<html><body><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>RT4 Team:<br><br>For those who may have missed the ICANN Board session in Singapore on Friday, the outgoing chairman (Peter Dengate-Thrush) made some interesting parting comments. Some of which reflect upon, or are otherwise relevant, to our work.</div><div><br></div><div>He noted that while New gTLDs were the most active topic, he felt that in the long run the Affirmation of Commitments would be the most important: </div><div><br></div><div><i>"I think of all of them [accomplishments], the most important historically we will look back and see was the Affirmation of Commitments. I know we're all excited about the gTLD policy, and that's clearly going to make a change to the look of the Internet. But in the long-term strategic history of ICANN, I think the changing of the relationship with the United States Government and the shift to accountability to the world in becoming transparent and accountable at that level is in the end going to be the biggest thing that will have happened in this time." </i></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Additionally, with our discussions of "Consumer" and "Consumer Trust," perhaps we can find guidance in PDT's thoughts on "Public Interest." In the past few months, many elements of the community have criticized ICANN as not adhering to the "Public Interest," or by claiming that they alone represent the "Public Interest." </div><div><br></div><div><i>"Let me just give my view about that discussion that was yesterday about defining the "public interest." I think we should resist that<br>with all our might and main. Whoever defines the "public interest" will have won the big chunk of the argument and will have excluded<br>the others because there is no such thing as "the public interest." There are many public interests, and they are always competing. Our<br>job is to get it right. The obvious example are the proponents of free speech and the trademark interests. Trademark has a monopoly on<br>speech. Both perfectly valid interests and keeping them and getting the balance right is the job. There is no such thing as "the public<br>interest." Search has to be for identifying the elements and establishing the balance." <br></i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div>You can read all of Peter's remarks here:</div><div><a href="http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcripts-board-meeting-1-24jun11-en.txt">http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcripts-board-meeting-1-24jun11-en.txt</a> <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks--</div><div><br></div><div>J.</div><div><br></div></span></body></html>