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

Wed Feb 18 20:14:03 UTC 2015

To clarify, the Strategic Plan for Fys 2016-2020 still calls for, at 5.1 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/strategic-plan-2016-2020-10oct14-en.pdf), specifically calls for work within the community on reaching a consensus definition of “public interest”.  Though the strategy panel’s work may serve as an input to that, there is not a hardened definition that ICANN has committed to use.  As the strat plan identifies, a clear and common understanding of what is meant by public interest is essential, and that requires definitional work across the community.

I understand why the response to that question as cited below could lead to different understanding, but I can assure you that the cited definition is not formally adopted by ICANN.  In furtherance of creating a definition, ICANN has included the definitional work in its draft FY2016-2020 Operating Plan that was posted for comment (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-10nov14-en.pdf), which identify the need for broad engagement towards a definition.  That work is expected to begin no later than the beginning of the FY16, though could begin earlier if needed.

Best,

Sam

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 3:05 AM
To: Suzanne Radell <SRadell at ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:202-482-3167>
FX:  202-482-1865<tel:202-482-1865>

________________________________
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM
To: Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B%20216%2041%20649%20605>
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114<tel:%2B%20216%2098%20330%20114>
Fax:       + 216 70 853 376<tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

De : Robin Gross [mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

________________________________
<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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto: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/20150218/894b9304/attachment.html>