[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Wed Feb 18 19:35:20 UTC 2015

Camino,

I think the suggestion of re-framing the Human Rights issue in a Corporate
Social Responsibility framework is an excellent and pragmatic one.  This is
much more "native" to a corporate entity like ICANN, and there are a lot of
well-developed materials, practices and policies for CSR.  This makes CSR
more "adoptable" in the short run than a human rights platform.  HR may be
broader than CSR, but we could see what issues remain after a CSR framework
for ICANN is identified.

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, <Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu> wrote:

>  I am of the view that different members of the ICANN community
> understand quite differently the relationship "ICANN-HR-Public Interest".
>
> The fact that ICANN is more attentive to human rights considerations does
> not entail an extension of its corporate mandate, but a proper and timely
> assessment  of some of its activities and operations in light of the
> particular circumstances in which a given decision is made, a TLD is
> delegated, a Board resolution is passed, etc.. Some tend to see this more
> as a human rights impact assessment rather than an implementation of the
> human rights International instruments by the book.
>
> Human Rights as such are binding only for state actors, however that does
> not enter into conflict with the fact that a more attentive approach by
> ICANN towards human rights and "ethical business" could help the
> organisation develop a more accountable and transparent way of doing
> business.
>
> To complicate the landscape a bit further, one can factor in "public
> interest" considerations. I believe each nation, each jurisdiction, could
> come up with its own interpretation of what public interest means, but that
> must not enter into conflict with the fact that any definition of public
> interest could be perfectly enhanced by making reference to human rights
> international standards (something we all know about and for which one can
> easily find widely accepted references online/codified). Right now ICANNs
> notion of public interest is insufficiently clear to provide guidance to
> the policy development process and that does not play in favour of any
> stakeholder: it can be abused by parties wanting to place literally
> "everything" under the public interest, and it can be downplayed by parties
> only interested in the economic angle of the DNS.
>
> Accountability requires measurable standards; Human rights could serve to
> delineate the notion of public interest but since the concept of public
> interest is so much broader than that, that the conversation could last ad
> infinitum.
>
> In sum, while some parts of the community continue to discuss whether is
> adequate to include references to human rights in the Bylaws, or draw a
> link between human rights and public interest, which I find a valuable but
> lengthy discussion, there is some low hanging fruit in the ICANN strategy
> panel on Public Responsibility Framework which could easily be turned into
> a proper Corporate Social Responsibility strategy, based on measurable
> indicators. Google does it, Microsoft does it, Yahoo does it….
>
> My question is, why are we still focusing on HR and public interest rather
> than giving a different spin to this heading and renaming to "CSR"? Isn't'
> it easier to deal with CSR concepts and frameworks in a corporate
> environment like ICANN?
>
> Last not least, my purely personal view is that the fact that there is no
> GAC consensus in the realm of HR and ICANN is irrelevant for the community
> and for this group so as to continue discussions around proposals that
> touch upon ICANN and human rights. In fact, the discussions in this group
> could well enlighten or provide useful feedback to those discussions in the
> GAC or in the recently created CCWG-Human Rights in the future. I fail to
> see why the remit of one group one should prevent the work of the other,
> and vice versa.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> (Ms) Camino Manjon-Sierra
> European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
> Unit D1 - International relations
>
> Internet Governance
>
> Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/109) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium
> T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447
>
> E: Camino.Manjon at ec.europa.eu
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg
> Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:05 PM
> *To:* Suzanne Radell
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
>
>
> I am loathe to build a hard linkage between "public interest" and "human
> rights."  I don't think it will benefit consideration of either one.  Each
> of these issues raise complexities in the ICANN context.  There is no clear
> definition of "public interest" in the ICANN context.  There is also no
> clear definition of "human rights" in the ICANN context.  While human
> rights are critically important and no one (well, hardly anyone) is against
> human rights, ICANN is not a human rights organization per se.  Many of the
> things that ICANN does in the "public interest" have nothing to do with
> human rights (positively or negatively).  There may also be human rights
> issues that are not directly related to whether ICANN is acting in the
> "public interest."
>
>
>
> I would instead suggest that work related to ICANN and the "global public
> interest" and ICANN and its relationship to human rights should proceed
> separately.  There is room for significant debate on each of these topics,
> and tying them together will delay or sink both.  That does not mean
> bringing up "human rights" in the discussion of "global public interest" is
> taboo -- far from it.
>
>
>
> This group may find interesting the following excerpts from the Report of
> Public Comments on the ICANN Draft 5-Year Plan (available at
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-five-year-ops-06feb15-en.pdf
> )
>
>
>
> COMMENT: The entire objective is based on the concept of “public interest”
> which has a different meaning in different places (countries and contexts).
> Therefore, agreeing on a definition – that should include clear boundaries
> – of “public interest” should be at the core of the entire objective
>
> ANSWER:  Work was carried out by the Strategy Panel on the Public
> Responsibility Framework in consultation with the community through
> webinars and open sessions at ICANN meetings. We will build on this work
> moving forward and will work on agreeing on definition of “public interest”
> within the ICANN context with the community.
>
>
>
> COMMENT: S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a “steward of the public
> interest” as part of Strategic Objective 5: “Develop and Implement a Global
> Public Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN’s Mission”. The sole metric of
> S.G. 5.1 refers to a “common consensus based definition of public
> interest”. Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it? If
> not, how does ICANN propose to develop one?
>
> ANSWER: The definition was developed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on
> Public Responsibility framework. The Panel defined the global public
> interest of the Internet as ensuring that the Internet “becomes, and
> continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe”.
> Recognizing that this is a broad concept that permeates all of ICANN’s
> work, the Panel determined that for practical and operational reasons
> “public responsibility” work should be streamlined through one department
> tasked with serving the community, broadening it, and facilitating
> participation through specific and measurable tracks. Building on the work
> of the Panel and community requests, the DPRD [Development and Public
> Responsibility Department] is an operational department focused on public
> responsibility work centered on the priorities and focus areas identified
> through the regional engagement strategies and through community engagement
> with the Panel. The DPRD functions in collaboration with regional VPs,
> other ICANN departments, external organizations, and through engagement
> with Governments, ccTLD admins, and GAC members in developing and
> underdeveloped countries who serve as key entry points to these regions so
> that we can assist in strengthening IG structures leading to eventual
> handover to SO/ACs and the wider community.
>
>
>
> In other words, it appears that ICANN will be using as a definition of
> “global public interest” a standard developed by the Strategy Panel on
> Public Responsibility Framework,  one of several panels appointed in 2013
> by ICANN's leadership without community input and whose final report,
> issued about a year ago, seemingly sank without a trace (see
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en
>  ).
>
>
>
> This raises an accountability issue in and of itself.....
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what
> seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative.  The GAC reached agreement
> in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not
> yet arrived at a shared vision.  In the absence of broad,
> community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights
> obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in
> this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human
> rights?    Cheers, Suz
>
>
>
> *Suzanne Murray Radell *
>
>
>
> * Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH:
> 202-482-3167 <202-482-3167> FX:  202-482-1865 <202-482-1865>*
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ
> Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM
> *To:* Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
> Dear Avri,
>
> I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at
> ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps.
> http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>   Hi,
>
> Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any
> definition of Public Interest.  How can something be in the Public Interest
> if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon
> nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined
> as adhering to all applicable international law.
>
> However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest,
> it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand
> equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different
> national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence
> to human rights.
>
> As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and
> needs to do so in the public interest.  It is my understanding that our
> bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding
> of the public interest.  But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not
> infringe upon human rights.
>
> Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience,
> and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through
> the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC,
> there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined
> through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated
> through expert advice on human rights.
>
> So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human
> rights."
>
> avri
>
> I
>
> On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
>   Dear All,
>
> We should avoid to be engaged doing
>
>  something that we know would no tangible
>
>  results.
>
> I do not be infavour of replacing public interest
>
> With anything such as human rights and
>
> freedom Of expression, acknowledging
>
> That the latter two issues are very important
>
> But are quite difficult to limit public interests to
>
> These two issues
>
> Pls be prudent
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
>   I'm a bit confused Tijani.
>
>
>
> First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the
> suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would
> appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally
> not a big fan of the generic  term "public interest", finding that in
> practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that
> is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition
> of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find
> Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for
> including it in the summary document.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>
> wrote:
>
>    Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion.
>
>
>
> The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the
> interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part
> of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of
> ICANN’s accountability, d.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> Executive Director
>
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>
> Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
>
> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
>
> Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <robin at ipjustice.org>]
> *Envoyé :* mardi 17 février 2015 18:40
> *À :* Tijani BEN JEMAA
> *Cc :* 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community'
> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
>
>
> Yes, I made this suggestion.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Adam,
>
>
>
> I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it
> was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and
> internet freedom.
>
>
>
> Tijani
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] De la part de Adam
> Peake
> Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45
> À : Accountability Cross Community
> Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
>
>
> Apologies for the delay sending this summary.  It was sent to the advisors
> last week.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> <~WRD000.jpg> <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant
> parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est
> active.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant
> parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est
> active.
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>  --
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>

-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150218/ea5f04da/attachment.html>