[At-Large] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Anthony,

thank you for your kind reply. I'll try and be somehow more explicit in
my reply here.

On 19/12/2011 01:42, Antony Van Couvering wrote :
> At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, the issue of the public interest came up at the public forum.  Steve Del Bianco told the ICANN Board that the term "pubic interest" should be defined, and that set off a series of statements by the Board either pro or con for attempting a definition of "public interest."   Nobody on the floor or on the Board suggested that there was a definition, and indeed the whole argument that ensued was whether a definition should be attempted -- the clear inference being that none existed.    See http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-public-forum-23jun11-en.txt (search on "delbianco" to get to the right section). 
>
> Furthermore, the GAC claims to represent the public interest.   If ALAC and the GAC disagree, which position represents the public interest?  Is it GAC's position, which is to accept the Board's ruling that consensus exists and that we are now moving ahead with the program, or is it ALAC's, which is to reject the notion that there was consensus?

This is old news. There has since been a meeting in Dakar and the GAC &
ALAC discussed the concept of "public interest", among a lot of other
things. It was a very enjoyable and successful meeting.
http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26889

Alas, and I notice this with horror, it appears that the transcripts
have not been place on-line yet!
Staff -- may I ask that you please follow-up about this, as a matter of
urgency!

As far as a GAC is concerned, I cannot pertain to speak on their behalf,
but I invite you to review the transcript of the Dakar meeting of the
GAC with the GNSO. It can be reached from:
http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26813
And also the transcript of the GAC meeting with the Board, reached from:
http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26925

You will notice that the GAC echoes some of the concerns the ALAC has.

>
> I said before that the ALAC was set up to represent the public interest.  I was wrong.  The ICANN Bylaws establishing the ALAC say nothing about it representing the public interest.  Instead, it speaks of ALAC representing the views of individual Internet users (see http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI - Article IX.2.4)
>
> What is the public interest and who represents it?  If the suggestion is that ALAC does, what is the basis of this claim?
>
> I appreciate that it might not be everyone's favorite idea of a fun time to examine this question, but before ALAC sends a letter claiming to represent the public interest, these issues need to be cleared up or the letter might be dismissed as illegitimate. 

It appears that you are not satisfied with definitions of the "public
interest" which I have pointed out. The proposed motion with the "public
interest" text might be amended to "the interest of Internet users" if
others agree. Thanks for pointing this possible ambiguity out.

Warmest regards,

Olivier


-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html