Dear Robin, Avri, Prof. Scott Hempling, of Georgetown University who is a specialist in regulatory law has a very good one. I know that the Internet is ver special and very different from 20th century public utilities, but sometimes past experience does help....... Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone El feb 18, 2015, a las 12:02, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:
"public interest consistent with human rights and within ICANN's scope."
This is a good compromise and sufficiently addresses my concern that "public interest" alone is too vague and subject to numerous conflicting interpretations.
Thank you, Robin
On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Carlos Raúl G. wrote:
I like It Thanks
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone
El feb 18, 2015, a las 11:36, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> escribió:
Hi,
On 18-Feb-15 11:51, "Carlos Raúl G." wrote: So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."
Within ICANN narrowly define technical scope??!
Of course it needs to be in scope. and yet that scope is as hard to define as public interest is. For example, by my definition of 'technical', ICANN does almost nothing technical outside of IANA, unless you include IT..
But over the years the technical scope has been defined in an ICANN context to include all kinds of policy stuff that can be defined as technical in perhaps a legal, financial or organizational context. The boarders on that definition are fuzzy at best.
But if we want to add further conditionalizing words, we could say
"public interest consistent with human rights and within ICANN's scope."
_______________________________________________ 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