<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Dear Co-Chairs,</div><div><br></div><div>through the co-chairs:</div><div><br></div><div>It is most certainly WITHIN the scope to express personal opinions about the performance or role of the AC or SOs. </div><div><br></div><div>Especially somone as eminently familiar as Becky.</div><div><br></div><div>My personal opinion is and has always been that we need the GAC as much as a goitre, but then that ship has sailed. Long ago.</div><div><br></div><div>Hence we should argue on the merits. </div><div><br></div><div>And engage the GAC and its/our reps on the merits to improve their future advice.</div><div><br></div><div>el<br><br>-- <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13pt; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373);">Sent from </span><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s</span></div><div><br></div></div><div><br>On Jan 13, 2015, at 14:34, Perez Galindo, Rafael <<a href="mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es">RPEREZGA@minetur.es</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>Dear Ms. Burr,</span><br><span></span><br><span>Thank you for your kind email. The misunderstanding is now cleared up.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Just to finish my comment on the role of the GAC, I believe ICANN bylaws are pretty clear when they state in Section I.2.11 that in performing its mission, one of the core values that should guide ICANN decisions and actions is “while remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations.” Again Section XI.2.1.j goes on to state that “the advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies”. </span><br><span>In order to perform this role properly and give the best possible Advice regarding public policy, the GAC is engaging with the community as early as possible in the PDP and improving its methods as described briefly in my email below.</span><br><span></span><br><span>But anyway I think there are many other much more important issues for discussion related to ICANN Accountability, such as enhanced redress and appeal mechanisms, rather than the role of the GAC.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Best regards</span><br><span></span><br><span>Rafael Perez Galindo</span><br><span></span><br><span>________________________________________</span><br><span>From: Burr, Becky [<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>]</span><br><span>Sent: 13 January 2015 12:56</span><br><span>To: Perez Galindo, Rafael</span><br><span>Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Dr Eberhard W Lisse; CCWG Accountability</span><br><span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"</span><br><span></span><br><span>With respect, Mr. galindo, I believe you misunderstood my comment. I was not criticizing the performance of the GAC at all. Rather I was commenting on structural issues about the role assigned to the GAC within ICANN - and responding to Mr. Aristeh's comment on that point specifically.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Sent from my iPad</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:36 AM, Perez Galindo, Rafael <<a href="mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es">RPEREZGA@minetur.es</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Ms. Becky Burr,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>as regards your comments on the GAC, I believe it is out of the scope of this working group to express personal opinions on the performance or role of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that make up ICANN.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>When you mention community developed policy, you have to bear in mind that the GAC is already engaging with e.g. the GNSO so that it can at an early stage feed into and be a part of the development of a particular policy. Other initiatives such as the GNSO liaison to the GAC have already been put in place as well. The GAC is permanently improving its engagement with the rest of the community, improving its working methods and enhancing its transparency, for instance making almost all meetings open by default.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On the other hand, I am not seeing any GAC member critizice the performance of other SO/ACs in this nor in any other mailing list. I believe we are all struggling to fulfil our task here, which is to improve ICANN's accountability towards the whole community of Internet.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In conclusion, I would kindly ask colleagues not to judge or undermine other SO/ACs work, even though sometimes we can disagree, as it is not constructive nor helps go forward, but on the contrary it could blur and is beyond the remit of this working group.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Thank you and best regards</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Rafael Perez Galindo</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] on behalf of Burr, Becky [<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>]</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: 13 January 2015 00:14</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>To: Kavouss Arasteh; Dr Eberhard W Lisse</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Cc: <a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net">directors@omadhina.net</a>; CCWG Accountability</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Perhaps it would help to be clear about when we are speaking about matters within ICANN’s mission and scope, and when we are not.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>When it comes to country code top level domains (ccTLDs), the conclusions of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (the FOIWG Report) speak to a rather limited set of circumstances – revocation and delegation by IANA in response to technical incompetence and substantial misbehavior as defined in RFC 1591. Those conclusions do not, however, deprive any government of any right it may have under applicable law with respect to the operation of a ccTLD subject to its jurisdiction. Likewise, those conclusions do not deprive any ccTLD manager of his/her/its rights under applicable law – whether contractual or otherwise. The FOIWG report is consistent with community consensus that disputes regarding operation of a ccTLD should ordinarily be resolved in-country/territory, consistent with the rule of law, and respecting the rights of both registry operators and significantly interested parties, including the relevant government. I say “ordinarily” because there are limited exceptions – for example, where DNS stability/security issues arise or where the circumstances under which a ccTLD was delegated (i.e., as Dr. Lisse points out, before RFC 1591) or operates (i.e., under a specific contract) compel a different result. So, when it comes to the role of the “government” in the context of a ccTLD, a government will ordinarily have all of the authority granted by applicable law to compel an outcome consistent with the rule of law. This does not strike me as governments having a lower status than other players. But most of this time this is outside of the scope of the IANA functions, and we should not seek to expand IANA functions beyond the remit of RFC 1591.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Within the scope of ICANN’s remit, I often find the GAC’s role to be less than fully satisfying. It is an “advisory” body on the one hand, but from time to time GAC Advice has been used to veto community developed policy. That troubles me, particularly when the Advice is difficult to reconcile with ICANN’s Bylaws. I think that the cross-community working groups on the IANA transition and on accountability offer us an opportunity to include members of the GAC in the real-time policy development process. Although I don’t agree with everything Mr. Arasteh says, I certainly welcome his willingness to be an active part of the process.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Becky Burr</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>J. Beckwith Burr</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a><<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>> / <a href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>From: Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Date: Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 4:39 AM</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>To: Eberhard Lisse <<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">el@lisse.na</a><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">mailto:el@lisse.na</a>>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Cc: "<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net">directors@omadhina.net</a><<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net">mailto:directors@omadhina.net</a>>" <<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net">directors@omadhina.net</a><<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net">mailto:directors@omadhina.net</a>>>, Accountability Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Dr. Eberhard W.Lisse,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Thank you very much for your reply</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>First of all, I appologize if I have bothered you referring to you as Eberhard and not your full name as you wished to be so called .</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I have noted that you referred to me as Mr. Kavouss Arasteh and not my first name Kavouss .</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Secondly, I have not referred to the outcome of NetMundial as the Declaration was a totally Non Binding and simply a declaration.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>It was an evenet and we aprreciate the organizer of that event.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>What I referred to was that atleast there was reference to the footing of each entitiy and each constituency of the Global Multistakeholder .</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Whther that categorisation ( four main categories ) was or was not wrong that is another issue .</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I do not intend to evaluate the performance and actions taken by various governments as this is not a proper forum and I do not have such mandate to do so.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>What I am trying to find out is where is the Government's role in this business?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The only area that they are appearing is the GAC .which is simply has an advisory nature where as other players as per any structural arrangements has a decision making role .</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>If the Internet and ICANN is an inclussive and democratic process why governments are treated with lower status than other players?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On the other hand I have noted that an individual make comments to the process on its own behalf which create some legitimacy inconsistencies as it is not clear whom that person representing.When ICANN referrs to many comments received from those individuals who do not represtiative of many many other individuals and ICANN reacts based on such non representative views .That bothers me</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Do you have a solution to propose to remedy these two basic problems?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Regards</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Kavouss</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>2015-01-11 7:00 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">el@lisse.na</a><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">mailto:el@lisse.na</a>>>:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Mr Arasteh,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced, government negotiator at work.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular .NA.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind with the IANA function operator. In other words, individually, not represented by any organization of any kind.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles and the Framework of Interpretation Principles.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in violation of international conventions and or human rights they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to security and stability of the Internet. Nothing else.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function Manager intervene.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest, equitable and reasonable job.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called Teranode Contract.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for .NA and I, do have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the property aspects here. Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll ever get to that stage.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a third party (unilaterally).</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or more?) of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and the root, however flimsy this may be.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned, ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter. Of course the government will be a significantly interested party as (many) others.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a concern.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I am not in doubt here.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts individually, so they (may) have given away some rights themselves.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP addresses are intriguing.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement, whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights, such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional Court calls Informational Self Determination.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Some governments have an worse track records than others, and some governments are more active in taking control over the Internet than others. And sovereignty doesn't trump everything else, by default.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in any consensus poll against any anything related thereto.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>greetings, el</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Jan 10, 2015, at 23:46, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Eberhard</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>NTIA did say that .</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I do not agree with your argument at all</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Tks and have a nice week-end</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Kavouss</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>2015-01-10 22:18 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">el@lisse.na</a><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">mailto:el@lisse.na</a>>>:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Netmundial and its ideas will not receive consensus. Nor will (significant) government involvement.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Never mind that the NTIA has stated that governments will not be in charge.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>el</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Jan 10, 2015, at 16:29, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Bruce,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Thank you very much for your message.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I hope I have not bothered you.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Listen, the term " Community" was used and is being used in the entire ICANN even NTIA used that term</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>If you read ICG and CWG and CCWG charters and correspondence, hundreds of time refernce is made to that term.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In many ICANN alert, ICANN publication, ICANN announcement the term " Community" has been used.I am surprised that you have not heard till now about that.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In addition, NetMundial which ICANN was one of the supporting and contribulting entity referred to those four constituencies of Global Multistakeholder Community composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics and Governments.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The composition of Executive Committee was 24 memebrs 12 from Governments and 12 from the rest . That is why I referred to it as a defacto agreement.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In WSIS also several refernces were made to these four categories of stakeholder</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I am sorry I can not agree with your definition or description .It may be suitable for these activities that we are doing .</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>See NTIA Announcement of 14 March 2014 in which this term is used )</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In regard with your description of community , I am soory to disagree with you .Your description may be suitable for activities that we are doing ( ICG, CWG and CCWG ) However, for the overall issue of Global Multistakeholder Community WE MUST TAKE THAT COMPOSITION USED IN NETMUNDIALand other fora .</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Internal organicgram of ICANN does not fuklly cover the issue.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Moreover, there should be a footing criteria and legitimacy .You can not take view of an individual and view of a " Community" witjh equal footing.It has been many cases in which an individual speaks on behalf of herself or himself thus the representation legitimacy is not observed .</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Regards</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Kavouss</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>2015-01-10 12:21 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a><<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>>:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Hello Kavouss,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to "community"</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> What is that magic term "community» covers?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>"ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Regards,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Bruce Tonkin</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dQKq-RRFwO6og5KDZD_KagoreGyC2vSQ4GBwzIJEeHM&s=rCeiscqJaOmjPi0cof82t5sBU7U7eSJjIJnzKm6LcJI&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dQKq-RRFwO6og5KDZD_KagoreGyC2vSQ4GBwzIJEeHM&s=rCeiscqJaOmjPi0cof82t5sBU7U7eSJjIJnzKm6LcJI&e=</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dQKq-RRFwO6og5KDZD_KagoreGyC2vSQ4GBwzIJEeHM&s=rCeiscqJaOmjPi0cof82t5sBU7U7eSJjIJnzKm6LcJI&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dQKq-RRFwO6og5KDZD_KagoreGyC2vSQ4GBwzIJEeHM&s=rCeiscqJaOmjPi0cof82t5sBU7U7eSJjIJnzKm6LcJI&e=</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dQKq-RRFwO6og5KDZD_KagoreGyC2vSQ4GBwzIJEeHM&s=rCeiscqJaOmjPi0cof82t5sBU7U7eSJjIJnzKm6LcJI&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dQKq-RRFwO6og5KDZD_KagoreGyC2vSQ4GBwzIJEeHM&s=rCeiscqJaOmjPi0cof82t5sBU7U7eSJjIJnzKm6LcJI&e=</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dQKq-RRFwO6og5KDZD_KagoreGyC2vSQ4GBwzIJEeHM&s=rCeiscqJaOmjPi0cof82t5sBU7U7eSJjIJnzKm6LcJI&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dQKq-RRFwO6og5KDZD_KagoreGyC2vSQ4GBwzIJEeHM&s=rCeiscqJaOmjPi0cof82t5sBU7U7eSJjIJnzKm6LcJI&e=</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></div></blockquote></body></html>