Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Composition of Working Group Members

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/1/10 5:44 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> my reading of the AoC is that ICANN needs to act in the public interest.
>  As long as this WG focuses on the public interest, as opposed to
> specific stakeholder interests, I don't think it matters who is on the WG.

Agree. With caveats, as usual.

However, we can't point to something (yet) that we agree is the
unambiguous definition of "public interest". And, this is a GNSO
activity, what ICANN does, or doesn't do, with what it gets, or does
not get, from the Council of a SO, is up to ICANN, which could vote to
make goat cheese chocolate.

The point of GNSO reform was to move policy making from the
representational framework to something not necessarily
representational. The Council itself, as a representational body,
retains that property, whether it is "corrective" or "dysfunctional"
may depend on the difference of policy recommended without reference
to representation and representational policy preferences.

Given that the present contractual limitations are stakeholder
specific, and CRAI/Staff policy proposal which introduced VI and SR
are also same stakeholder specific, and the Board's policy proposal is
also same stakeholder specific, it is intellectually daunting to
approach the PDP with some other goals.

Eric