[CCWG-ACCT] Global Public Interest discussion

Wed Dec 30 17:21:28 UTC 2015

Dear Milton,

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Thomas:
>
> Thanks for taking the time to respond carefully to the concerns raised on
> the list about the GPI discussion. I found the first part of your response
> quite satisfactory (who you asked and what you wanted to accomplish). Thanks
> for that clarification!
>
>
>
> On the 3rd part, however, (impact on our discussions), I am troubled.
>
>
>
> There is an obvious disconnect between using GPI as a standard and ICANN’s
> mission statement. The recent intervention by Mr. Carvell illustrates this.
> On the one hand we have worked hard to define a very specific and limited
> mission for ICANN; on the other hand once you invoke “the global public
> interest” we create pressure for ICANN to become

>an institution for
> performing a laundry list of good deeds, lifting up the poor and delivering
> social justice to the world in ways that may easily exceed what we currently
> understand as its mission. ICANN as Mother Theresa.

Milton, If you read what you have written above, and read it again,
don't you find an uncharacteristic tinge of cynicism about the concept
of Global Public Interest?

>No, please – I can’t
> think of a better way to blow a gaping hole in any mission limitations.
>
>
>
> The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the CCWG, is
> that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and _only_ its
> mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be accountable to its
> stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s really all we need to say
> about the GPI.

Yes, but who are the stakeholders?  The Domain Industry + seated
constituency representatives + seated GAC representatives ? If you
narrow down ICANN's mission and scope to such a degree, then ICANN
would be functioning in what might be termed as "Stakeholder
Interest". Only that which ICANN does in the interest of the whole
world is what would qualify to termed as "Global Public Interest".
Defining Global Public Interest of ICANN as encompassing the whole
Internet does not imply creation of a task list, but the definition
becomes a point of reference for ICANN to measure its own DNS policies
and actions. The core tasks remain as those pertaining to the
operation of DNS, the peripheral tasks remain as that of maintaining
Security and Stability, but Global Public Interest is to defined as
something that ICANN will always have in its 'view'

If there is any Accountability measure that ICANN would object in the
name of Global Public Interest, it would certainly be appropriate.

Sivasubramanian M

>
>
>
> Once that is accepted, we can debate what exceeds the mission and what
> doesn’t; we can debate what powers are necessary for ICANN to execute its
> mission; and we can debate what mechanisms and processes make ICANN
> appropriately accountable to its stakeholders without interfering with its
> mission. But we must not have a discussion about ICANN and GPI that is
> disconnected from its mission and from its accountability.
>
>
>
> As I have said before, the fact that ICANN can object to accountability
> measures in the name of a GPI does not mean we should be having a discussion
> about the meaning and implications of GPI; GPI is just a label for the
> board’s objection. The real debate is about which accountability measures
> are appropriate and tuned to ICANN’s mission.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
>
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Rickert
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 2:50 PM
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Global Public Interest discussion
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> following our last CCWG call, we had reached out to our advisors to get
> input on the question of Global Public Interest (GPI). Below, you find the
> response we got from Jan Aart Scholte, which we pass on to the list with his
> permission.
>
>
>
> On our list, there has been quite some discussion on the question of GPI and
> also some confusion on
>
>
>
> 1. whom we asked
>
> 2. what we wanted to achieve with the question and
>
> 3. what the impact of the discussion on our work would be, if any.
>
>
>
> With this note, we would like to offer some responses to the above points.
>
>
>
> Ad 1
>
>
>
> Some of you wrote that we should not get the lawyers involved in defining
> the GPI for various reasons. Please note that we have asked the Advisors
> that were picked by the Public Expert Group.
>
>
>
> We have not asked (nor do we intend to) ask our legal advisors, i.e. Holly
> and Rosemary and her teams to deal with this. As a reminder, all requests to
> the lawyers need to be certified and are then added to a public list, which
> can be seen here:
>
>
>
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826
>
>
>
> Requests, their status and the answers are published on that page.
>
>
>
> Ad 2
>
>
>
> With its comments, the ICANN Board has raised GPI concerns with some of our
> recommendations. It should go without saying that the Co-Chairs take these
> concerns seriously. While discussing this input, some of you (I think the
> idea came from Kavouss) suggested to investigate this further.
>
>
>
> Therefore, we have suggested to the CCWG to seek input from our independent
> advisors in addition to the clarifications we have asked form the Board on
> their application of GPI considerations. This request was supported by the
> CCWG. The goal is not to work on a definition of the GPI, but to better
> understand what definitions there are and what the impact on our work could
> be. Jan has kindly responded in line with views that have already been
> expressed by some of you on the list, i.e. that there is no easy answer to
> the question and that there is no universally applicable definition.
>
>
>
> We should therefore be able to put the discussion on this at rest.
>
>
>
> Ad 3
>
>
>
> As said before, our group should continue analyzing comments and refine the
> recommendations where necessary to finalize consensus recommendations. While
> doing so, we should be conscious that the Board will apply the test whether
> or not our recommendations are in the GPI. Ideally, there would be no issues
> with the GPI as I am sure no one in our group intends to be working on
> recommendations that are not in the GPI.
>
>
>
> We therefore recommend we should offer information on the GPI implications
> (or the lack thereof) in our final report. A rationale with respect to GPI
> will ensure that not only the Board, but also NTIA and the whole community
> understands that we are taking GPI concerns seriously. We think that
> offering a GPI related rationale is valuable for transparency reasons and we
> hope that it will help everyone understand that and why our final
> recommendations do not or will not be against the GPI.
>
>
>
> Some of you have stated that our work on GPI will not prevent the Board from
> raising GPI concerns and this is certainly true. However, we are convinced
> that
>
>
>
> - being transparent on our view on GPI as described above and
>
> - inviting the Board to work with us even closer during this final phase and
> encouraging the Board to raise any issues in the process (see our e-mail to
> Steve Crocker)
>
>
>
> will help reduce the risk of GPI concerns being identified by the Board at a
> later stage.
>
>
>
> We hope this help and welcome your input of this recommendation to include a
> « GPI rationale » as part of our recommendations.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Leon Sanchez
>
> Mathieu Weill
>
> Thomas Rickert
>
> ---
>
> rickert.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian M