Thank you, Mathieu, for this assurance. I do regret joining this discussion late, and I'm sure that some of the points that I'm raising have already been discussed. I do wish that the history of this process had been different. Not being familiar with the early stages of the CCWG's work, I take my clues from both the content and the tone of what I heard at the several meetings I attended in Buenos Aires as well as posts to the list. Thanks for the reference to the earlier document. George On Jul 11, 2015, at 2:49 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear George,
That is useful food for thought, and echos some of our previous discussions.
Answering your question below :
Le 10/07/2015 19:13, George Sadowsky a écrit :
Here's the question: Does the CCWG believe that the global public interest is_always_ defined by "community" consensus or "community" dictates? Yes or no? Our group does not make that assumption. because the answer, as you say, is "it's more complicated than yes or no". There is often not a single way to "act in the global public interest", which can not be reduced to a set of engineering rules or equations (as much as I personnally would like it to). I believe that the great majority of the time the two are consistent, but I believe that there are cases in which they diverge. Is there any disagreement among us that this could happen? In that case, what should a Board member do? Which is the higher authority according to the CCWG's thinking? We have to assume that disagreements will occur (that is actually healthy), and that it does not imply that the Board member of the community are "at fault", or will be removed instantly.
But that's a useful concern for WP1 to consider.
Mathieu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.802.457.3370 119 Birch Way GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Woodstock, VT 05091-7986 USA SMS: 2024151933@txt.att.net george.sadowsky@gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ Skype: sadowsky Twitter: @georgesadowsky