As usual, Robin has hit the nail on the head. No matter what we do with Accountability, and we're doing a lot, as long as this vague concept of public interest exists in ICANN it will be used to further special interests and nullify policy properly developed through community processes.

I don't believe public interest can be determined. That said, I do recommend folks take a look at a study done by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales on the topic, if we are required by ICANN in good faith to try to do the impossible. It may be found here: http://www.icaew.com/en/technical/ethics/the-public-interest .

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Indeed it does seem that in reality we have two different policy development processes that sit on top of each other for GTLD policy. There is the GNSO developed policy pursuant to Annex A of ICANN's bylaws, and then there is the board-staff developed policy based on what they unilaterally decide is "in the public interest". Just slap on the label of Public Interest Commitments on them, and voila, an entirely separate set of policy requirements to sit on top of the GNSOs (and over-ride GNSO policy in some cases).

After all, who can be against The Public Interest? It would seem this is one place where ICANN's staff-board is able to circumvent bottom-up policy development processes and it is unclear where the authority to do this comes from since GNSO policy is supposed to be developed pursuant to Annex A of ICANN's bylaws.

Thanks,
Robin

On May 12, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> You mean as issues that the GNSO process did not deal with adequately and
>> are therefore a good reason for sending a recommendation back to the
>> GNSO for further work?
>
> No, I mean as yet another example of altering agreed policy on the fly in response to demands by privileged interest groups (GAC, trademark) who could never get their views accepted in a consensus process.
>