<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Mr. Arasteh,<br>
<br>
Your comment is noted. If you think you would benefit by having
someone explain the issues to you in Farsi this can be arranged.
The .ir staff are quite competent and more likely than I to
improve your understanding of this, and related, issues.<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
On 12/28/15 1:43 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACNR4-LMTe5yPLDfeeaX9V5VeV6hv=AF4REzpchkGL_yS0S8kw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear All,</div>
<div>The argument given through an example of distribution of
the addresses is totally irelevant .</div>
<div>Does the public interests meant that one country has many
times addresses as a continent?<br>
Let us be logical</div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>Kavouss </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-12-28 21:31 GMT+01:00 Eric
Brunner-Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a></a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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)?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon</font></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 12/27/15 10:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">Hi,<br>
<br>
I'm sort of loathe to dive into this discussion, but I
think there's a<br>
useful thread in here that is worth tugging on so that
we can see the<br>
quality of the weave.<br>
<br>
My biggest worry about the phrase "the global public
interest" is not<br>
the meaning of "global", "public", or "interest", but
"the". By<br>
claiming that something is or is not in _the_ global
public interest,<br>
the definite article implies that there is such an
interest (or maybe,<br>
such a public); that there is exactly one; and,
perhaps most<br>
interesting, that one knows what that is. Even if I
were to grant (I<br>
do not, but let's say for the sake of argument) that
there is a fact<br>
of the matter about the the interest of the global
public, I cannot<br>
imagine how one would test a claim that something is
or is not in said<br>
interest.<br>
<br>
The quest to come up with a definition of "the global
public<br>
interest", therefore, is an attempt to create such a
test; but it's<br>
really a dodge in a Wittgenstinean language-game.
Were we to unpack<br>
any such definition that was even widely acceptable,
we'd discover<br>
either that some interest (or public) would be left
out, or else that<br>
some conflict inherent in the definition would be
obscured. For the<br>
basic problem is that you cannot define "the global
public interest"<br>
in a way that is all of universally acceptable, useful
for the<br>
purposes of making tough decisions, and true. Even
apparently simple<br>
and obvious cases -- "It is in the global public
interest for war to<br>
end" -- turn out to be troublesome. For example,
people fighting a<br>
current war are presumably doing it for some other
end, so they'd only<br>
agree to that example statement with the implicit
premise, "as long as<br>
my desired outcome is assured."<br>
<br>
A definition of "the global public interest" will be
ever more<br>
troublesome the clearer it tries to be, because the
list of specifics<br>
will start to be long. I think our experience in
working on the<br>
mission statement is mighty instructive, and it is at
least scoped<br>
merely to the parts of the Internet ICANN directly
touches -- whatever<br>
we think those are.<br>
<br>
As a consequence, I think a claim that _x_ is [not] in
"the global<br>
public interest" is really just a way of saying, "I
[don't] think _x_<br>
should happen." Such a claim is part of a tussle,
like the "Tussle in<br>
Cyberspace" described by Clark, Wroclawski, Sollins,
and Braden (see<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074049"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074049</a>).
It's a nice rhetorical<br>
move to claim that you can define the tussle away, but
you can't (at<br>
least, not legitimately). I think we should be honest
with ourselves<br>
that such definitional efforts will create wheels that
do no work.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>