I agree with Sam's analysis largely. Dan, the problem with 'the public interest' is that it is a completely open-ended standard that can be claimed by anyone for virtually any reason. The NSA thinks its surveillance was in the public interest (protecting us against terrorism). What David Johnson is trying to do is to keep ICANN's authority within narrow, well-defined bounds. This means not allowing ICANN to leverage its centralized control of the DNS root to pursue all kinds of ancillary goals in the name of a broader public interest. 

Of course we can have a dialogue about whether any ICANN policy, e.g., new TLDs, is in the public interest, but to make these arguments meaningful, one must define in more detail what criteria and results one is using to determine how 'the public interest' is served. It's also useful to know what "public" one is talking about - a definition that is almost always elided in these discussions. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Dan Krimm
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Important blog post about the ICANN
> Accountability CCWG
> 
> Sam,
> 
> I have to say, to the extent that public interest concerns in fact arise within
> the jurisdiction of ICANN's remit, there does need to be representation of the
> public interest in ICANN's policy deliberations.
> 
> Making the world an authoritarian dictatorship would greatly simplify policy-
> making, but simplicity per se is not the highest priority of a democratic
> political organization.
> 
> ICANN's jurisdiction will not cover *all* issues of public interest, and to that
> extent ICANN need not be involved in the broadest range of such issues.  But
> where the public interest is naturally involved in issues addressed by ICANN, I
> think that public interest needs to be represented within ICANN's names-
> and-numbers policy processes.
> 
> And sometimes at ICANN the public interest is served by simply getting out of
> the way, and that is what public interest advocates push for: not setting up
> formal, regularized, bureaucratized processes to impose content-based
> censorship on TLD strings, for example.
> 
> ICANN can't be the public interest cop for every possible public issue, but we
> shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  There is some overlap
> within ICANN's legitimate policy domain, and the public very much needs to
> be represented within that domain.
> 
> There will be gray areas that we encounter along the way and we may need
> to discuss carefully whether certain issues fall within or outside of ICANN's
> legitimate jurisdiction -- in fact, there have been such debates within ICANN
> since the beginning, as I understand it.  These are healthy discussions when
> engaged in good faith.
> 
> 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 12:13 PM -0500 12/22/14, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> >Content-Type: text/html
> >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx2.syr.edu id
> >sBMHDuXW003978
> >
> >
> >David Johnson's blog argues that the democratic potential for ICANN
> >membership is in danger of being co-opted by groups that want a very
> >narrow and limited conception of who the members should be and a very
> >expansive conception of what their powers should be. see:
> ><http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/12/19/icann-accountability-a-
> co
> >up-or-a-contract/>http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/12/19/icann-
> ac
> >countability-a-coup-or-a-contract/
> >
> >It is important to go beyond the nature of this risk and look at the
> >source of this risk, those pushing ICANN to be a public interest
> >regulator. Johnson argues that "If ICANN took the "public interest
> >regulator" option off the table, the "accountability" discussion could
> >be greatly simplified." This touches on a deeper question of whether or
> >not ICANN is even the appropriate venue for protecting the "public interest"
> >here.
> >
> >Using the discussions around regulated professions gTLD (e.g. .health,
> >.doc, etc.) it becomes clear pretty quickly that there is little ICANN
> >can do to address the "public interest" concerns there, even if it had
> >some regulatory power. See my blog "Rethinking, and Redirecting the
> >Global Health Strategy on the Proposed .health gTLD" at
> ><>samlanfranco.blogspot.ca .
> >
> >Most public interest concerns will have to be addresses bottom up in
> >struggles around policy at various levels within countries, within
> >professions, and using appropriate regulatory tools and laws at those
> >levels. ICANN cannot be all things to all concerns, and attempting to
> >do so will compromise ICANN, while public interest concerns will still
> >have to be addressed elsewhere.
> >
> >
> >Sam L.