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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is easier if you use the words, "interest of registrants" instead of "public 
interest," and in any case the two are very similar if not identical.  

ICANN has to act in the public interest, but that's the Board's lookout.   If 
we look at what's in the registrant's interest, I think we're focusing where we 
should for this Working Group.  What we come up with is not final, the Board 
has to give its say-so, and I think we shouldn't duplicate their function.   


On Apr 1, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> 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