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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Um, the interests of "registrants" are vested in a contract.  Even in the
most "backward" markets..or countries...the tort law + the
competition provide relief, as necessary.

If we want to make a distinction between registrants and ordinary internet
end users - i.e. those that this 'public interest' argument is intended to
raise from the dead - then the argument must be re-conceptualized.

Carlton Samuels


On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Antony Van Couvering <
avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
+========+++++++++++++++======
Carlton A Samuels
Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process
Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance