement to serve the BPI
within ICANN's mission constraints.

The problem with GNSO WGs, is that the GNSO can ignore and pervert the
outcome.  And even after we reach an outcome, we have all the rest of
the community that feels left out.  Just because we think we are so very
open, does not mean that others accept that.   and in how many GNSO WGS
have we seen the none GNSO people marginalized.  It happens all the
time.  I hear that sometimes even we are marginalized by the dominant
commercial interests. I do not see trusting the use of the Auction
proceeds to commercial interest ad being in any way consistent the GPI.

avri


On 14-Jul-15 09:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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