Hi,

not sure I will make it to the next CPWG. But just my two cents. The Scope is for a Global Public Interest, and in my mind it sounds like the Public Interest that must be accepted Globally. But from my point of view, the problem of the Public Interest is that it needs to be narrowed to ICANN remit public interest, even based on where it is established (California, US), and its particular laws. If we think of a Public Interest, each country, even each culture, has a different meaning for it. In some countries it is even counter productive to have a public interest definition, that allows a governments to appropriate of some sector, because they are of Public Interest.

It is the kind of scope definition we are asking as volunteers, not to loose years in the discussion. (By the way, as it actually is with the Public Interest Working Group).

Best

Ricardo

El vie., 4 oct. 2019 a las 9:54, Evin Erdogdu (<evin.erdogdu@icann.org>) escribió:

Dear CPWG Members,

As per the AI from the 02 Oct CPWG call, please review the Invitation to Provide Feedback on the ICANN Board’s Proposed Public Interest Framework and GPI Toolkit, which will be reviewed during next week's CPWG meeting.

If you would like to volunteer to assemble comments from the community for a response, please let staff know. The requested deadline for feedback is 18 October.

Thank you,

Evin

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.