[CCWG-ACCT] SLIGHTLY revised Fundamental Commitments and Core Values Chart

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 2015-04-24 09:29, Burr, Becky wrote:
> Malcolm, this reminds me that I have echoed Avri¹s sentiment that the
> public interest is something that can only be discovered through the
> bottom up multistakeholder process.  Rather than take out references to
> ³the public interest² - which appears repeatedly in the AoC - I¹m going 
> to
> take a stab at adding that concept.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me.

That would certainly help with the "'public interest' means 'government'
(to some people at least)" aspect.

There's also the scope problem: the concern that, to some people, taking
decisions in the public interest means co-opting ICANN's powers in 
relation
to DNS as a tool to achieve public interest objectives that themselves
have nothing to do with a well-functioning DNS per se. We're tried our
best to constrain this through the scope and fundamental commitments, 
but
it's a difficult problem and all efforts are necessarily imperfect.

I still worry that this language weighs in on the wrong side of this 
latter
issue problem, and would like to find an alternative way of expressing
what I think is meant, that didn't introduce this weakness. As I said,
I think the wording in the Fundamental Commitments section is preferable
to that proposed for the "core values" section.

Given the addition to the "Fundamental Commitments" section, does that 
not
satisfy? Is there really any need to also add this to the "Core Values" 
at all?
What additional purpose does it serve?

-- 
             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA