On Monday 28 December 2015 08:09 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Yes, Kavouss, I agree entirely. But at least it added some levity to the process. Asking experts in corporate law to define GPI, as if that were a legal rather than purely political question, is particularly amusing.
But then, Milton, the key and endemic defect of this whole process throughout has been to turn political questions into legal-technical ones, more specifically, as those of corporate law. (Which has been my principal problem with it.) Attempting to define and fence in 'what global public interest is' is simply a symptom of this deeper, congenital, problem with the IANA transition process.... While at the subject, why when the group/ process jettisoned the known and understood term of 'global public' (along with the political thinking and values that go with it) in favour of the unclear and unarticulated 'global multi-stakeholder community' does it now want to reclaim 'public' ? What about 'global multistakeholder community interest' or a shorter 'global multistakeholder interest'? Would that not be more congruent to this new post-democratic political ideology? While being politically inventive, why not go the whole hog. Let the political parody be complete! parminder
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are miracle makers
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community