I agree with Milton (and Alan). Greg On Friday, December 25, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

I find myself agreeing completely with Milton.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On December 25, 2015 8:46:35 PM EST, "Mueller, Milton L" < milton@gatech.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','milton@gatech.edu');>> wrote:

...

MM: Thomas and all:

I appreciate your pushback on the board’s comments, but I think it is not helpful for the discussion to center on “definition of the global public interest.”

There is no definition, and even if we come up with some mutually acceptable verbal construction of what is in “the global public interest” there never will be easy agreement on how that definition is applied to any particular issue we have.

For example, we may all agree that it is in the GPI for ICANN to be transparent, but still might disagree on finding the appropriate trade off between inspection rights and administrative burdens.

Let’s just accept the fact that the board has an interest in protecting the corporation and will argue from that perspective, and the rest of us have an interest in making the board accountable to the community and will assess issues from that perspective.

When (or if – because it has not formally done so yet) the board votes that a particular recommendation is not in the GPI, let’s just interpret that as meaning the board doesn’t like it and won’t voluntarily go along with it. Then we have to decide whether to ignore that challenge and press ahead, or not.

Nothing in gained in that interaction by coming up with a verbal definition of GPI. But a lot of time could be wasted in the attempt.

--MM

We have asked the Board to provide information on what definition of the Global Public Interest it has used and what the rationale for their current assessment of our recommendations is. The answer to that question is still pending.

However, we are reaching out to you now as we want to understand better the impact of Global Public Interest as we continue to work on our final recommendations. Our plan is to offer explanations in our final report where we speak to the Global Public Interest and why we are of the opinion that our recommendations in their final form are in the Global Public Interest.

We would therefore appreciate your input at your earliest convenience on

1. suggested definition(s) of the Global Public Interest that our group could use;

2. which of the recommendations in our 3rd report, if any, give raise Global Public Interest concerns according to your assessment; and

3. how you suggest we can resolve the Global Public Interest issues, which are identified.

Thank you very much, kind regards and a great holiday season, Mathieu Weill, Léon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert

Thomas Rickert

*Rechtsanwalt*

tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas@rickert.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thomas@rickert.net');> web: rickert.net

[image: Image removed by sender. image]

RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert

_______________________________________________ CCWG-Advisors mailing list CCWG-Advisors@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CCWG-Advisors@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-advisors

------------------------------

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

* Dear Milton,* *I fully and wholeheartzedly Agree and support you * I tries to put together something to show that is is absolutely difficulté ,if not impossible to have anagreed definition for Global Public Interest.

From the text appears below you will note the difficulties and impossibilities. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are miracle makers WE MUST ABBANDONE TAKING THAT PATH . This issue should be included in the agenda of the 05 January call. Legal Adviser are kindly requested to hold on the action on this issue until the matter is discussed and agreed upon by CCWG pLEASE FIND BELOW SOME WORDS IN THIS REGARD INDICATING THE DIFFICULTIES TO TAKE SUCH APPROACH ( ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE GPI) See Below

*Global Public Interest composed of three words ; Global, Public and Interest, each of which has some meaning and application in an discrete fashion as follows: * *Some available definition of Global * 1. Spherical <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spherical> : of, relating to, or involving the entire sphere 1. Worldwide <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worldwide> :of, relating to, or involving the entire world : 2. Universal <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal> :of, relating to, or applying to a whole universe: *Some available Definition of Public * 1. exposed to general view : 2. of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state ; *public law* 3. of or relating to a government , of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation 4. of or relating to people in general 5. of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs 6. devoted to the general or national welfare 7. accessible to or shared by all members of the community 8. capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market 9. supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials (*public radio>* *<public television)* *Examples of public* 1. *Public* outrage over the scandal eventually forced him to resign. 2. The ads are intended to increase *public* awareness of the risks of smoking. 3. She was elected to a *public* office. 4. He was in Congress for many years but he recently retired from *public* life. 5. They decided on a nearby restaurant as a convenient *public* place to meet. 6. The government has allowed *public* access to the documents. 7. The city council is holding a *public* meeting. 8. This will be her first *public* performance in five years. 9. Her trial will be *public*. *Use of term “Public”* *As a noun, the whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality. The community at large, without reference to the geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county; the people.* *As an adjective, open to all; notorious. Open to common use. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community.* *Further use of term “public”* 1. as a noun The people of the nation, state, county, district or municipality, which the government serves. 1. as an adjective Referring to any agency, interest, property, or activity which is under the authority of the government or which belongs to the people. This distinguishes public from private interests as with public and private schools, public and private utilities, public and private hospitals, public and private lands, and public and private roads. *Some available definition of Interest:* A feeling of wanting to learn more about something or to be involved in something A quality that attracts your attention and makes you want to learn more about something or to be involved in something Something (such as a hobby) that a person enjoys learning about or doing Public Interest One of the simple definitions of Public interest could be: Anything affecting the rights, health, or finances of the public at large. Public interest is a common concern among citizens in the management and affairs of local, state, andnational government. It does not mean mere curiosity but is a broad term that refers to the body politic and the public weal. Apublic utility is regulated in the public interest because private individuals rely on such a company for vital service *Can we define Public Interest in a broader/ general term?*

From a broad perspective, it is not appropriate to believe that a detailed general definition would serve a useful purpose: individual circumstances are too variable and such a definition would inevitably result in unintended and/or unanticipated or unexpected consequences. It should be emphasize that when justifying an action as being in the public interest

Using such a framework will allow those advocating an action in the public interest to understand what they mean, and, if explained, will allow those assessing the action or proposal to determine whether they can support the measure as being in the public interest. Another simple definition of public interest could be : Welfare the general public (in contrast to the selfish interest of a person, group or firm) in which the whole society has a stake and which warrants recognition, promotion and protection by the government and its agencies. Despite the vagueness of the term, public interest is claimed generally by governments in matters state secrecy and confidentiality. It is approximated by comparing expected gains and potential costs or losses associated with a decision, policy, program or project in acting in public interest,, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision-making process, including balancing competing interests. The term has grown working toward a multitude of objectives, including civil rights, civil liberties, women’s rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, and so on. Nevertheless, a common denominator for public interest remains the ethic of “fighting for the little guy”—that is, representing the underrepresented and vulnerable segments of society. International law is one of the fastest growing legal fields. The types of public service work and practice settings vary widely. The U.S. Government hires attorneys to work on international issues in many of its agencies, including the Department of State, the Department of Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency, to name just a few. Hundreds of lawyers also work at the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organization of American States, international tribunals, the International Criminal Court and other intergovernmental organizations. Finally, there are thousands of non-governmental organizations throughout the world that focus on international issues, including but not limited to, development, human rights, the environment law, energy, trade, arms control, and transitional justice. Another definition of Public Interest is : 1. The welfare or well-being of the general public; commonwealth. 2. Appeal or relevance to the general populace: a news story of public interest."[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest#cite_note-1> Public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, the public interest could be defined as the "*ex ante* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_ante> welfare of the representative individual.", by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo *ex ante*. This approach is "*ex ante*", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it. Now to have a general understanding of Global Public Interest ,one needs to put a combination of the above simplified terms and definition We then immediately find that it is " Mission Impobile" Kavouss 2015-12-26 9:40 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear All, I also fully agree with Milton. If we remember, at the beginning of our work we attempted to find a possible description , and not definition as there would be no Universally agreed definition for GPI, we concluded that we better not to follow that path. It is waste of time to re-start such useless work again thus question to lawyer MUST BE WITHDRAWN. If , and only if , the Lawyers find some thing , that does not mean that we have to accept that just because it comes from lawyers. The GPI is one of the most complex and multidimensional as well as cross cutting cultural issue that will take us no where. The board MUST provide the basis under which it reject a given Rec. or part if the Rec. since we the CCWG do not hsve and certainly will not have an agreed definition for GPI. The CCWG must clearly mentions to ICANN Board that have serious concerns to accept rejection of any Rec. or part of a Rec. on the ground of being in contradiction of GPI for which there is no definition. We SHALL NOT waste it time to define that nor accept any rejection by the Board on the ground of non- existence definition. We should all stop any imposition of any action from any source Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Dec 2015, at 07:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Milton (and Alan).

Greg

On Friday, December 25, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

...

I find myself agreeing completely with Milton.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On December 25, 2015 8:46:35 PM EST, "Mueller, Milton L" < milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

...

MM: Thomas and all:

I appreciate your pushback on the board’s comments, but I think it is not helpful for the discussion to center on “definition of the global public interest.”

There is no definition, and even if we come up with some mutually acceptable verbal construction of what is in “the global public interest” there never will be easy agreement on how that definition is applied to any particular issue we have.

For example, we may all agree that it is in the GPI for ICANN to be transparent, but still might disagree on finding the appropriate trade off between inspection rights and administrative burdens.

Let’s just accept the fact that the board has an interest in protecting the corporation and will argue from that perspective, and the rest of us have an interest in making the board accountable to the community and will assess issues from that perspective.

When (or if – because it has not formally done so yet) the board votes that a particular recommendation is not in the GPI, let’s just interpret that as meaning the board doesn’t like it and won’t voluntarily go along with it. Then we have to decide whether to ignore that challenge and press ahead, or not.

Nothing in gained in that interaction by coming up with a verbal definition of GPI. But a lot of time could be wasted in the attempt.

--MM

We have asked the Board to provide information on what definition of the Global Public Interest it has used and what the rationale for their current assessment of our recommendations is. The answer to that question is still pending.

However, we are reaching out to you now as we want to understand better the impact of Global Public Interest as we continue to work on our final recommendations. Our plan is to offer explanations in our final report where we speak to the Global Public Interest and why we are of the opinion that our recommendations in their final form are in the Global Public Interest.

We would therefore appreciate your input at your earliest convenience on

1. suggested definition(s) of the Global Public Interest that our group could use;

2. which of the recommendations in our 3rd report, if any, give raise Global Public Interest concerns according to your assessment; and

3. how you suggest we can resolve the Global Public Interest issues, which are identified.

Thank you very much, kind regards and a great holiday season, Mathieu Weill, Léon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert

Thomas Rickert

*Rechtsanwalt*

tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas@rickert.net web: rickert.net

[image: Image removed by sender. image]

RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert

_______________________________________________ CCWG-Advisors mailing list CCWG-Advisors@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-advisors

------------------------------

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

This is some kind of a joke from the Board, right? No one ever tries to define the public interest. It is what it is. Willie On Sunday, December 27, 2015, Nathalie Coupet via Accountability-Cross-Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> wrote:

+1 Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 27, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>> wrote:

* Dear Milton,* *I fully and wholeheartzedly Agree and support you * I tries to put together something to show that is is absolutely difficulté ,if not impossible to have anagreed definition for Global Public Interest. From the text appears below you will note the difficulties and impossibilities. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are miracle makers WE MUST ABBANDONE TAKING THAT PATH . This issue should be included in the agenda of the 05 January call. Legal Adviser are kindly requested to hold on the action on this issue until the matter is discussed and agreed upon by CCWG pLEASE FIND BELOW SOME WORDS IN THIS REGARD INDICATING THE DIFFICULTIES TO TAKE SUCH APPROACH ( ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE GPI) See Below

*Global Public Interest composed of three words ; Global, Public and Interest, each of which has some meaning and application in an discrete fashion as follows: *

*Some available definition of Global *

1.

Spherical <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spherical> : of, relating to, or involving the entire sphere

1. Worldwide <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worldwide> :of, relating to, or involving the entire world : 2. Universal <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal> :of, relating to, or applying to a whole universe:

*Some available Definition of Public *

1. exposed to general view : 2. of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state ; *public law* 3. of or relating to a government , of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation 4. of or relating to people in general 5. of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs 6. devoted to the general or national welfare 7. accessible to or shared by all members of the community 8. capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market 9. supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials (*public radio>* *<public television)*

*Examples of public*

1. *Public* outrage over the scandal eventually forced him to resign. 2. The ads are intended to increase *public* awareness of the risks of smoking. 3. She was elected to a *public* office. 4. He was in Congress for many years but he recently retired from *public* life. 5. They decided on a nearby restaurant as a convenient *public* place to meet. 6. The government has allowed *public* access to the documents. 7. The city council is holding a *public* meeting. 8. This will be her first *public* performance in five years. 9. Her trial will be *public*.

*Use of term “Public”*

*As a noun, the whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality. The community at large, without reference to the geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county; the people.*

*As an adjective, open to all; notorious. Open to common use. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community.*

*Further use of term “public”*

1.

as a noun

The people of the nation, state, county, district or municipality, which the government serves.

1.

as an adjective

Referring to any agency, interest, property, or activity which is under the authority of the government or which belongs to the people. This distinguishes public from private interests as with public and private schools, public and private utilities, public and private hospitals, public and private lands, and public and private roads.

*Some available definition of Interest:*

A feeling of wanting to learn more about something or to be involved in something

A quality that attracts your attention and makes you want to learn more about something or to be involved in something

Something (such as a hobby) that a person enjoys learning about or doing Public Interest

One of the simple definitions of Public interest could be:

Anything affecting the rights, health, or finances of the public at large.

Public interest is a common concern among citizens in the management and affairs of local, state, andnational government. It does not mean mere curiosity but is a broad term that refers to the body politic and the public weal. Apublic utility is regulated in the public interest because private individuals rely on such a company for vital service

*Can we define Public Interest in a broader/ general term?*

From a broad perspective, it is not appropriate to believe that a detailed general definition would serve a useful purpose: individual circumstances are too variable and such a definition would inevitably result in unintended and/or unanticipated or unexpected consequences. It should be emphasize that when justifying an action as being in the public interest

Using such a framework will allow those advocating an action in the public interest to understand what they mean, and, if explained, will allow those assessing the action or proposal to determine whether they can support the measure as being in the public interest.

Another simple definition of public interest could be :

Welfare the general public (in contrast to the selfish interest of a person, group or firm) in which the whole society has a stake and which warrants recognition, promotion and protection by the government and its agencies. Despite the vagueness of the term, public interest is claimed generally by governments in matters state secrecy and confidentiality. It is approximated by comparing expected gains and potential costs or losses associated with a decision, policy, program or project

in acting in public interest,, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision-making process, including balancing competing interests.

The term has grown working toward a multitude of objectives, including civil rights, civil liberties, women’s rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, and so on. Nevertheless, a common denominator for public interest remains the ethic of “fighting for the little guy”—that is, representing the underrepresented and vulnerable segments of society.

International law is one of the fastest growing legal fields. The types of public service work and practice settings vary widely. The U.S. Government hires attorneys to work on international issues in many of its agencies, including the Department of State, the Department of Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency, to name just a few. Hundreds of lawyers also work at the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organization of American States, international tribunals, the International Criminal Court and other intergovernmental organizations. Finally, there are thousands of non-governmental organizations throughout the world that focus on international issues, including but not limited to, development, human rights, the environment law, energy, trade, arms control, and transitional justice.

Another definition of Public Interest is :

1. The welfare or well-being of the general public; commonwealth.

2. Appeal or relevance to the general populace: a news story of public interest."[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest#cite_note-1>

Public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, the public interest could be defined as the "*ex ante* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_ante> welfare of the representative individual.", by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo *ex ante*. This approach is "*ex ante*", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it.

Now to have a general understanding of Global Public Interest ,one needs to put a combination of the above simplified terms and definition We then immediately find that it is " Mission Impobile" Kavouss

2015-12-26 9:40 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>>:

...

Dear All, I also fully agree with Milton. If we remember, at the beginning of our work we attempted to find a possible description , and not definition as there would be no Universally agreed definition for GPI, we concluded that we better not to follow that path. It is waste of time to re-start such useless work again thus question to lawyer MUST BE WITHDRAWN. If , and only if , the Lawyers find some thing , that does not mean that we have to accept that just because it comes from lawyers. The GPI is one of the most complex and multidimensional as well as cross cutting cultural issue that will take us no where. The board MUST provide the basis under which it reject a given Rec. or part if the Rec. since we the CCWG do not hsve and certainly will not have an agreed definition for GPI. The CCWG must clearly mentions to ICANN Board that have serious concerns to accept rejection of any Rec. or part of a Rec. on the ground of being in contradiction of GPI for which there is no definition. We SHALL NOT waste it time to define that nor accept any rejection by the Board on the ground of non- existence definition. We should all stop any imposition of any action from any source Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Dec 2015, at 07:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:

I agree with Milton (and Alan).

Greg

On Friday, December 25, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca');>> wrote:

...

I find myself agreeing completely with Milton.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On December 25, 2015 8:46:35 PM EST, "Mueller, Milton L" < milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

...

MM: Thomas and all:

I appreciate your pushback on the board’s comments, but I think it is not helpful for the discussion to center on “definition of the global public interest.”

There is no definition, and even if we come up with some mutually acceptable verbal construction of what is in “the global public interest” there never will be easy agreement on how that definition is applied to any particular issue we have.

For example, we may all agree that it is in the GPI for ICANN to be transparent, but still might disagree on finding the appropriate trade off between inspection rights and administrative burdens.

Let’s just accept the fact that the board has an interest in protecting the corporation and will argue from that perspective, and the rest of us have an interest in making the board accountable to the community and will assess issues from that perspective.

When (or if – because it has not formally done so yet) the board votes that a particular recommendation is not in the GPI, let’s just interpret that as meaning the board doesn’t like it and won’t voluntarily go along with it. Then we have to decide whether to ignore that challenge and press ahead, or not.

Nothing in gained in that interaction by coming up with a verbal definition of GPI. But a lot of time could be wasted in the attempt.

--MM

We have asked the Board to provide information on what definition of the Global Public Interest it has used and what the rationale for their current assessment of our recommendations is. The answer to that question is still pending.

However, we are reaching out to you now as we want to understand better the impact of Global Public Interest as we continue to work on our final recommendations. Our plan is to offer explanations in our final report where we speak to the Global Public Interest and why we are of the opinion that our recommendations in their final form are in the Global Public Interest.

We would therefore appreciate your input at your earliest convenience on

1. suggested definition(s) of the Global Public Interest that our group could use;

2. which of the recommendations in our 3rd report, if any, give raise Global Public Interest concerns according to your assessment; and

3. how you suggest we can resolve the Global Public Interest issues, which are identified.

Thank you very much, kind regards and a great holiday season, Mathieu Weill, Léon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert

Thomas Rickert

*Rechtsanwalt*

tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas@rickert.net web: rickert.net

[image: Image removed by sender. image]

RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert

_______________________________________________ CCWG-Advisors mailing list CCWG-Advisors@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-advisors

------------------------------

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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

George What I find disturbing is that every move the Board makes seems to be designed to disrupt the CCWG's attempts to forge consensus on the accountability proposal - this absurd GPI debate being the latest example. When this happens repeatedly in a complex process, one begins to question the bona fides of the actor concerned. Willie On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:48 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com

wrote:

No, Willie,

It is not a joke. The phrase "global public interest" and ICANN's responsibility for acting in a manner consistent with it, are mentioned a number of times in the Affirmation of Commitments, which is to be included in the revised bylaws.

I find it really distressing that you think that the Board is joking in its contacts with the CCWG.

George

On Dec 27, 2015, at 12:49 PM, william currie <willie.currie@gmail.com> wrote:

This is some kind of a joke from the Board, right?

No one ever tries to define the public interest. It is what it is.

Willie

On Sunday, December 27, 2015, Nathalie Coupet via Accountability-Cross-Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> wrote:

...

+1 Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 27, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

* Dear Milton,* *I fully and wholeheartzedly Agree and support you * I tries to put together something to show that is is absolutely difficulté ,if not impossible to have anagreed definition for Global Public Interest. From the text appears below you will note the difficulties and impossibilities. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are miracle makers WE MUST ABBANDONE TAKING THAT PATH . This issue should be included in the agenda of the 05 January call. Legal Adviser are kindly requested to hold on the action on this issue until the matter is discussed and agreed upon by CCWG pLEASE FIND BELOW SOME WORDS IN THIS REGARD INDICATING THE DIFFICULTIES TO TAKE SUCH APPROACH ( ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE GPI) See Below

*Global Public Interest composed of three words ; Global, Public and Interest, each of which has some meaning and application in an discrete fashion as follows: *

*Some available definition of Global *

1.

Spherical <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spherical> : of, relating to, or involving the entire sphere

1. Worldwide <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worldwide> :of, relating to, or involving the entire world : 2. Universal <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal> :of, relating to, or applying to a whole universe:

*Some available Definition of Public *

1. exposed to general view : 2. of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state ; *public law* 3. of or relating to a government , of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation 4. of or relating to people in general 5. of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs 6. devoted to the general or national welfare 7. accessible to or shared by all members of the community 8. capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market 9. supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials (*public radio>* *<public television)*

*Examples of public*

1. *Public* outrage over the scandal eventually forced him to resign. 2. The ads are intended to increase *public* awareness of the risks of smoking. 3. She was elected to a *public* office. 4. He was in Congress for many years but he recently retired from *public* life. 5. They decided on a nearby restaurant as a convenient *public* place to meet. 6. The government has allowed *public* access to the documents. 7. The city council is holding a *public* meeting. 8. This will be her first *public* performance in five years. 9. Her trial will be *public*.

*Use of term “Public”*

*As a noun, the whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality. The community at large, without reference to the geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county; the people.*

*As an adjective, open to all; notorious. Open to common use. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community.*

*Further use of term “public”*

1.

as a noun

The people of the nation, state, county, district or municipality, which the government serves.

1.

as an adjective

Referring to any agency, interest, property, or activity which is under the authority of the government or which belongs to the people. This distinguishes public from private interests as with public and private schools, public and private utilities, public and private hospitals, public and private lands, and public and private roads.

*Some available definition of Interest:*

A feeling of wanting to learn more about something or to be involved in something

A quality that attracts your attention and makes you want to learn more about something or to be involved in something

Something (such as a hobby) that a person enjoys learning about or doing Public Interest

One of the simple definitions of Public interest could be:

Anything affecting the rights, health, or finances of the public at large.

Public interest is a common concern among citizens in the management and affairs of local, state, andnational government. It does not mean mere curiosity but is a broad term that refers to the body politic and the public weal. Apublic utility is regulated in the public interest because private individuals rely on such a company for vital service

*Can we define Public Interest in a broader/ general term?*

From a broad perspective, it is not appropriate to believe that a detailed general definition would serve a useful purpose: individual circumstances are too variable and such a definition would inevitably result in unintended and/or unanticipated or unexpected consequences. It should be emphasize that when justifying an action as being in the public interest

Using such a framework will allow those advocating an action in the public interest to understand what they mean, and, if explained, will allow those assessing the action or proposal to determine whether they can support the measure as being in the public interest.

Another simple definition of public interest could be :

Welfare the general public (in contrast to the selfish interest of a person, group or firm) in which the whole society has a stake and which warrants recognition, promotion and protection by the government and its agencies. Despite the vagueness of the term, public interest is claimed generally by governments in matters state secrecy and confidentiality. It is approximated by comparing expected gains and potential costs or losses associated with a decision, policy, program or project

in acting in public interest,, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision-making process, including balancing competing interests.

The term has grown working toward a multitude of objectives, including civil rights, civil liberties, women’s rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, and so on. Nevertheless, a common denominator for public interest remains the ethic of “fighting for the little guy”—that is, representing the underrepresented and vulnerable segments of society. International law is one of the fastest growing legal fields. The types of public service work and practice settings vary widely. The U.S. Government hires attorneys to work on international issues in many of its agencies, including the Department of State, the Department of Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency, to name just a few. Hundreds of lawyers also work at the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organization of American States, international tribunals, the International Criminal Court and other intergovernmental organizations. Finally, there are thousands of non-governmental organizations throughout the world that focus on international issues, including but not limited to, development, human rights, the environment law, energy, trade, arms control, and transitional justice. Another definition of Public Interest is : 1. The welfare or well-being of the general public; commonwealth. 2. Appeal or relevance to the general populace: a news story of public interest."[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest#cite_note-1> Public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, the public interest could be defined as the "*ex ante* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_ante> welfare of the representative individual.", by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo *ex ante*. This approach is "*ex ante*", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it.

Now to have a general understanding of Global Public Interest ,one needs to put a combination of the above simplified terms and definition We then immediately find that it is " Mission Impobile" Kavouss

2015-12-26 9:40 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I also fully agree with Milton. If we remember, at the beginning of our work we attempted to find a possible description , and not definition as there would be no Universally agreed definition for GPI, we concluded that we better not to follow that path. It is waste of time to re-start such useless work again thus question to lawyer MUST BE WITHDRAWN. If , and only if , the Lawyers find some thing , that does not mean that we have to accept that just because it comes from lawyers. The GPI is one of the most complex and multidimensional as well as cross cutting cultural issue that will take us no where. The board MUST provide the basis under which it reject a given Rec. or part if the Rec. since we the CCWG do not hsve and certainly will not have an agreed definition for GPI. The CCWG must clearly mentions to ICANN Board that have serious concerns to accept rejection of any Rec. or part of a Rec. on the ground of being in contradiction of GPI for which there is no definition. We SHALL NOT waste it time to define that nor accept any rejection by the Board on the ground of non- existence definition. We should all stop any imposition of any action from any source Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Dec 2015, at 07:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Milton (and Alan).

Greg

On Friday, December 25, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

...

I find myself agreeing completely with Milton.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On December 25, 2015 8:46:35 PM EST, "Mueller, Milton L" < milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

...

MM: Thomas and all:

I appreciate your pushback on the board’s comments, but I think it is not helpful for the discussion to center on “definition of the global public interest.”

There is no definition, and even if we come up with some mutually acceptable verbal construction of what is in “the global public interest” there never will be easy agreement on how that definition is applied to any particular issue we have.

For example, we may all agree that it is in the GPI for ICANN to be transparent, but still might disagree on finding the appropriate trade off between inspection rights and administrative burdens.

Let’s just accept the fact that the board has an interest in protecting the corporation and will argue from that perspective, and the rest of us have an interest in making the board accountable to the community and will assess issues from that perspective.

When (or if – because it has not formally done so yet) the board votes that a particular recommendation is not in the GPI, let’s just interpret that as meaning the board doesn’t like it and won’t voluntarily go along with it. Then we have to decide whether to ignore that challenge and press ahead, or not.

Nothing in gained in that interaction by coming up with a verbal definition of GPI. But a lot of time could be wasted in the attempt.

--MM

We have asked the Board to provide information on what definition of the Global Public Interest it has used and what the rationale for their current assessment of our recommendations is. The answer to that question is still pending.

However, we are reaching out to you now as we want to understand better the impact of Global Public Interest as we continue to work on our final recommendations. Our plan is to offer explanations in our final report where we speak to the Global Public Interest and why we are of the opinion that our recommendations in their final form are in the Global Public Interest.

We would therefore appreciate your input at your earliest convenience on

1. suggested definition(s) of the Global Public Interest that our group could use;

2. which of the recommendations in our 3rd report, if any, give raise Global Public Interest concerns according to your assessment; and

3. how you suggest we can resolve the Global Public Interest issues, which are identified.

Thank you very much, kind regards and a great holiday season, Mathieu Weill, Léon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert

Thomas Rickert

*Rechtsanwalt*

tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas@rickert.net web: rickert.net

[image: Image removed by sender. image]

RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert

_______________________________________________ CCWG-Advisors mailing list CCWG-Advisors@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-advisors

------------------------------

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

_______________________________________________ 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

George Thank you for reaching out. I want to assure you that any discontent I have been expressing is out of concern for the IANA transition being completed with a sound form of accountability in place - in addition to the other requirements needed for a successful transition. I've noted your appeal for trust and a trust-based form of accountability that is congruent with the open multi-stakeholder culture in ICANN. From my perspective, a viable form of trust-based accountability must rest on there being some form of sanctions-based accountability in place, however minimal. Otherwise we are left with a situation of asymmetrical power relations as between the Board and the Community, which can only breed the kind of mistrust you have identified in the CCWG-A processes. Why I objected so strongly to the Board's insertion of the GPI into its response to the Third Proposal is that it exacerbates this asymmetry, gets people's backs up at a point when everyone needs to focus on the narrow and concrete issues still standing in the way of a consensus proposal, rather than the broad and abstract issues raised in setting up the GPI as a criterion with which to judge key aspects of the Third Proposal. I believe that we are so close to reaching consensus on the Accountability Proposal that extra care needs to be taken to bring everyone along - to a point where the key elements are acceptable to everyone, without diluting the need for an implementable system of accountability. Once these basics are in place, I think you will find it easier to address the issue of trust-based accountability because it will be clear what will happen when there is a breakdown of trust between the Board as accountable actor and the Community as accountability forum. I'm happy to take this offline and to meet up with you in Marrakech. Best regards Willie On Friday, January 8, 2016, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','george.sadowsky@gmail.com');>> wrote:

Willie,

Thank you very much for responding, and for opening a dialogue on a subject about which you feel some discontent. I wish that this would happen more often, and much faster, so that we can separate the real differences of opinion from the misconceptions and negative feelings that seem to sprout like weeds.

I can say with certainty that the Board is _not_ calculating its moves in order to disrupt the CCWG's attempt to forge consensus. But I accept that you feel this way. I assume that your use of the phrase " ... every move that the Board makes ... " is exaggeration; that's OK, I exaggerate sometimes also.

I agree that the GPI debate had its absurdities. I do not speak for the Board, but I suppose that the Board could have said instead, "It is our belief that .... " or some such thing. What seemed absurd to me was that attention seemed to immediately gravitate toward trying to define the GPI rather than looking at the substance that the Board referred to.

With respect to previous incidents that correspond to your feeling, this will take a more extended conversation. Rather than subject the list to this (unless you really want to) I suggest that we take this off line and definitely plan to meet in Marrakech for an in-depth discussion. We seem to have different views, and perhaps exploration of each others' sense of things will be educational for us both.

Does that make sense to you? Can we meet in Marrakech? Just the two of us? With others? Your call.

Regards,

George

On Jan 7, 2016, at 1:52 AM, william currie <willie.currie@gmail.com> wrote:

George

What I find disturbing is that every move the Board makes seems to be designed to disrupt the CCWG's attempts to forge consensus on the accountability proposal - this absurd GPI debate being the latest example.

When this happens repeatedly in a complex process, one begins to question the bona fides of the actor concerned.

Willie

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:48 PM, George Sadowsky < george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:

...

No, Willie,

It is not a joke. The phrase "global public interest" and ICANN's responsibility for acting in a manner consistent with it, are mentioned a number of times in the Affirmation of Commitments, which is to be included in the revised bylaws.

I find it really distressing that you think that the Board is joking in its contacts with the CCWG.

George

On Dec 27, 2015, at 12:49 PM, william currie <willie.currie@gmail.com> wrote:

This is some kind of a joke from the Board, right?

No one ever tries to define the public interest. It is what it is.

Willie

On Sunday, December 27, 2015, Nathalie Coupet via Accountability-Cross-Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> wrote:

...

+1 Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 27, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

* Dear Milton,* *I fully and wholeheartzedly Agree and support you * I tries to put together something to show that is is absolutely difficulté ,if not impossible to have anagreed definition for Global Public Interest. From the text appears below you will note the difficulties and impossibilities. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are miracle makers WE MUST ABBANDONE TAKING THAT PATH . This issue should be included in the agenda of the 05 January call. Legal Adviser are kindly requested to hold on the action on this issue until the matter is discussed and agreed upon by CCWG pLEASE FIND BELOW SOME WORDS IN THIS REGARD INDICATING THE DIFFICULTIES TO TAKE SUCH APPROACH ( ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE GPI) See Below

*Global Public Interest composed of three words ; Global, Public and Interest, each of which has some meaning and application in an discrete fashion as follows: *

*Some available definition of Global *

1.

Spherical <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spherical> : of, relating to, or involving the entire sphere

1. Worldwide <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worldwide> :of, relating to, or involving the entire world : 2. Universal <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal> :of, relating to, or applying to a whole universe:

*Some available Definition of Public *

1. exposed to general view : 2. of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state ; *public law* 3. of or relating to a government , of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation 4. of or relating to people in general 5. of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs 6. devoted to the general or national welfare 7. accessible to or shared by all members of the community 8. capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market 9. supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials (*public radio>* *<public television)*

*Examples of public*

1. *Public* outrage over the scandal eventually forced him to resign. 2. The ads are intended to increase *public* awareness of the risks of smoking. 3. She was elected to a *public* office. 4. He was in Congress for many years but he recently retired from *public* life. 5. They decided on a nearby restaurant as a convenient *public* place to meet. 6. The government has allowed *public* access to the documents. 7. The city council is holding a *public* meeting. 8. This will be her first *public* performance in five years. 9. Her trial will be *public*.

*Use of term “Public”*

*As a noun, the whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality. The community at large, without reference to the geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county; the people.*

*As an adjective, open to all; notorious. Open to common use. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community.*

*Further use of term “public”*

1.

as a noun

The people of the nation, state, county, district or municipality, which the government serves.

1.

as an adjective

Referring to any agency, interest, property, or activity which is under the authority of the government or which belongs to the people. This distinguishes public from private interests as with public and private schools, public and private utilities, public and private hospitals, public and private lands, and public and private roads.

*Some available definition of Interest:*

A feeling of wanting to learn more about something or to be involved in something

A quality that attracts your attention and makes you want to learn more about something or to be involved in something

Something (such as a hobby) that a person enjoys learning about or doing Public Interest

One of the simple definitions of Public interest could be:

Anything affecting the rights, health, or finances of the public at large.

Public interest is a common concern among citizens in the management and affairs of local, state, andnational government. It does not mean mere curiosity but is a broad term that refers to the body politic and the public weal. Apublic utility is regulated in the public interest because private individuals rely on such a company for vital service

*Can we define Public Interest in a broader/ general term?*

From a broad perspective, it is not appropriate to believe that a detailed general definition would serve a useful purpose: individual circumstances are too variable and such a definition would inevitably result in unintended and/or unanticipated or unexpected consequences. It should be emphasize that when justifying an action as being in the public interest

Using such a framework will allow those advocating an action in the public interest to understand what they mean, and, if explained, will allow those assessing the action or proposal to determine whether they can support the measure as being in the public interest.

Another simple definition of public interest could be :

Welfare the general public (in contrast to the selfish interest of a person, group or firm) in which the whole society has a stake and which warrants recognition, promotion and protection by the government and its agencies. Despite the vagueness of the term, public interest is claimed generally by governments in matters state secrecy and confidentiality. It is approximated by comparing expected gains and potential costs or losses associated with a decision, policy, program or project

in acting in public interest,, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision-making process, including balancing competing interests.

The term has grown working toward a multitude of objectives, including civil rights, civil liberties, women’s rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, and so on. Nevertheless, a common denominator for public interest remains the ethic of “fighting for the little guy”—that is, representing the underrepresented and vulnerable segments of society. International law is one of the fastest growing legal fields. The types of public service work and practice settings vary widely. The U.S. Government hires attorneys to work on international issues in many of its agencies, including the Department of State, the Department of Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency, to name just a few. Hundreds of lawyers also work at the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organization of American States, international tribunals, the International Criminal Court and other intergovernmental organizations. Finally, there are thousands of non-governmental organizations throughout the world that focus on international issues, including but not limited to, development, human rights, the environment law, energy, trade, arms control, and transitional justice. Another definition of Public Interest is : 1. The welfare or well-being of the general public; commonwealth. 2. Appeal or relevance to the general populace: a news story of public interest."[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest#cite_note-1> Public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, the public interest could be defined as the "*ex ante* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_ante> welfare of the representative individual.", by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo *ex ante*. This approach is "*ex ante*", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it.

Now to have a general understanding of Global Public Interest ,one needs to put a combination of the above simplified terms and definition We then immediately find that it is " Mission Impobile" Kavouss

2015-12-26 9:40 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear All, I also fully agree with Milton. If we remember, at the beginning of our work we attempted to find a possible description , and not definition as there would be no Universally agreed definition for GPI, we concluded that we better not to follow that path. It is waste of time to re-start such useless work again thus question to lawyer MUST BE WITHDRAWN. If , and only if , the Lawyers find some thing , that does not mean that we have to accept that just because it comes from lawyers. The GPI is one of the most complex and multidimensional as well as cross cutting cultural issue that will take us no where. The board MUST provide the basis under which it reject a given Rec. or part if the Rec. since we the CCWG do not hsve and certainly will not have an agreed definition for GPI. The CCWG must clearly mentions to ICANN Board that have serious concerns to accept rejection of any Rec. or part of a Rec. on the ground of being in contradiction of GPI for which there is no definition. We SHALL NOT waste it time to define that nor accept any rejection by the Board on the ground of non- existence definition. We should all stop any imposition of any action from any source Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Dec 2015, at 07:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Milton (and Alan).

Greg

On Friday, December 25, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

...

I find myself agreeing completely with Milton.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On December 25, 2015 8:46:35 PM EST, "Mueller, Milton L" < milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

...

MM: Thomas and all:

I appreciate your pushback on the board’s comments, but I think it is not helpful for the discussion to center on “definition of the global public interest.”

There is no definition, and even if we come up with some mutually acceptable verbal construction of what is in “the global public interest” there never will be easy agreement on how that definition is applied to any particular issue we have.

For example, we may all agree that it is in the GPI for ICANN to be transparent, but still might disagree on finding the appropriate trade off between inspection rights and administrative burdens.

Let’s just accept the fact that the board has an interest in protecting the corporation and will argue from that perspective, and the rest of us have an interest in making the board accountable to the community and will assess issues from that perspective.

When (or if – because it has not formally done so yet) the board votes that a particular recommendation is not in the GPI, let’s just interpret that as meaning the board doesn’t like it and won’t voluntarily go along with it. Then we have to decide whether to ignore that challenge and press ahead, or not.

Nothing in gained in that interaction by coming up with a verbal definition of GPI. But a lot of time could be wasted in the attempt.

--MM

We have asked the Board to provide information on what definition of the Global Public Interest it has used and what the rationale for their current assessment of our recommendations is. The answer to that question is still pending.

However, we are reaching out to you now as we want to understand better the impact of Global Public Interest as we continue to work on our final recommendations. Our plan is to offer explanations in our final report where we speak to the Global Public Interest and why we are of the opinion that our recommendations in their final form are in the Global Public Interest.

We would therefore appreciate your input at your earliest convenience on

1. suggested definition(s) of the Global Public Interest that our group could use;

2. which of the recommendations in our 3rd report, if any, give raise Global Public Interest concerns according to your assessment; and

3. how you suggest we can resolve the Global Public Interest issues, which are identified.

Thank you very much, kind regards and a great holiday season, Mathieu Weill, Léon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert

Thomas Rickert

*Rechtsanwalt*

tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas@rickert.net web: rickert.net

[image: Image removed by sender. image]

RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert

_______________________________________________ CCWG-Advisors mailing list CCWG-Advisors@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-advisors

------------------------------

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

_______________________________________________ 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

Dear Andrew I fully agree with you. I just wanted to demonstrate the difficulties of defining " Global Public Interest" and using that as a tool to unilatelarry reject a given recommendation based on such multidimentional subjerct.. The criteria to trigger that a given Rec. or a given subject is or is not compatible with something that can not be defined does also creating another problem I did also mentioned that the matter /issue is so comnplex that one can not reply on a proposed text by legal adviser since there is a general disagreement on any definition. Regards Kavouss 2015-12-27 19:58 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:

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

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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

Mr. Arasteh, Your comment is noted. If you think you would benefit by having someone explain the issues to you in Farsi this can be arranged. The .ir staff are quite competent and more likely than I to improve your understanding of this, and related, issues. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon On 12/28/15 1:43 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear All, The argument given through an example of distribution of the addresses is totally irelevant . Does the public interests meant that one country has many times addresses as a continent? Let us be logical Regards Kavouss

2015-12-28 21:31 GMT+01:00 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net <mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>>:

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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Mr Brunner-Williams Your comment is noted. If If you think you would benefit by having someone explain the issues to you in English this can be arranged. Just about anyone on this list is quite competent and more likely than I to improve your understanding of this, and related, issues. On 28/12/15 21:58, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

Mr. Arasteh,

Your comment is noted. If you think you would benefit by having someone explain the issues to you in Farsi this can be arranged. The .ir staff are quite competent and more likely than I to improve your understanding of this, and related, issues.

Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon

On 12/28/15 1:43 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear All, The argument given through an example of distribution of the addresses is totally irelevant . Does the public interests meant that one country has many times addresses as a continent? Let us be logical Regards Kavouss

2015-12-28 21:31 GMT+01:00 Eric Brunner-Williams <<mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>:

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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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

Dear Kavouss Forgive me if I'm not grasping fully the point behind your rhetorical question but it seems to me that a key global public interest goal for an organisation like ICANN that has a global managerial and coordinating role, is ensuring equal access and fair opportunity. ICANN would achieve this through correcting any distortion or imbalance in access to resources, if necessary through direct intervention ssupported by all stakeholders, for example to provide assistance to those with limited resources so that they can exercise their right to access and opportunity in the domain name system. We have seen that kind of intervention in the current new gTLD round: ICANN committing to take full account of the concerns and specific needs of individual stakeholders and communities in developing countries. That it did not always succeed in this is a major concern that needs to be addressed if the next open gTLD round is to be more successful in realising the potential contribution of the expansion of the domain name system to the growth of the digital economy worldwide and to sustainable development. That would be one example of ICANN acting in order to advance the global public interest. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 28 December 2015 at 21:43, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All, The argument given through an example of distribution of the addresses is totally irelevant . Does the public interests meant that one country has many times addresses as a continent? Let us be logical Regards Kavouss

2015-12-28 21:31 GMT+01:00 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net

...

:

...

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

_______________________________________________ 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

Dear All, Agreed with Nigel wholeheartedly Not totally agreed with mMark as if I'm not also grasping fully the point behind his rhetorical statements such as " ensuring equal access and fair opportunity" and " correcting any distortion or imbalance in access to resources, if necessary through direct intervention" and "ICANN committing to take full account of the concerns and specific needs of individual stakeholders and communities in developing countries". did really such corrective action happen ? What is the relation between that and the definition of GPI? REGARDS KAVOUSS 2015-12-29 19:46 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:

Mark

I know just know I'm harping on at a linguistic subtlety here, but isn't there a vast difference between the 'interests of the global public' and the 'global public interest'.

The interests of the global public are well within ICANN's mission, obviously.

The 'public interest' to me, seem to be the public policy concerns of the relevant public authority (e.g. for the public interest in the UK, it's HMG.)

So 'global public interest' is undefinable, since there is no single global public authority, and the national public authorities may take disparate (and in some cases, wildly divergent) positions on what they consider the public interest to be.

Having said that, I'm open to re-education here.

Happy New Year!

On 29/12/15 18:21, Mark Carvell wrote:

...

Dear Kavouss

Forgive me if I'm not grasping fully the point behind your rhetorical question but it seems to me that a key global public interest goal for an organisation like ICANN that has a global managerial and coordinating role, is ensuring equal access and fair opportunity. ICANN would achieve this through correcting any distortion or imbalance in access to resources, if necessary through direct intervention ssupported by all stakeholders, for example to provide assistance to those with limited resources so that they can exercise their right to access and opportunity in the domain name system.

We have seen that kind of intervention in the current new gTLD round: ICANN committing to take full account of the concerns and specific needs of individual stakeholders and communities in developing countries. That it did not always succeed in this is a major concern that needs to be addressed if the next open gTLD round is to be more successful in realising the potential contribution of the expansion of the domain name system to the growth of the digital economy worldwide and to sustainable development. That would be one example of ICANN acting in order to advance the global public interest.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062

On 28 December 2015 at 21:43, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear All, The argument given through an example of distribution of the addresses is totally irelevant . Does the public interests meant that one country has many times addresses as a continent? Let us be logical Regards Kavouss

2015-12-28 21:31 GMT+01:00 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net <mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>>:

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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Well, The plot thickens. It appears difficult to find a common understanding of what Global Public Interest is. What is clear though is that there are proponents of the Corporation and Proponents of the Community in so far as 'interests' are concerned. Let us allow the advisors to help us find some rough consensus or better still common ground as requested by the co-chairs. Regards<div id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6; margin-top: 10px;"> <tr> <td style="width: 105px; padding-top: 15px;"> <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig..." target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png" style="width: 90px; height:33px;"/></a> </td> <td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. <br /><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig..." target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td> </tr> </table><a href="#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"></a></div> On 12/29/15, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

Hi Eric,

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:31:58PM -0800, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

...

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

I think you may be making my point for me. We can explain this behaviour without appeal to an ill-defined and practically untestable assertion of "the global public interest", and instead refer to more concrete problems that are squarely within the problem ICANN is designed to solve. For instance, access to the kinds of identifiers you mention increases the utility of the global Internet for more possibly-connected internets. We therefore don't need an appeal to difficult geopolitical categories when we can just say that, whatever the other interests are, unbiased access to these identifiers are good for interoperation on the Internet. This changes the matter from answering a question that is completely intractable into one that is at least constrained to a particular domain of discourse.

Such a limit doesn't, of course, make all disputes go away. Does a larger number of delegations from the root zone improve interoperation on the Internet? Well, in one way yes and in another way no. But at least we can have a discussion that doesn't have to range across every possible dimension of (human?) experience. Not every problem is made easier by resort to levels of abstraction so large as to make astrophysics blush.

I think there are legitimate policy questions to answer even in the restricted domain of discourse, and the answers to such questions may even change over time. Those are real questions for the entire ICANN community (or maybe community of communities) to answer. There is no reason to make the problems harder that that.

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

Yes, Kavouss, I agree entirely. But at least it added some levity to the process. Asking experts in corporate law to define GPI, as if that were a legal rather than purely political question, is particularly amusing. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are miracle makers

Thomas, It is more political than legal Please look at dome if the example that I have provided. As soon as you enter in the domain if " Public" you entered in the domain of government and that push you to political sphere. Moreover, the legal views provide the understanding of individual legal expert thus very probably would not get public support. Further problem would how ICANN would interprets that potential definition and how it uses that. You push the community to a dangerous area as ICANN could reject many accountability provision using such un agreed potential definition . CCWG must clearly warns ICANN that such authority to reject an accountability measure on the ground of vague and non agreed definition of GPI will not be given to them as they could reject any thing that properly and legally limit them them using that undefined term Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Dec 2015, at 03:39, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

Yes, Kavouss, I agree entirely. But at least it added some levity to the process. Asking experts in corporate law to define GPI, as if that were a legal rather than purely political question, is particularly amusing.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are miracle makers

I agree with Milton; This is exactly what I said on the call, but unfortunately, the lawyers were asked to come up with a definition. I reminded our long discussion at the beginning of the CCWG work about what is the GPI, and we failed to define it in a way that makes the definition accepted by everyone, or at least a large majority. To be positive, we have to discuss the issues rejected by the board and try to find the right solution instead of trying to prove that the GPI is what the lawyers will define, and thus the board is wrong. We don’t have time to go in this long and inefficient way. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le 26 déc. 2015 à 02:46, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> a écrit :

MM: Thomas and all: I appreciate your pushback on the board’s comments, but I think it is not helpful for the discussion to center on “definition of the global public interest.” There is no definition, and even if we come up with some mutually acceptable verbal construction of what is in “the global public interest” there never will be easy agreement on how that definition is applied to any particular issue we have. For example, we may all agree that it is in the GPI for ICANN to be transparent, but still might disagree on finding the appropriate trade off between inspection rights and administrative burdens. Let’s just accept the fact that the board has an interest in protecting the corporation and will argue from that perspective, and the rest of us have an interest in making the board accountable to the community and will assess issues from that perspective. When (or if – because it has not formally done so yet) the board votes that a particular recommendation is not in the GPI, let’s just interpret that as meaning the board doesn’t like it and won’t voluntarily go along with it. Then we have to decide whether to ignore that challenge and press ahead, or not. Nothing in gained in that interaction by coming up with a verbal definition of GPI. But a lot of time could be wasted in the attempt. --MM

We have asked the Board to provide information on what definition of the Global Public Interest it has used and what the rationale for their current assessment of our recommendations is. The answer to that question is still pending. However, we are reaching out to you now as we want to understand better the impact of Global Public Interest as we continue to work on our final recommendations. Our plan is to offer explanations in our final report where we speak to the Global Public Interest and why we are of the opinion that our recommendations in their final form are in the Global Public Interest. We would therefore appreciate your input at your earliest convenience on 1. suggested definition(s) of the Global Public Interest that our group could use; 2. which of the recommendations in our 3rd report, if any, give raise Global Public Interest concerns according to your assessment; and 3. how you suggest we can resolve the Global Public Interest issues, which are identified. Thank you very much, kind regards and a great holiday season, Mathieu Weill, Léon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert

Thomas Rickert Rechtsanwalt tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> web: rickert.net <https://rickert.net/>

<image001.jpg> RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert

_______________________________________________ CCWG-Advisors mailing list CCWG-Advisors@icann.org <mailto:CCWG-Advisors@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-advisors <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-advisors>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>