On 2014-12-17 21:20, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 12/17/14 8:53 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Certainly I would regard it as being in the public interest that ICANN should discharge its functions properly, and in accordance with generally accepted principles of law.
Dear Malcolm,
What "generally accepted principles of law" do you suggest apply to the management of protocol parameters?
[snip: other similar questions, that ultimately lead to:]
My point being that when the IANA Functions are as narrowly construed as we can sensibly make them, "public interest" and "generally accepted principles of law" are difficult to find points of association, let alone concordance.
Eric, I'm a bit surprised by the tone of your reply, which appears to signal a disagreement between us that I don't recognise in the argument itself. The main thrust of my intervention was to say that we should not make broad statements about the public interest and "generally accepted principles of international law" that could be construed to enlarge ICANN's role. Your intervention seems to be aligned with this. I am not a PIL expert, so I cannot guess what principles of PIL may be applicable to ICANN. There certainly are broad principles that I do believe are applicable to ICANN (including transparency, a rules-based approach, bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy-making, impartiality of treatment under the rules etc); some of these may be found in PIL too, or maybe not, I don't know. I do believe ICANN should apply only aspects of PIL as relevant to its existing mission, rather than reshaping its mission to pursue the multifarious goals of international public policy. On this may I take it we are agreed? Malcolm -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA