[CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

On 12/17/14 8:53 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> Certainly I would regard it as being in the public interest that ICANN
> should discharge its functions properly, and in accordance with generally
> accepted principles of law.

Dear Malcolm,

What "generally accepted principles of law" do you suggest apply to the 
management of protocol parameters?

Similarly, what "generally accepted principles of law" do you suggest 
apply to the management of globally unique address identifiers?

And finally, what "generally accepted principles of law" do you suggest 
apply to the management of globally unique resource-to-address 
identifiers (domain names)?

There is of course, from the Green and White Papers period, competition 
policy and a transition from an incumbent monopoly contract to a 
competitive regime, but other than that, where do the "generally 
accepted principles of law" properly inform the party or parties 
conducting each of these three management activities?

Where, among the "generally accepted principles of law" would one look 
for support of the proposition that adding labels in the Han Script to 
the IANA root zone is in "the public interest"?

Similarly, where would one look for support of the proposition that 
allocation of scarce v4 addresses not be made solely upon the basis of 
highest price offered?

And finally, where would one look for support of the proposition that 
algorithms for signing zones include the GOST suite?

My point being that when the IANA Functions are as narrowly construed as 
we can sensibly make them, "public interest" and "generally accepted 
principles of law" are difficult to find points of association, let 
alone concordance.

Regards,
Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon