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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Dec 28 09:38:04 UTC 2015


Dear Co-Chair,
Please read all messages .
Please listen to the overall disagreement to define GPI.
I sincerely request you:
1. Hold on the issue of asking Lawyer to define GPI
2. Include in the agenda  of05 Jan the issue of the need or otherwise
defining GPI  in assigning about 15-20 mints to measure the temperture of
the meeting on the matter.
3. Include also in the agenda of 05 Jan no.  and duration of future meeting
as well as your plan to tackle the public comment ,in particular , the
Board's comments .
Regards
Kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Date: 2015-12-28 10:26 GMT+01:00
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [CCWG-Advisors] question regarding Global
Public Interest
To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Accountability Cross Community <
accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <
thomas at rickert.net>


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/20151228/5aaec6a5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list