[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

On 19/02/2015 04:36, Greg Shatan wrote:
> If this group wants to devote itself to trying to define in detail
> what the "public interest" is for ICANN, that will pull us way off
> track.  Although the principle is basic, the nuances once you try to
> parse it out will be anything but basic.  This can be a goal for ICANN
> in the long run, and as Samantha Eisner indicated, this is an effort
> that is underway.  Rather than pulling that task into this group, it
> would make more sense for those interested in that effort to plug into
> that effort, and to consider appropriate linkages between that effort
> and this one.

Having been in many, many working groups that considered defining what
the "public interest" is for ICANN, I have to agree that this is not the
best use of the WG's time. We all know when a decision is in the public
interest - ie. it serves the public good, but defining it only serves to
reduce its scope and make it an incomplete term.
It's like defining "wet" in "water is wet".
Kind regards,

Olivier