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

Sivasubramanian M isolatedn at gmail.com
Fri Apr 24 10:04:10 UTC 2015


ICANN has been using the phrase "Global Public Interest" for years, and
there has not been a problem. "Global Public Interest" in fact, defines the
mission of ICANN in the right language. I would agree with anyone who
prefers this phrase.

If it is indeed risky to use the phrase "public interest", if it paves way
for a Government claim that they are the ones authorized to care for public
interest, if at all, then we could find and examine alternative phrases
such as "Global User's Interest" or "Collective Interest" or "Stakeholder's
common interest" or by coining a phrase using words such as benevolence.

Sivasubramanian M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150424/17079fde/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list