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

Tue Dec 29 09:21:37 UTC 2015

Dear Eric,

First of all,Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Secondly, thank you very much for your  Christmas gift.

Ok I will consult the entity that you referred to ,if I need to do so..

Thirdly ,please kindly note that we may disagree with each other but
we MUST NEVER disrespect and insult each other .This is totally
unacceptable and inconsistent with code of conduct that should be  observed
and respected in exchange of communications( verbal or written)

Fourthly,It seems  to me that you have had some emotional feeling swhen you
wrote those unfriendly and unusual words about me.

I do not know you personally and would not like to  reply to this kind of
unexpected behavior.

I am very busy doing some useful things including respecting others and
expressing friendly and encouraging message to others

Finally ,please kindly DO NOT repeat  such inappropriate  behaviour  that
again neither in my regard nor in respect of anyone else

Have a nice day, Sir

Kavouss

2015-12-29 3:57 GMT+01:00 Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com>:

> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151229/f7f7406b/attachment.html>