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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Dec 29 19:06:24 UTC 2015


Dear All,
Agreed with Nigel wholeheartedly
Not totally agreed with mMark as if I'm not  also grasping fully the point
behind  his  rhetorical  statements such as " ensuring equal access and
fair opportunity"
and  " correcting any distortion or imbalance in access to resources, if
necessary through direct intervention" and "ICANN committing to take full
account of the concerns and specific needs of individual stakeholders and
communities in developing countries". did really such corrective action
happen ?
What is the relation between that and the definition of GPI?
REGARDS
KAVOUSS


2015-12-29 19:46 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>:

> Mark
>
> I know just know I'm harping on at a linguistic subtlety here, but isn't
> there a vast difference between the 'interests of the global public' and
> the 'global public interest'.
>
> The interests of the global public are well within ICANN's mission,
> obviously.
>
> The 'public interest' to me, seem to be the public policy concerns of the
> relevant public authority (e.g. for the public interest in the UK, it's
> HMG.)
>
> So 'global public interest' is undefinable, since there is no single
> global public authority, and the national public authorities may take
> disparate (and in some cases, wildly divergent) positions on what they
> consider the public interest to be.
>
> Having said that, I'm open to re-education here.
>
> Happy New Year!
>
>
>
>
> On 29/12/15 18:21, Mark Carvell wrote:
>
>> Dear Kavouss
>>
>> Forgive me if I'm not grasping fully the point behind your rhetorical
>> question but it seems to me that a key global public interest goal for
>> an organisation like ICANN that has a global managerial and coordinating
>> role, is ensuring equal access and fair opportunity. ICANN would achieve
>> this through correcting any distortion or imbalance in access to
>> resources, if necessary through direct intervention ssupported by all
>> stakeholders, for example to provide assistance to those with limited
>> resources so that they can exercise their right to access and
>> opportunity in the domain name system.
>>
>> We have seen that kind of intervention in the current new gTLD round:
>> ICANN committing to take full account of the concerns and specific needs
>> of individual stakeholders and communities in developing countries. That
>> it did not always succeed in this is a major concern that needs to be
>> addressed if the next open gTLD round is to be more successful in
>> realising the potential contribution of the expansion of the domain name
>> system to the growth of the digital economy worldwide and to sustainable
>> development. That would be one example of ICANN acting in order to
>> advance the global public interest.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark Carvell
>> Global Internet Governance Policy
>> Department for Culture, Media and Sport
>> mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
>> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
>>
>> On 28 December 2015 at 21:43, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     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 <mailto: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
>>         <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/d76c5d1d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list