[CCWG-ACCT] Global Public Interest discussion

[Nigel Roberts]

So we don't need an objective definition of the GPI anymore.

We just need an objective defintinion of 2/3 of the ICANN Board.

The answer is 42.

No, I mean 14.



On 30/12/15 17:32, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>