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

[Barrack Otieno]

Well,

The plot thickens. It appears difficult to find a common understanding
of what Global Public Interest is. What is clear though is that there
are proponents of the Corporation and Proponents of the Community in
so far as 'interests' are concerned. Let us allow the advisors to help
us find some rough consensus or better still common ground as
requested by the co-chairs.

Regards<div id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><table
style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6; margin-top: 10px;">
	<tr>
		<td style="width: 105px; padding-top: 15px;">
			<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail"
target="_blank"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png" style="width:
90px; height:33px;"/></a>
		</td>
		<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">This email has been sent from a virus-free
computer protected by Avast. <br /><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
		</td>
	</tr>
</table><a href="#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1"></a></div>

On 12/29/15, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:31:58PM -0800, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> I think you may be making my point for me.  We can explain this
> behaviour without appeal to an ill-defined and practically untestable
> assertion of "the global public interest", and instead refer to more
> concrete problems that are squarely within the problem ICANN is
> designed to solve.  For instance, access to the kinds of identifiers
> you mention increases the utility of the global Internet for more
> possibly-connected internets.  We therefore don't need an appeal to
> difficult geopolitical categories when we can just say that, whatever
> the other interests are, unbiased access to these identifiers are good
> for interoperation on the Internet.  This changes the matter from
> answering a question that is completely intractable into one that is
> at least constrained to a particular domain of discourse.
>
> Such a limit doesn't, of course, make all disputes go away.  Does a
> larger number of delegations from the root zone improve interoperation
> on the Internet?  Well, in one way yes and in another way no.  But at
> least we can have a discussion that doesn't have to range across every
> possible dimension of (human?) experience.  Not every problem is made
> easier by resort to levels of abstraction so large as to make
> astrophysics blush.
>
> I think there are legitimate policy questions to answer even in the
> restricted domain of discourse, and the answers to such questions may
> even change over time.  Those are real questions for the entire ICANN
> community (or maybe community of communities) to answer.  There is no
> reason to make the problems harder that that.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>


-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otieno
http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/