Well, lets start with the allocation of a scarce resource -- ipv4 addresses. Does the Corporation have an interest in the allocation being (a) congenial with routing, and possibly conservative as well (a subject of serious discussion on an RIR's policy mailing list), and (b) not captured by a single, or several, allocatee(s)? Clearly there is a broadly held interest that routing work, and address exhaustion delayed as long as possible, and the distribution of allocations be somewhat uniform, reflecting shared goals of DARPA, the conversion from classful to classless allocation, and of course, Jon's farming out regionally the addressing component of his work at ISI, and a wicked large number of beneficiaries of these efforts to ensure routing, conservation, and at regional distribution. We have come some way from the point in time when MIT campus held more allocated v4 addresses than all of the access providers in the PRC combined. The design of v6 allows at least one address per human being, a property absent in the v4 design. Incorporating my note of the 25th, the Corporation Board has, over its nearly two decades of existence, observed that a public interest exists in access to numeric endpoint identifiers, and in access to mnemonic endpoint identifiers, unrestricted by region or language, and to some degree, only slightly restricted by access to capital, where packetized data communication is supported by communications infrastructure. This Corporation observation of public interests in access to endpoint identifiers is indistinguishable from the allocation behavior of the prior parties exercising "technical coordination", and so continuous, and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. The suggestion that finding a public interest is an exercise in sophistry would of necessity apply to the current, and prior, Corporation Boards, and those responsible for technical coordination of endpoint identifiers prior to November, 1998, specifically any representations that their acts to make numbers or names accessible to later adopters were in a public interest. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon On 12/27/15 10:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
I'm sort of loathe to dive into this discussion, but I think there's a useful thread in here that is worth tugging on so that we can see the quality of the weave.
My biggest worry about the phrase "the global public interest" is not the meaning of "global", "public", or "interest", but "the". By claiming that something is or is not in _the_ global public interest, the definite article implies that there is such an interest (or maybe, such a public); that there is exactly one; and, perhaps most interesting, that one knows what that is. Even if I were to grant (I do not, but let's say for the sake of argument) that there is a fact of the matter about the the interest of the global public, I cannot imagine how one would test a claim that something is or is not in said interest.
The quest to come up with a definition of "the global public interest", therefore, is an attempt to create such a test; but it's really a dodge in a Wittgenstinean language-game. Were we to unpack any such definition that was even widely acceptable, we'd discover either that some interest (or public) would be left out, or else that some conflict inherent in the definition would be obscured. For the basic problem is that you cannot define "the global public interest" in a way that is all of universally acceptable, useful for the purposes of making tough decisions, and true. Even apparently simple and obvious cases -- "It is in the global public interest for war to end" -- turn out to be troublesome. For example, people fighting a current war are presumably doing it for some other end, so they'd only agree to that example statement with the implicit premise, "as long as my desired outcome is assured."
A definition of "the global public interest" will be ever more troublesome the clearer it tries to be, because the list of specifics will start to be long. I think our experience in working on the mission statement is mighty instructive, and it is at least scoped merely to the parts of the Internet ICANN directly touches -- whatever we think those are.
As a consequence, I think a claim that _x_ is [not] in "the global public interest" is really just a way of saying, "I [don't] think _x_ should happen." Such a claim is part of a tussle, like the "Tussle in Cyberspace" described by Clark, Wroclawski, Sollins, and Braden (see http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074049). It's a nice rhetorical move to claim that you can define the tussle away, but you can't (at least, not legitimately). I think we should be honest with ourselves that such definitional efforts will create wheels that do no work.
Best regards,
A