<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">And in such a case we would have another US-based enforcement method for a US-based non-for profit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I'm not questions the effectiveness of the FCC and FTC in doing their good work, but the fact that we are meant to look into global solutions/internationally
based solutions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Your suggestion certainly complies with the fact that ICANN needs to abide by local laws, but also certainly deviates from the ever-present "</span><span lang="EN">The
Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions […]"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I see you are not comfortable with UN-based solutions (I'm far from proposing we move IG issues to the UN, just in case) but I thought the exercise was to think
global.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Camino<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Carrie Devorah<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mr R.T. Daniel<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">I would put ICANN under the FCC and the FTC oversight after all isnt/hasnt it been the UN agenda to mush ICANN into the UN ITU agenda... or so it appears<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Sincerely<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Carrie Devorah<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mr R.T. Daniel <<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com" target="_blank">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
Thinking out loud.<br>
So is there any mileage in having an icann A & icann B.<br>
"A" board = public interest & contract co.<br>
"B" board private non profit implementing Board A 's ..policy frameworks....etc...etc..<br>
Board B answerable to board A?<br>
RD<br>
<br>
Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<br>
I am not sure i get the distinction about ICANN being private organisation, does it mean there is also problem with all RIR that are setup as a not-for-profit organisation like ICANN. I think the factors you indicate as elements of multistakeholderism are adequately
covered within the "public interest" phrase. <br>
<br>
What matters most for a non-legal individual like me is that i always have the opportunity to participate in the policy development process that would determine how i get served by ICANN. So long as i get that, my rights are covered and multistakeholderism
will be felt to be in action.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Robin Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">The problem is that ICANN is a private corporation and it is engaging in public governance functions. The quasi public-private structure creates a challenge because if it were a traditional government, it would
be required to respect human rights in the performance of public governance functions, and some argue that because it is a private corporation it has no obligation to respect rights (years ago ICANN's lawyers argued in the xxx case that, as a contractee to
the US Govt, it was obligated to protect free expression). <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">So the traditional framework breaks down because we've got a private corporation undertaking public governance functions, but without the traditional protections (respecting human rights) in the performance of
those public functions. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">If this "hole" is not plugged, the multi-stakeholder model is inadequate for Internet governance. "Out-sourcing" public governance functions to private corporations is fine, so long as we don't lose the protections
afforded by public governance institutions. If there is no duty to protect free expression and privacy by those organizations who set policies governing the Internet, we've taken a step-backward with multi-stakholderism, although it is not too late to fix. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">At its core, what I'm arguing here is that ICANN should respect free speech, privacy, and due process rights in its carrying out of its public governance functions, so when ICANN makes a policy, it doesn't derogate
from the fundamental rights afforded to Internet users in traditional governance institutions. If ICANN wants to engage in public governance functions, it must accept public governance responsibilities.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Robin<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Feb 18, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Carlos:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Nobody's reducing anything.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">First off, the First Amendment is really irrelevant to this discussion, as wonderful as it is. It prevents
<u>the federal government from making laws</u> abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly or respecting an establishment of religion. We are not talking about actions of the U.S. government here, and ICANN has never been considered
a part of the U.S. government. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities. So the First Amendment really has nothing to do with this conversation, other than to confuse it.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">ICANN, as a private entity, has never been subject to the First Amendment, so nothing's changing in that regard. Furthermore, it's inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful to refer to this as a privatization. The
"privatization" of the Internet, if such a thing can ever be said to have occurred, occurred decades ago. The stewardship of the US government, while broader than the IANA Functions that are at the core of that stewardship, never extended in any way to applying
First Amendment protections or prohibitions to ICANN's action, much less making ICANN an arm of the state.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Also, nothing's changing with regard to ICANN's obligation to perform in the public interest. ICANN's public interest obligations do make it different from private for-profit entities. Adopting a Corporate Social
Responsibility program and policy would not in any way diminish or replace ICANN's public interest obligations. Rather, CSR policies would complement and act as a (non-exclusive) manifestation of ICANN's commitment to the public interest. A<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Sincerely<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">CARRIE Devorah<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">562 688 2883<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">DISCLAIMER : </span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over
the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>