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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Dec 28 09:26:50 UTC 2015


Thomas,
It is more political than legal 
Please look at dome if the example that I have provided.
As soon as you enter in the domain if " Public" you entered in the domain  of government and that push you to political sphere.
Moreover, the legal views provide the understanding of individual legal expert thus very probably would not get public support.
Further problem would how ICANN would interprets that potential definition and how it uses that.
You push the community to a dangerous area as ICANN could reject many accountability provision using such un agreed potential definition .
CCWG must clearly warns ICANN that such authority to reject an accountability measure on the ground of vague and non agreed definition of GPI will not be given to them as they could reject any thing that properly and legally limit them them  using that undefined term
Regards
Kavouss                        

Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Dec 2015, at 03:39, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> 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.
>  
> I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are miracle makers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151228/6d6adaa3/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list