[CCWG-ACCT] Definitions and the tussle (was Re: Fwd: [CCWG-Advisors] question regarding Global Public Interest)

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
The argument given through an example of distribution of the addresses is
totally irelevant .
Does the public interests meant that one country has many times addresses
as a continent?
Let us be logical
Regards
Kavouss

2015-12-28 21:31 GMT+01:00 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>:

> Well, lets start with the allocation of a scarce resource -- ipv4
> addresses. Does the Corporation have an interest in the allocation being
> (a) congenial with routing, and possibly conservative as well (a subject of
> serious discussion on an RIR's policy mailing list), and (b) not captured
> by a single, or several, allocatee(s)?
>
> Clearly there is a broadly held interest that routing work, and address
> exhaustion delayed as long as possible, and the distribution of allocations
> be somewhat uniform, reflecting shared goals of DARPA, the conversion from
> classful to classless allocation, and of course, Jon's farming out
> regionally the addressing component of his work at ISI, and a wicked large
> number of beneficiaries of these efforts to ensure routing, conservation,
> and at regional distribution.
>
> We have come some way from the point in time when MIT campus held more
> allocated v4 addresses than all of the access providers in the PRC
> combined. The design of v6 allows at least one address per human being, a
> property absent in the v4 design.
>
> Incorporating my note of the 25th, the Corporation Board has, over its
> nearly two decades of existence, observed that a public interest exists in
> access to numeric endpoint identifiers, and in access to mnemonic endpoint
> identifiers, unrestricted by region or language, and to some degree, only
> slightly restricted by access to capital, where packetized data
> communication is supported by communications infrastructure. This
> Corporation observation of public interests in access to endpoint
> identifiers is indistinguishable from the allocation behavior of the prior
> parties exercising "technical coordination", and so continuous, and likely
> to remain so in the foreseeable future.
>
> The suggestion that finding a public interest is an exercise in sophistry
> would of necessity apply to the current, and prior, Corporation Boards, and
> those responsible for technical coordination of endpoint identifiers prior
> to November, 1998, specifically any representations that their acts to make
> numbers or names accessible to later adopters were in a public interest.
>
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> Eugene, Oregon
>
>
> On 12/27/15 10:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm sort of loathe to dive into this discussion, but I think there's a
>> useful thread in here that is worth tugging on so that we can see the
>> quality of the weave.
>>
>> My biggest worry about the phrase "the global public interest" is not
>> the meaning of "global", "public", or "interest", but "the".  By
>> claiming that something is or is not in _the_ global public interest,
>> the definite article implies that there is such an interest (or maybe,
>> such a public); that there is exactly one; and, perhaps most
>> interesting, that one knows what that is.  Even if I were to grant (I
>> do not, but let's say for the sake of argument) that there is a fact
>> of the matter about the the interest of the global public, I cannot
>> imagine how one would test a claim that something is or is not in said
>> interest.
>>
>> The quest to come up with a definition of "the global public
>> interest", therefore, is an attempt to create such a test; but it's
>> really a dodge in a Wittgenstinean language-game.  Were we to unpack
>> any such definition that was even widely acceptable, we'd discover
>> either that some interest (or public) would be left out, or else that
>> some conflict inherent in the definition would be obscured.  For the
>> basic problem is that you cannot define "the global public interest"
>> in a way that is all of universally acceptable, useful for the
>> purposes of making tough decisions, and true.  Even apparently simple
>> and obvious cases -- "It is in the global public interest for war to
>> end" -- turn out to be troublesome.  For example, people fighting a
>> current war are presumably doing it for some other end, so they'd only
>> agree to that example statement with the implicit premise, "as long as
>> my desired outcome is assured."
>>
>> A definition of "the global public interest" will be ever more
>> troublesome the clearer it tries to be, because the list of specifics
>> will start to be long.  I think our experience in working on the
>> mission statement is mighty instructive, and it is at least scoped
>> merely to the parts of the Internet ICANN directly touches -- whatever
>> we think those are.
>>
>> As a consequence, I think a claim that _x_ is [not] in "the global
>> public interest" is really just a way of saying, "I [don't] think _x_
>> should happen."  Such a claim is part of a tussle, like the "Tussle in
>> Cyberspace" described by Clark, Wroclawski, Sollins, and Braden (see
>> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074049).  It's a nice rhetorical
>> move to claim that you can define the tussle away, but you can't (at
>> least, not legitimately).  I think we should be honest with ourselves
>> that such definitional efforts will create wheels that do no work.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151228/8a1bd0e9/attachment-0001.html>