I think the synthesis here is that sometimes the "point of proper balance
of PI" involves ICANN recusing itself from trying to decide some issues
within its own jurisdiction.

ICANN needs to get better at saying "that's not my job."  In many such
cases, there will be arguments to pull those issues into ICANN's
jurisdiction, often based on a claim of PI (one that NCSG will often feel
is bogus).

In those cases, there needs to be a two-pronged response:

 (1) "No, PI is better served by this different policy [   ]."  (This is
where I could see we might possibly benefit from a sort of "playbook" for
framing such issues, if not a fixed pronouncement of overarching policy.  I
like Joy's framing, if I might paraphrase: PI empowers the many/weak to
balance against the few/powerful.)

and

 (2) "ICANN should not acquire jurisdiction over that policy domain because
we are not institutionally appropriately equipped to adjudicate that
dispute, and we should not seek to acquire that expanded institutional
capacity because we don't have an accountability structure that could ever
support that dispute resolution process properly."

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 7:41 PM -0500 12/25/14, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>But everything that ICANN does, has a public interest (PI) component. It
>is not about searching for other areas to assert PI about. It is about
>finding the proper PI point for balancing the various rights affected by
>what we do within our mission.
>
>avri
>
>On 25-Dec-14 18:31, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
>>Avri,
>>
>>Agreed! part of ICANN process should be, in a particular situation, to
>>assess whether or not a particular search for public interest is
>>appropriate for within ICANN. or whether ICANN and others can help it
>>find its appropriate process venue elsewhere. Just because something
>>Internet related is important (has a public interest?), that does not
>>mean it should be addressed within ICANN. Also, that does not prevent the
>>ICANN community from having a voice in the dialogue elsewhere.
>>
>>Sam
>>
>>On 25/12/2014 6:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On 25-Dec-14 15:55, Dan Krimm wrote:
>>>
>>>>Milton, you make a good point about competing rights: they do often
>>>>conflict and then we need to figure out how to balance them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have often thought that the search for public interest was the search
>>>for that balance of the various rights and [cultural] perceptions.
>>>Something dynamic and variable.
>>>
>>>But I d believe it is definable as a process and as a goal.
>>>
>>>avri
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------
>>"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
>>in an unjust state" -Confucius
>>------------------------------------------------
>>Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
>>Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
>>email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]   Skype: slanfranco
>>blog:  <http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com>http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
>>Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852