[CCWG-ACCT] Global Public Interest discussion

[Greg Shatan]

Let's not forget that a major reason the Board cited "GPI" as an issue is
that this is their self-declared yardstick, as set forth in the Board
Resolution of 16 October 2014:


   1. *If the Board believes it is not in the global public interest to
   implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on
   Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (CCWG Recommendation), it
   must initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. A determination that it is not in
   the global public interest to implement a CCWG Recommendation requires a
   2/3 majority of the Board.*


The Board did not choose to invoke GPI because, out of all the concepts in
the world, this was the one that most perfectly encapsulated their
concerns.  The Board chose to invoke GPI because it needed to invoke GPI to
foreshadow the process set forth in the Resolution.  It was the required
tool for the job.

It would be too cynical to say that it is otherwise meaningless.  GPI is an
important (if nebulous) concept.  But, if the Resolution had said "*If the
Board believes it is not copacetic to implement a recommendation...." *then
the Board would have written in its comments that what we proposed was
likely not copacetic.

Perhaps framing our rationales in terms of GPI is going to help, because it
will demonstrate a difference between the CCWG's and the Board's concept of
GPI.  But at that point, I think it is likely to become entirely
formalistic and even start to resemble a playground argument: "You say this
ain't GPI -- I'll show you what I call GPI"!  In reality, it will come down
to discussing the concrete differences between positions -- not a "Quien es
mas GPI?" contest.

Greg

P.S.  This concern is separate and apart from my views on discussing and
exploring ICANN and GPI in other fora, such as Nora Abusitta's effort.  I'm
all in favor of that.  (Even there, I don't think there will be a Unified
Definition of GPI, but rather a significant number of principles -- some
interrelated, some dissonant -- which will need to be considered and
balanced in any given analysis of GPI.  My concern is that there will be
efforts to elevate certain "public interests" over others, and resultant
counterefforts necessitated by the first efforts, and we'll end up with a
 kind of circular tug of war (imagine a giant rope spiderweb, with each
"team" hanging on to a different radius emanating from the center)).

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
wrote:

>
> The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the CCWG,
>> is that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and _/only/_
>> its mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be accountable
>> to its stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s really all we
>> need to say about the GPI.
>>
>>
> I would agree.
>
> I'd also go further and suggest that this is in the public interest and
> the qualifier 'global' is entirely otiose.
>
> I cannot think that any public authority that is a member of the
> Governmental Advisory Committee could disagree with the proposition that
>
> "(a) it is in the /public interest/ for ICANN to perform its mission, and
> only its mission, properly.
>
> (b) It is also in the /public interest/ for ICANN to be accountable to its
> stakeholders."
>
> (Otherwise, it would not be part of the GAC, surely)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151230/c34ddbc0/attachment-0001.html>