<div dir="ltr"><div><p dir="ltr">1) It's hard to be simultaneously "concise" and "wide open". Maybe that's just a personal inability to understand.</p>
<p dir="ltr">2) "Issues related to the public interest in the context of ICANN and the manner in which end users are impacted": To me this is not a working group, it's THE </p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline">central </div>function of At-Large, ALAC and the RALOs. Why the heck else does this infrastructure exist? All the outreach and capacity building stuff is just foundational work designed to serve the above objective. If not we're all wasting our time. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">3) Both of you (Alan and Wolf) have been around the ICANN universe enough to know that </p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline">simply</div> defining "public interest" here is a rhetorical black hole from which it is difficult to emerge. <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline">Vested interests insist they are just members of that same public. </div>And some in the GAC believe that it is governments who advance the public interest<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline"> within ICANN</div>. If the objective of the WG is to produce advice output for the rest of ICANN rather than just for talking internally, these factors cannot be ignored. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline">4) </div>Such concerns were in play back when Jean Jacques and I originally created the FCWG. If you look at its charter and <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Priorities+of+Future+Challenges+WG">what it did</a>, it seems that the objectives are very similar to this new WG (if not stated the same way).<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline"> I certainly hope that this WG can follow up on the <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Future+Challenges+WG+-+R3+White+Paper">"R3" white paper</a> which IMO continues to have relevance in this area and directly addresses the interface between ICANN, At-Large and the Global Public Interest.</div> <p></p>
<p dir="ltr"><u></u>IMO there is also significant overlap with the the regulatory issues WG that I believe Holly leads. <u></u></p>
<p dir="ltr"><u></u>- Evan<u></u></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 9 Apr 2016, at 03:46, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<pre>Evan, perhaps you could be good enough to be more specific on which <br>"remnants" you believe are missing from the new WG's mission, or <br>perhaps should be used to flesh out the mission more fully.<br><br>At this point, the mission is pretty concise and wide open: "This WG <br>will discuss issues related to the public interest in the context of <br>ICANN and the manner in which end users are impacted."<br><br>Alan<br><br>At 08/04/2016 03:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid #729fcf;padding-left:1ex">PS: It would probably be a good idea to roll the remnants of the <br>dormant Future Challanges WG into Wolf's Public Interest one, they <br>appear to share objectives. I will happily offer myself to be in the <br>group, but cannot promise significant capacity to participate.<br></blockquote><br></pre></blockquote></div></div></div>