On 19/02/2015 04:36, Greg Shatan wrote:
If this group wants to devote itself to trying to define in detail what the "public interest" is for ICANN, that will pull us way off track. Although the principle is basic, the nuances once you try to parse it out will be anything but basic. This can be a goal for ICANN in the long run, and as Samantha Eisner indicated, this is an effort that is underway. Rather than pulling that task into this group, it would make more sense for those interested in that effort to plug into that effort, and to consider appropriate linkages between that effort and this one.
Having been in many, many working groups that considered defining what the "public interest" is for ICANN, I have to agree that this is not the best use of the WG's time. We all know when a decision is in the public interest - ie. it serves the public good, but defining it only serves to reduce its scope and make it an incomplete term. It's like defining "wet" in "water is wet". Kind regards, Olivier