[CCWG-ACCT] Definition of public policy advice from the GAC

Sun Nov 1 19:02:14 UTC 2015

Dear James

I agree with Jorge: it is not possible to define boundaries but it is more
likely there are gradations of interest and "watching briefs." I do not
recall the GAC expressing a position for the record that a particular issue
was beyond its scope and that therefore it had no locus. A fundamental
concern for governments (as made clear in the extract from the GAC
Operating Principles cited by Jorge) is ensuring stability and security in
the DNS because the economic and social welfare of citizens and business
relies on the sustainability of the DNS as currently devised and managed.
You could argue that all ICANN policy issues and development processes -
even the most arcane technical issue - have a bearing on that overarching
concern of governments - of our ministers.  Were ICANN to go belly up or
the global DNS start to fragment into separate units, to become balkanised,
rest assured the GAC representatives would be hauled up in front of their
ministers and parliamentary committees to explain how they failed to
prevent that! Furthermore, the GAC's members' and observers' task to ensure
there is consistency of ICANN decisions and strategy with national and
international laws also relates primarily to protecting and advancing
social and economic benefits and norms. With regard to the former, that is
why it is important for GAC reps to establish consultation channels with
national regulators, both governmental within their administrations, and
independent regulators (the GAC's inputs into the new gTLDs AGB was an
example of this being necessary extensively). With regard to international
laws, it is significant that so many inter-governmental organisations have
decided that they as institutions, as well as their member states, should
participate in the GAC as observers.

To sum up, I agree with Jorge that the GAC Operating Principles provide the
essential basis for answering the question of what is the role of the GAC
in the ICANN model and why over 150 governments and over 30 IGOs have
registered to participate in ICANN processes. To extend beyond that in
order to define precise boundaries would not be easy and I suggest not a
worthwhile exercise.

I hope these comments are helpful.

Mark

Mark Carvell
United Kingdom Representative on the GAC

Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062

On 30 October 2015 at 16:09, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> Difficult to say, at least for me, as we concentrate and know more about
> the issues with public policy implications. Other, purely technical or
> commercial issues are normally not on our radar, but may be very important
> for technical committees or for the GNSO.
>
> Anyway, normally you will not see a “binary choice2 but varying degrees of
> public policy implication – for instance “universal acceptance” might be
> important on a general level, but for the moment it is more of a “to follow
> issue”, while there are issues (such as WHOIS) with a lot of public policy
> implications…
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 17:03
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Definition of public policy advice from the GAC
>
>
>
> Thank you, Jorge.  Very helpful.
>
>
>
> For my own clarification & understanding, can you (or any other GAC
> participants) provide examples of a current/recent topic that would NOT be
> subject to GAC advice, under its Operating Principles?  Sometimes the
> exceptions help to define the boundaries of the rule.
>
>
>
> Thanks—
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Date: *Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:06
> *To: *"Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>,
> "tracyhackshaw at gmail.com" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Definition of public policy advice from the GAC
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> It is always useful to have a look at our governing docs, for instance the
> GAC OP (attached) and the following extract:
>
>
>
> “3.
>
> ICANN’s decision making should take into account public policy objectives
> including, among other things:
>
> • secure, reliable and affordable functioning of the Internet, including
> uninterrupted service and universal connectivity;
>
> • the robust development of the Internet, in the interest of the public
> good, for government, private, educational, and commercial purposes, world
> wide;
>
> • transparency and non---discriminatory practices in ICANN’s role in the
> allocation of Internet names and address;
>
> • effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity and
> conditions for fair competition, which will bring benefits to all
> categories of users including, greater choice, lower prices, and better
> services;
>
> • fair information practices, including respect for personal privacy and
> issues of consumer concern;
>
> and
>
> • freedom of expression.”
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Bruce
> Tonkin
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 07:15
> *An:* Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Definition of public policy advice from the GAC
>
>
>
> Thanks Tracy this is very helpful.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 30 Oct 2015, at 11:36 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <
> tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
>
>
> While I can't speak for the GAC on this, as a GAC member, and as a former
> student of the topic, I can provide my understanding based on my role in my
> country's Government if that might be helpful.
>
>
>
> In my country, and in many parts of the world, the term, Public Policy is
> not used. In many countries (as in mine) Public Policy = National Policy.
>
>
>
> Public or National Policy *IS NOT EQUIVALENT* to National Law, however,
> it is the key and normally most critical *precursor* to the development
> of legislation in the Government law making process. If we were to stretch
> the concept somewhat, we can say that National Law (when promulgated) forms
> a key element - but still a subset - of Public or National Policy.
>
>
>
> In summary and simply, Public or National Policy is a Government's
> statement of direction - usually with clearly stated objectives and
> deliverables - on a particular area or series of areas - that is intended
> to be reflective of that country's (citizens') norms, attitudes, cultures
> and values; and further, to be implemented (and regulated and enforced,
> where applicable) by a country's various institutions primarily consisting
> of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. As a rule of thumb,
> National Policies should be developed through extensive consultation with a
> country's stakeholders over a significant period of time and several
> iterations of National Policy are to be expected before becoming "final"
> (and potentially leading to legislation). In other cases, National Policy
> is time limited and subject to periodic cycles of consultative redrafting
> and review - with potential attendant changes to related laws and
> regulations.
>
>
>
> Public or National Policy is intended to be reflective of, and protective
> of, what has often been termed as the "Public Interest".
>
>
>
> Of course, the above leads to the obvious issue - in the GAC, given that
> there are now over 150 members, what is/can be considered "public policy"
> advice?
>
>
>
> You will appreciate therefore the delicate and deliberate efforts at
> consensus building in the GAC in issuing "public policy" advice.
>
>
>
> Rgds,
>
>
>
> Tracy Hackshaw
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29 October 2015 at 18:23, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> To the GAC members on this list,
>
> I note that in the bylaws the GAC has a role in providing "public policy"
> advice to ICANN.
>
> Does the GAC have a working definition of what this means?   Is there a UN
> standard definition of some sort?
>
> and I must admit I have never fully understand the term.
>
> I had originally expected that the GAC would provide advice on national
> laws and international treaties as it relates to ICANN.
>
> I can understand that each country may have "policies" that are perhaps
> written documents and may vary by which government is in power at the
> time.  E.g. a national government may have a written immigration policy or
> a foreign trade policy etc.   These policies presumably have been approved
> by one or more Government ministers, and would generally be public.
>
> Not sure how the GAC provides advice on "public policy" - should there be
> some sort of written national policies that support such advice?
>
> e.g. ICANN policies are documented, approved by the Board, and made public.
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce Tonkin
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151101/c2abacc6/attachment.html>