<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Dear Milton,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> Milton, If you read what you have written above, and read it again, don't you<br>
> find an uncharacteristic tinge of cynicism about the concept of Global Public<br>
> Interest?<br>
<br>
</span>Siva, I have been studying various manifestations of "public interest" regulation for 30 years now.<br>
That is enough to make anyone have more than a tinge of cynicism when the term is dragged context-free and law-free into a discussion where people (like you) who are unfamiliar with the history, uses and abuses of the concept are distracted by it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Thank You Milton. I agree. I am really not familiar with the history, uses and abuses of the concept. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Though aware that the term could be abused, I believe that there would be a vacuum in ICANN's mission if we are to shy away from the notion of "Global Public Interest" (with a good definition of what it implies in the context of ICANN's mission). The existing Accountability framework together with further changes would sufficiently keep abuses under check.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I think Greg Shatan hit the nail on the head:<br>
<br>
"[if] the board 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."<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">I copy below a few more remarks from Greg Shetan's message with my comments:</div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">this is their self-declared yardstick</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"></div> </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">That could change to a more broadly defined and declared yardstick, with positive attention to the concept and its definition by the community.</div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:12.8px">GPI is an important (if nebulous) concept. </span></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px;line-height:19.0476px"><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px;line-height:19.0476px">A very important concept without which the Global ICANN is reduced to a narrow corporation, what is needed is to pay attention to the aspects that are nebulous and attain clarity.</span></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px;line-height:19.0476px"><br></span></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px;line-height:19.0476px">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.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, the key is to minimise the difference between CCWG's and the Board's concept of Global Public Interest. </div></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
So let's not get distracted by the term or the aura or the verbal connotations of the term "global public interest" or "public interest." Let's focus on ICANN's mission, the appropriate limitations on it, and the way to make sure ICANN is accountable for its proper execution of the mission.<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Milton, I totally disagree.</div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><font color="#888888">
--MM<br>
</font></span><div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
> >No, please – I can’t<br>
> > think of a better way to blow a gaping hole in any mission limitations.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the<br>
> > CCWG, is that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and<br>
> > _only_ its mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be<br>
> > accountable to its stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s<br>
> > really all we need to say about the GPI.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Yes, but who are the stakeholders? The Domain Industry + seated<br>
> constituency representatives + seated GAC representatives ? If you narrow<br>
> down ICANN's mission and scope to such a degree, then ICANN would be<br>
> functioning in what might be termed as "Stakeholder Interest". Only that<br>
> which ICANN does in the interest of the whole world is what would qualify to<br>
> termed as "Global Public Interest".<br>
> Defining Global Public Interest of ICANN as encompassing the whole Internet<br>
> does not imply creation of a task list, but the definition becomes a point of<br>
> reference for ICANN to measure its own DNS policies and actions. The core<br>
> tasks remain as those pertaining to the operation of DNS, the peripheral tasks<br>
> remain as that of maintaining Security and Stability, but Global Public Interest<br>
> is to defined as something that ICANN will always have in its 'view'<br>
><br>
> If there is any Accountability measure that ICANN would object in the name of<br>
> Global Public Interest, it would certainly be appropriate.<br>
><br>
> Sivasubramanian M<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Once that is accepted, we can debate what exceeds the mission and what<br>
> > doesn’t; we can debate what powers are necessary for ICANN to execute<br>
> > its mission; and we can debate what mechanisms and processes make<br>
> > ICANN appropriately accountable to its stakeholders without<br>
> > interfering with its mission. But we must not have a discussion about<br>
> > ICANN and GPI that is disconnected from its mission and from its<br>
> accountability.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > As I have said before, the fact that ICANN can object to<br>
> > accountability measures in the name of a GPI does not mean we should<br>
> > be having a discussion about the meaning and implications of GPI; GPI<br>
> > is just a label for the board’s objection. The real debate is about<br>
> > which accountability measures are appropriate and tuned to ICANN’s<br>
> mission.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --MM<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> > [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
> > Thomas Rickert<br>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 2:50 PM<br>
> > To: Accountability Cross Community<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Global Public Interest discussion<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Dear all,<br>
> ><br>
> > following our last CCWG call, we had reached out to our advisors to<br>
> > get input on the question of Global Public Interest (GPI). Below, you<br>
> > find the response we got from Jan Aart Scholte, which we pass on to<br>
> > the list with his permission.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On our list, there has been quite some discussion on the question of<br>
> > GPI and also some confusion on<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > 1. whom we asked<br>
> ><br>
> > 2. what we wanted to achieve with the question and<br>
> ><br>
> > 3. what the impact of the discussion on our work would be, if any.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > With this note, we would like to offer some responses to the above points.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Ad 1<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Some of you wrote that we should not get the lawyers involved in<br>
> > defining the GPI for various reasons. Please note that we have asked<br>
> > the Advisors that were picked by the Public Expert Group.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > We have not asked (nor do we intend to) ask our legal advisors, i.e.<br>
> > Holly and Rosemary and her teams to deal with this. As a reminder, all<br>
> > requests to the lawyers need to be certified and are then added to a<br>
> > public list, which can be seen here:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Requests, their status and the answers are published on that page.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Ad 2<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > With its comments, the ICANN Board has raised GPI concerns with some<br>
> > of our recommendations. It should go without saying that the Co-Chairs<br>
> > take these concerns seriously. While discussing this input, some of<br>
> > you (I think the idea came from Kavouss) suggested to investigate this<br>
> further.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Therefore, we have suggested to the CCWG to seek input from our<br>
> > independent advisors in addition to the clarifications we have asked<br>
> > form the Board on their application of GPI considerations. This<br>
> > request was supported by the CCWG. The goal is not to work on a<br>
> > definition of the GPI, but to better understand what definitions there<br>
> > are and what the impact on our work could be. Jan has kindly responded<br>
> > in line with views that have already been expressed by some of you on<br>
> > the list, i.e. that there is no easy answer to the question and that there is no<br>
> universally applicable definition.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > We should therefore be able to put the discussion on this at rest.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Ad 3<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > As said before, our group should continue analyzing comments and<br>
> > refine the recommendations where necessary to finalize consensus<br>
> > recommendations. While doing so, we should be conscious that the Board<br>
> > will apply the test whether or not our recommendations are in the GPI.<br>
> > Ideally, there would be no issues with the GPI as I am sure no one in<br>
> > our group intends to be working on recommendations that are not in the<br>
> GPI.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > We therefore recommend we should offer information on the GPI<br>
> > implications (or the lack thereof) in our final report. A rationale<br>
> > with respect to GPI will ensure that not only the Board, but also NTIA<br>
> > and the whole community understands that we are taking GPI concerns<br>
> > seriously. We think that offering a GPI related rationale is valuable<br>
> > for transparency reasons and we hope that it will help everyone<br>
> > understand that and why our final recommendations do not or will not be<br>
> against the GPI.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Some of you have stated that our work on GPI will not prevent the<br>
> > Board from raising GPI concerns and this is certainly true. However,<br>
> > we are convinced that<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > - being transparent on our view on GPI as described above and<br>
> ><br>
> > - inviting the Board to work with us even closer during this final<br>
> > phase and encouraging the Board to raise any issues in the process<br>
> > (see our e-mail to Steve Crocker)<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > will help reduce the risk of GPI concerns being identified by the<br>
> > Board at a later stage.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > We hope this help and welcome your input of this recommendation to<br>
> > include a « GPI rationale » as part of our recommendations.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Kind regards,<br>
> ><br>
> > Leon Sanchez<br>
> ><br>
> > Mathieu Weill<br>
> ><br>
> > Thomas Rickert<br>
> ><br>
> > ---<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://rickert.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">rickert.net</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Sivasubramanian M<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy" target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a></div></div>
</div></div>