[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [CCWG-Advisors] question regarding Global Public Interest

[parminder]

On Monday 28 December 2015 08:09 AM, Mueller, Milton L 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.
>

But then, Milton, the key and endemic defect of this whole process 
throughout has been to turn political questions into legal-technical
ones, more specifically, as those of corporate law. (Which has been my
principal problem with it.) Attempting to define and fence in 'what
global public interest is' is simply a symptom of this deeper,
congenital, problem with the IANA transition process....

While at the subject, why when the group/ process jettisoned the known
and understood term of 'global public' (along with the political
thinking and values that go with it) in favour of the unclear and
unarticulated 'global multi-stakeholder community' does it now want to
reclaim 'public' ? What about 'global multistakeholder community
interest' or a shorter 'global multistakeholder interest'? Would that
not be more congruent to this new post-democratic political ideology?
While being politically inventive, why not go the whole hog. Let the
political parody be complete!

parminder

>  
>
> I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A
> DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are
> miracle makers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151228/d55d7e90/attachment.html>