Mark
I know just know I'm harping on at a linguistic subtlety here, but isn't there a vast difference between the 'interests of the global public' and the 'global public interest'.
The interests of the global public are well within ICANN's mission, obviously.
The 'public interest' to me, seem to be the public policy concerns of the relevant public authority (e.g. for the public interest in the UK, it's HMG.)
So 'global public interest' is undefinable, since there is no single global public authority, and the national public authorities may take disparate (and in some cases, wildly divergent) positions on what they consider the public interest to be.
Having said that, I'm open to re-education here.
Happy New Year!
On 29/12/15 18:21, Mark Carvell wrote:
mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>Dear Kavouss
Forgive me if I'm not grasping fully the point behind your rhetorical
question but it seems to me that a key global public interest goal for
an organisation like ICANN that has a global managerial and coordinating
role, is ensuring equal access and fair opportunity. ICANN would achieve
this through correcting any distortion or imbalance in access to
resources, if necessary through direct intervention ssupported by all
stakeholders, for example to provide assistance to those with limited
resources so that they can exercise their right to access and
opportunity in the domain name system.
We have seen that kind of intervention in the current new gTLD round:
ICANN committing to take full account of the concerns and specific needs
of individual stakeholders and communities in developing countries. That
it did not always succeed in this is a major concern that needs to be
addressed if the next open gTLD round is to be more successful in
realising the potential contribution of the expansion of the domain name
system to the growth of the digital economy worldwide and to sustainable
development. That would be one example of ICANN acting in order to
advance the global public interest.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Carvell
Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
On 28 December 2015 at 21:43, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All,
The argument given through an example of distribution of the
addresses is totally irelevant .
Does the public interests meant that one country has many times
addresses as a continent?
Let us be logical
Regards
Kavouss
2015-12-28 21:31 GMT+01:00 Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net <mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>>:<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
Well, lets start with the allocation of a scarce resource --
ipv4 addresses. Does the Corporation have an interest in the
allocation being (a) congenial with routing, and possibly
conservative as well (a subject of serious discussion on an
RIR's policy mailing list), and (b) not captured by a single, or
several, allocatee(s)?
Clearly there is a broadly held interest that routing work, and
address exhaustion delayed as long as possible, and the
distribution of allocations be somewhat uniform, reflecting
shared goals of DARPA, the conversion from classful to classless
allocation, and of course, Jon's farming out regionally the
addressing component of his work at ISI, and a wicked large
number of beneficiaries of these efforts to ensure routing,
conservation, and at regional distribution.
We have come some way from the point in time when MIT campus
held more allocated v4 addresses than all of the access
providers in the PRC combined. The design of v6 allows at least
one address per human being, a property absent in the v4 design.
Incorporating my note of the 25th, the Corporation Board has,
over its nearly two decades of existence, observed that a public
interest exists in access to numeric endpoint identifiers, and
in access to mnemonic endpoint identifiers, unrestricted by
region or language, and to some degree, only slightly restricted
by access to capital, where packetized data communication is
supported by communications infrastructure. This Corporation
observation of public interests in access to endpoint
identifiers is indistinguishable from the allocation behavior of
the prior parties exercising "technical coordination", and so
continuous, and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future.
The suggestion that finding a public interest is an exercise in
sophistry would of necessity apply to the current, and prior,
Corporation Boards, and those responsible for technical
coordination of endpoint identifiers prior to November, 1998,
specifically any representations that their acts to make numbers
or names accessible to later adopters were in a public interest.
Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon
On 12/27/15 10:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
I'm sort of loathe to dive into this discussion, but I think
there's a
useful thread in here that is worth tugging on so that we
can see the
quality of the weave.
My biggest worry about the phrase "the global public
interest" is not
the meaning of "global", "public", or "interest", but "the". By
claiming that something is or is not in _the_ global public
interest,
the definite article implies that there is such an interest
(or maybe,
such a public); that there is exactly one; and, perhaps most
interesting, that one knows what that is. Even if I were to
grant (I
do not, but let's say for the sake of argument) that there
is a fact
of the matter about the the interest of the global public, I
cannot
imagine how one would test a claim that something is or is
not in said
interest.
The quest to come up with a definition of "the global public
interest", therefore, is an attempt to create such a test;
but it's
really a dodge in a Wittgenstinean language-game. Were we
to unpack
any such definition that was even widely acceptable, we'd
discover
either that some interest (or public) would be left out, or
else that
some conflict inherent in the definition would be obscured.
For the
basic problem is that you cannot define "the global public
interest"
in a way that is all of universally acceptable, useful for the
purposes of making tough decisions, and true. Even
apparently simple
and obvious cases -- "It is in the global public interest
for war to
end" -- turn out to be troublesome. For example, people
fighting a
current war are presumably doing it for some other end, so
they'd only
agree to that example statement with the implicit premise,
"as long as
my desired outcome is assured."
A definition of "the global public interest" will be ever more
troublesome the clearer it tries to be, because the list of
specifics
will start to be long. I think our experience in working on the
mission statement is mighty instructive, and it is at least
scoped
merely to the parts of the Internet ICANN directly touches
-- whatever
we think those are.
As a consequence, I think a claim that _x_ is [not] in "the
global
public interest" is really just a way of saying, "I [don't]
think _x_
should happen." Such a claim is part of a tussle, like the
"Tussle in
Cyberspace" described by Clark, Wroclawski, Sollins, and
Braden (see
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074049). It's a nice
rhetorical
move to claim that you can define the tussle away, but you
can't (at
least, not legitimately). I think we should be honest with
ourselves
that such definitional efforts will create wheels that do no
work.
Best regards,
A
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community