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

[Edward Morris]

I agree with Amr on both points.
  
 Regarding the CCWG, I think we're getting to be a bit too sharing with our policy decisions. The action proceeds are the result of a GNSO program and decisions as to what to do with the proceeds should remain within the GNSO. If we keep outsourcing our decisions those who question why we even have a GNSO Council (ideas for a General Assembly open to all to replace it were being floated in Buenos Aires by multiple Board members) will be strengthened. I'm also concerned about Crocker's letter and the Board's seeming desire to control fund disposition. This should be a decision made through a GNSO WG. I, too, regret my decision to let this go forward as a CCWG.
  
 It would be nice if we could determine what exactly is the global public interest. Best theorists can suggest ( Rawls, Mills, Sang Ho) is it represents an increase of something ( happiness, position, relative status?) of the representative individual. So determining the global interest requires that we define the typical global individual and act in accordance with his or her interests. Who is that average person?
  
 Once we admit that the identity of the representative individual is impossible to define we're left with construing some sort of theory of social collective action that maximises societal utility. Good luck with that. Condorcet first illustrated that construction of mechanisms to aggregate preferences through voting mesn the mechanisms themselves likely determine the outcome as much as collective preferences. Arrow further demonstrated the aggregation problem as applied to more generalised social actions and postulated that regardless of mechanism a dictatorship is the inevitable outcome of any known aggregating mechanism.
  
 Bottom line: global public interest is not something that can be determined, even if we agree with the theorists( I don't ) who believe it is a desirable thing.
  
 Rather than pretend to develop policy on the basis of something that can not be determined I'd rather deal with each situation as it occurs with reference to the desirability of the proposed action and outcome for those who we represent. True bottom up multi-stakeholderism should represent compromise between competing interests with an outcome determined by procedures established in an organisations governing documents and not be reference to an abstract concept that can not be determined.
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:17 PM
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon....   
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
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150715/29a32473/attachment.html>