[CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest

Thu Dec 18 07:31:56 UTC 2014

From the minutes of LA's GAC meeting

https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20LA51%20MINUTES%201.2td.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1415614403000&api=v2

[...]

HUMAN RIGHTS & APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
GAC agreed that the linked issues of human rights and the application of international law to ICANN activities require further consideration, particularly in the context of follow- up to NetMundial; and with regard to future new gTLD rounds, including encouraging diversity and protecting vulnerable groups.

Peru explained their circulated proposal for amendment of the ICANN ByLaws, submitting that ICANN cannot be detached form international standards, conventions, and case law.

GAC agreed to consider all of these issues further inter-sessionally, including obtaining legal opinion if appropriate, and considering ways of working with the community as these matters are of concern beyond just the GAC.8

ACTION POINT: Above points to be reflected in the Communiqué. DONE. ACIG GAC Secretariat to prepare briefing (for GAC Leadership Group in first instance) identifying associated work in other parts of the community and drafting a request for legal opinion. 

[...]

greetings, el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 00:22, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
> 
> Ok, that makes sense.  
> 
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
> 
> Reduce your environmental footprint.  Print only if necessary.
> Follow Neustar:    Facebook    LinkedIn    Twitter
> 
> The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 5:16 PM
> To: Burr, Becky; 'accountability-cross-community at icann.org'
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest
> 
> Hi Becky,
> 
> Correct. These do not arise from the IANA Functions Contract, nor from "generally accepted principles of law".
> 
> I'm attempting to make the point that the latter -- "generally accepted principles of law" -- provides little if any basis for significant activities of the contractor.
> 
> I'm also alluding to Malcolm's closing comment:
>> We should be very careful not to create a sense that the narrow scope 
>> of ICANN's responsibilities for DNS is supplemented by a broader 
>> ambition to use the DNS to pursue a general and unbounded set of 
>> policies "in the public interest",
> l attempt to show that even when the IANA Functions are as narrowly construed as we can sensibly make them, "public interest" leads us to larger ends than we originally had, or are reflected in the several IANA Functions Contracts since 1998.
> 
> Regards,
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> Eugene, Oregon
> 
> 
>> On 12/17/14 1:45 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
>> Eric - I don't think that the IANA Functions Contract provides any support for IANA adding IDNs, dealing with IPv4 issues, or DNS sec.  Those are all policy issues to be addressed through ICANN's policy development processes, the number registry processes, etc.
>> 
>> 
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / 
>> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>> 
>> Reduce your environmental footprint.  Print only if necessary.
>> Follow Neustar:    Facebook    LinkedIn    Twitter
>> 
>> The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Eric Brunner-Williams
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:21 PM
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public 
>> Interest
>> 
>>> On 12/17/14 8:53 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>>> Certainly I would regard it as being in the public interest that 
>>> ICANN should discharge its functions properly, and in accordance with 
>>> generally accepted principles of law.
>> Dear Malcolm,
>> 
>> What "generally accepted principles of law" do you suggest apply to the management of protocol parameters?
>> 
>> Similarly, what "generally accepted principles of law" do you suggest apply to the management of globally unique address identifiers?
>> 
>> And finally, what "generally accepted principles of law" do you suggest apply to the management of globally unique resource-to-address identifiers (domain names)?
>> 
>> There is of course, from the Green and White Papers period, competition policy and a transition from an incumbent monopoly contract to a competitive regime, but other than that, where do the "generally accepted principles of law" properly inform the party or parties conducting each of these three management activities?
>> 
>> Where, among the "generally accepted principles of law" would one look for support of the proposition that adding labels in the Han Script to the IANA root zone is in "the public interest"?
>> 
>> Similarly, where would one look for support of the proposition that allocation of scarce v4 addresses not be made solely upon the basis of highest price offered?
>> 
>> And finally, where would one look for support of the proposition that algorithms for signing zones include the GOST suite?
>> 
>> My point being that when the IANA Functions are as narrowly construed as we can sensibly make them, "public interest" and "generally accepted principles of law" are difficult to find points of association, let alone concordance.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Eric Brunner-Williams
>> Eugene, Oregon
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
>> man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIET
>> eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=21WkLbYAQg
>> aFgGddhTzyvdthwNn0XurygbLmS45PSjY&s=bCcyHZCqN-IOwtwknipHWSJY1WdQkDrV1t
>> DAuhQIQTI&e=
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141218/7a2be1d1/attachment.html>