[PublicInterest] [Public-Interest-WG] Materials from the Public Interest Session at ICANN57

Fri Nov 25 10:15:32 UTC 2016

Dear Amal Ramzi,

Neither the session "Exploring Pubic Interest" nor the first meeting of the
At-Large public interest group revolved entirely around the opinions that
you have shared, nor reached the conclusions as inferred from your summary.

The transcript of the main session is at page http://schd.ws/hosted_files/
icann572016/91/I57%20HYD_Sun06Nov2016-Exploring%20Public%20Interest-en.pdf

and the

At Large Pubic Interest Working Group session is archived at page
https://participate.icann.org/p5wbsvi1lnd/

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian M

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Amal Ramzi via Public-Interest-WG <
public-interest-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I attended the two sessions of public interest in ICANN 57 meeting and I
> found them interesting. At-Large Public Interest WG session was like a
> brain storming as it brought up to my mind many questions and conflicted
> answers , maybe because it was my first exposure to the topic of the public
> interest within ICANN’s remit besides the ongoing discussions about this
> concept within ICANN specially after the transition and the new ICANN
> bylaw. As we’ve been encouraged by prof. Wolf Ludwig and Olivier to share
> our thoughts and ideas in this mailing lists, I just like to share here my
> comments and questions on some of the discussion points, and to share some
> of background on PI from my region.
>
> -          *Public Interest from an Arab culture background:*
> To my knowledge, the public interest concept from an Arab culture
> background, which is rooted to some Islamic resources, is closer to public
> “good” more than “interest”. And it means achieving benefit for community
> and avoiding its harm, where avoiding harm is prioritized to achieving any
> benefit. This should be decided through tradeoff or balancing between a
> group of interests where the decision is not necessary to be the interest
> of majority nor the interest of individuals, but it can be decided regarded
> the kind, the scope, and the sustainability of the good that’ll be achieved
> by that decision in a long run. It’s also case by case decision and usually
> doesn’t depend on a bottom-up or multistakeholder approach.  With the ideal
> concept of “common good”, it seems that it’s needed to be identified and
> judged by someone fair, wise, farsighted, inclusive , & unbiased, and
> these characteristics isn’t available in human beings . So, in our case
> talking about public “interests” is more reasonable and measurable than
> public "good”, and just required a good system or approach to have all
> interests’ or stakes holders well heard and considered i.e. bottom-up
> multistakeholders model with fairly balanced representation and fairly
> balanced weight of voices- by using “fairly” I don’t mean “equally” for now
> .
>
> -          *Broad definition vs. restricted or tight one.*
> Regarding the definition of Public Interest, usually it’s not defined , as
> many had said, specially in the context of country management or
> governance, or has an elastic and vague definition or description that
> makes it fits with any decision ‘cause PI is determined for a particular
> case, in a particular community, in a certain country, and in a certain
> time. So, it has to be broad although this broadness ‘causes the loss of
> the public interest in a liable way. But for ICANN, I think coming up with
> a definition is possible because of the clear and finite frame of ICANN
> mission and resources that ICANN manages or accountable to. However, a very
> restricted definition won’t work. Public interest should be defined through
> a set of measurable criteria that guarantees as much procedural approach as
> possible in referring to public interest for decision making but I believe
> that also some of the required criteria aren’t possible to be exactly
> specified and so at the end , PI definition or criteria will inevitably
> have a kind of broadness. The only way to guarantee the best possible
> public interest consideration within ICANN’s remit is to enhance the
> representation of the different interests in the multistakeholder model and
> to amend it if needed.
> As for the definition suggested by the strategy panel, “, I think it’s
> very broad as if it defines the global internet-related public interest in
> general, and to my knowledge I don’t think that it falls under ICANN remit.
> A question to the strategy panel: does ICANN able or accountable to  “*Ensure
> that the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and
> accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single
> and open Internet.* “  where it’s mission is to: “coordinate, at the
> overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in
> particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's
> unique identifier systems. “
>
> -          *Global public interest vs. public interest*
> As for the “global public interest”, what is meant by “global”? is it in
> terms of geographical scope? Or interests scope, or internet scope?  I
> think ICANN shouldn’t adopt this term ‘cause to my limited knowledge, ICANN
> is not responsible on and accountable to the global public interest. Global
> Public Interest might be a responsibility of a UN internet-related entity ,
> which can reach an international agreement or law and enforce it even
> partially, but also in this case it’ll not serve the global public interest
> because at the end of the day UN is making agreements only with governments
> and again in my opinion governments are not authorized  for defending
> public interest alone although they should “in ideal case”. In short,
> although theinternet is global but it’s difficult to talk about the global
> public interest as long as there’s no global law or treaty that regulate
> internet users’ interests.
>
> -          *Governments, GAC, &  public interest*
> Although governments and governmental bodies in each country have been
> always using public interest concept as a justification or explanation of
> their decisions and policies, I think it shouldn’t be the same in ICANN,
> and GAC shouldn’t be the voice of the public interest. Thomas Schneider’s
> example at the session of “exploring-the-public-interest-within-ICANN’s-remit”
> was a good example that illustrates how PI in politics or country
> governance and management issues is a “point of view”, and how it can be
> changed and influenced by many variants ,factors, and intervened interests
> , and it also confirms that governments are not the good delegate to
> adopt public interest even if they are the only authorized entities to do
> so in their countries, but in ICANN there’s no need to make them in that
> position too, specially that GAC voice may also serve implicitly many
> stakeholders interests like when the governments are also the only ISP in a
> country and controlling the DNS-business sector too. PI should be
> represented by the multistakeholders with enhancing the representation and
> the consideration of independent users and civil society and non-commercial
> community, so At-Large community & NCSG have to have the louder voice on
> identifying PI criteria within ICANN.
>
>
> To sum up, I think ICANN’s mission & structure is already based on the
> public interest ,and ICANN responsibility activities supporting the PI by
> empowering the community with different views to be engaged in policy
> development. What is needed now ,besides continuing the engagement of
> different stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and origins,  is a review
> or an evaluation and enhancement of the ICANN multistakeholder model or
> structure to improve ICANN accountability towards the public interest
> through:
> 1-      Having a measureable criteria under PI  term used in level of
> ICANN board decision making , either by the board themselves with
> monitoring from PI entity inside DPRD , or by and independent  PI entity.
> And I think these criteria will intersect  ,if not matching, the ICANN
> accountability and transparency criteria.
> 2-      Having a mechanism of making sure that in each PDP , there’re all
> voices from all interests by PI liaisons to make sure that any proposed
> policy or issue reaches  the board is already subjective to PI environment
> and criteria.
>
>  Sorry for my long email.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Amal Al-saqqaf
> ICANN fellow
> ISOC-Yemen ALS, APRALO, At-Large
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/amalalsaqqaf>amalalsaqqaf
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/amalalsaqqaf>
> Twitter: @Amal_Alsaqqaf
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 7:19 PM, Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> For those of you who may have missed the session, the recordings and
> scribe can be found here: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cyd/
> exploring-the-public-interest-within-icanns-remit
>
> Best,
> Ergys
>
> From: Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj at icann.org>
> Date: Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 5:05 AM
> To: "publicinterest at icann.org" <publicinterest at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: Public Interest Confirmed as High-Interest Topic Session for
> ICANN57
>
> Dear all,
>
> This is to confirm that the High-Interest Topic session on *Exploring the
> Public Interest Within ICANN’s Remit* will take place tomorrow, Sunday, 6
> November 2016 from 15:15 – 16:45 in Hall 3 (Main).
>
> *Agenda Details*
>
> *15:15 – 15:20*
> *Setting the Scene*, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, EURALO Chair
>
> *15:20 – 15:40*
> *Historical & Political Nuances of the Concept of the Global Public
> Interest: Examples from Europe & India*, Wolf Ludwig, EURALO & Rajesh
> Chharia, ISPAI
>
> *15:40 – 16:10*
> *Reaching a Shared Understanding: The Concept of the Public Interest at
> ICANN and its Application*, Jonathan Robinson, GNSO & Becky Burr, GNSO
>
> *16:10 – 16:20*
> *Explore How Public Interest Could be Operationalized as the Basis for
> Decision-making at ICANN*, Thomas Schneider, GAC
>
> *16:20 –16:40*
> *Open Mic *
>
> *16:40 – 16:45*
> *Next Steps*, Olivier Crepin-Leblond
>
> We welcome everyone’s participation and look forward to a constructive
> discussion.
>
> For more information, please see: https://icann572016.
> sched.org/event/8cyd/exploring-the-public-interest-within-icanns-remit
>
> Best,
> Ergys
>
> From: Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj at icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:25 AM
> To: "publicinterest at icann.org" <publicinterest at icann.org>
> Subject: Public Interest Confirmed as High-Interest Topic Session for
> ICANN57
>
> Dear all,
>
> This is to inform you that Public Interest is now confirmed as one of the
> High-Interest Topic sessions for ICANN57.
>
> Attached is the draft block schedule, which is subject to change as
> sessions are likely to be shuffled further in order to avoid conflicts.
>
> The public interest session will be 90 minutes long, and is *tentatively*
> scheduled to take place on Sunday, 6 November, from 15:15 - 16:45.
>
> Additional information on the session can be found below, with more to
> come in the coming days and weeks.
>
> Best,
> Ergys
> 9. Public Interest Group: At-Large Advisory Committee
> *Session Leader(s):* Sally Costerton
>
> *Background/ Importance:* Understanding the concept of the public
> interest within ICANN’s remit been a topic of discussion for many years. In
> 2013-2014, the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework explored
> this topic and, in consultations with the community, proposed the following
> definition for the global public interest in relation to the Internet:
> "ensuring that the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable,
> inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the
> benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public
> responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance
> ecosystem." While this definition has been well received, there is a desire
> to revisit. A high interest session took place at ICANN55, which helped
> build on previous discussions, but did not lead to concrete recommendations
> for next steps. Following ICANN55, the At-Large Advisory Committee created
> a Working Group to further explore the concept of the public interest. As
> the organization readies for significant changes in its governance
> structure in light of the impending IANA functions stewardship transition,
> it is important to carry the conversation forward.
>
> *Session Goals/Expected Outcomes:*
> 1. Further understand the historical and political nuances of the ‘global
> public interest’ in various contexts and regions
> 2. Reach a shared understanding of what the concept of public interest
> means in the context of ICANN
> 3. Explore how public interest could be operationalized as the basis for
> decision-making at ICANN
> 4. Determine next steps
>
> *Relevant Documentation:*
>
>    - Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework report:
>    http://bit.ly/1zEdR1D
>    - ICANN55 high interest session materials: http://bit.ly/2b3ym1R
>    - Wikispace: http://bit.ly/icannPI
>    - Mailing list: publicinterest at icann.org
>
> *Session Format:* A panel comprised of members of the ICANN community
> will lead and moderate the discussion.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PublicInterest mailing list
> PublicInterest at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/publicinterest
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public-Interest-WG mailing list
> Public-Interest-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/public-interest-wg
>
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/publicinterest/attachments/20161125/66ae3634/attachment-0001.html>