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

Thu Feb 19 18:49:38 UTC 2015

And in such a case we would have another US-based enforcement method for a US-based non-for profit.
I'm not questions the effectiveness of the FCC and FTC in doing their good work, but the fact that we are meant to look into global solutions/internationally based solutions.
Your suggestion certainly complies with the fact that ICANN needs to abide by local laws, but also certainly deviates from the ever-present "The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions […]"
I see you are not comfortable with UN-based solutions (I'm far from proposing we move IG issues to the UN, just in case) but I thought the exercise was to think global.
Camino

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Carrie Devorah
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:41 PM
To: Mr R.T. Daniel
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20150219/49f39ee2/attachment.html>