[CCWG-ACCT] Definitions and the tussle (was Re: Fwd: [CCWG-Advisors] question regarding Global Public Interest)

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Andrew
I fully agree with you.
I just wanted to demonstrate the difficulties of defining " Global Public
Interest" and using that as a tool to unilatelarry reject a given
recommendation based on such multidimentional subjerct..
The criteria to trigger that a given Rec. or a given subject is or is not
compatible with something that can not be defined does also creating
another problem
I did also mentioned that the matter /issue is so comnplex that one can not
reply on a proposed text by legal adviser since there is a general
disagreement on any definition.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-12-27 19:58 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>:

> Hi,
>
> I'm sort of loathe to dive into this discussion, but I think there's a
> useful thread in here that is worth tugging on so that we can see the
> quality of the weave.
>
> My biggest worry about the phrase "the global public interest" is not
> the meaning of "global", "public", or "interest", but "the".  By
> claiming that something is or is not in _the_ global public interest,
> the definite article implies that there is such an interest (or maybe,
> such a public); that there is exactly one; and, perhaps most
> interesting, that one knows what that is.  Even if I were to grant (I
> do not, but let's say for the sake of argument) that there is a fact
> of the matter about the the interest of the global public, I cannot
> imagine how one would test a claim that something is or is not in said
> interest.
>
> The quest to come up with a definition of "the global public
> interest", therefore, is an attempt to create such a test; but it's
> really a dodge in a Wittgenstinean language-game.  Were we to unpack
> any such definition that was even widely acceptable, we'd discover
> either that some interest (or public) would be left out, or else that
> some conflict inherent in the definition would be obscured.  For the
> basic problem is that you cannot define "the global public interest"
> in a way that is all of universally acceptable, useful for the
> purposes of making tough decisions, and true.  Even apparently simple
> and obvious cases -- "It is in the global public interest for war to
> end" -- turn out to be troublesome.  For example, people fighting a
> current war are presumably doing it for some other end, so they'd only
> agree to that example statement with the implicit premise, "as long as
> my desired outcome is assured."
>
> A definition of "the global public interest" will be ever more
> troublesome the clearer it tries to be, because the list of specifics
> will start to be long.  I think our experience in working on the
> mission statement is mighty instructive, and it is at least scoped
> merely to the parts of the Internet ICANN directly touches -- whatever
> we think those are.
>
> As a consequence, I think a claim that _x_ is [not] in "the global
> public interest" is really just a way of saying, "I [don't] think _x_
> should happen."  Such a claim is part of a tussle, like the "Tussle in
> Cyberspace" described by Clark, Wroclawski, Sollins, and Braden (see
> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074049).  It's a nice rhetorical
> move to claim that you can define the tussle away, but you can't (at
> least, not legitimately).  I think we should be honest with ourselves
> that such definitional efforts will create wheels that do no work.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151227/d9fe41c7/attachment.html>