[CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

National Interest, is not the same as Public Policy and most definitive not as Global Public Interest.

It's typically trustbuilding from the Board to use something not defined to get what it wants. As much as that I am critical of the Board's behavior. However, as we haven't seen their final comments to our final proposal, I'll wait and see what they come up with, as I fully agree that we need to get it right rather than getting it done.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 8 Jan 2016, at 10:05, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
> 
> Indeed, and the GAC themselves reminded ICANN, when the issued GAC Advice acknowledging the adoption of the Framework of Interpretation by the ICANN board, that the national government or public authority remains the relevant body for public policy matters.
> 
> Thus it seems that ICANN should NOT be involved in determining what 'the public interest' is, as that is the preserve of governments.
> 
> It should however take into account 'the interests of the (global) public'.
> 
> The two concepts are NOT coterminous.
> 
> 
>> On 08/01/16 07:12, parminder wrote:
>> Perhaps you should be asking
>> 
>> Is floating and sustaining something like the Net Mundial Initiative,
>> whose express purpose is to address public policy issues outside the
>> names and numbers, and technical protocols and coordination, something
>> within ICANN's mandate?
>> 
>> (Since this is directly an issue where ICANN steps on governmental toes,
>> in that public policy is traditionally a gov space, this question may be
>> more relevant to the current discussion on GAC advice and board's
>> consequent obligations. Also it is a real, manifest issue and not an
>> abstraction.)
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>>> On Friday 08 January 2016 05:21 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 06:21:20PM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Is training people on the DNS or DNSEC in the same category as content
>>>> censorship?
>>> Is capacity building in the sense of training people on DNS or DNSSEC
>>> really outside ICANN's mission, in the CCWG's proposal?  It seems to
>>> me that that one could argue it helps the "ensure the stable and
>>> secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems" realm.
>>> 
>>> If ICANN decided to get into teaching people how to deploy VoIP using
>>> SIP, however, I'd wonder why.  Or into web administration, or perhaps
>>> (more in line with the analogy) WordPress or Drupal administration.
>>> And those things do seem to me to be approximately as relevant to what
>>> ICANN is doing as content censorship: I don't think ICANN should do
>>> either.
>>> 
>>> A
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community