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

[Carrie Devorah]

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
Sincerely
Carrie Devorah

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mr R.T. Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thinking out loud.
> So is there any mileage in having an icann A & icann B.
> "A" board = public interest & contract co.
> "B" board private non profit implementing Board A 's ..policy
> frameworks....etc...etc..
> Board B answerable to board A?
> RD
>
> Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>
>> Carlos:
>>
>> Nobody's reducing anything.
>>
>> First off, the First Amendment is really irrelevant to this discussion,
>> as wonderful as it is.  It prevents *the federal government from making
>> laws* 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
Sincerely
CARRIE Devorah
 562 688 2883



DISCLAIMER :
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150219/383e70e9/attachment.html>