[CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Tijani,

As much as I can live with a definition of stakeholders, it does
not follow that it gives stakeholders any stake, per se, but if so
only specific.

Just because, for example, governments are stakeholders, it does not
follow that they can tell anyone what to do, per se.


Stakeholders or better Interested Parties, or Significantly
Interested Parties, are not involved with a CURRENT ccTLD Manager
(due to the retro-activity implied).

We had us 5 years worth of work coming up with the interpretation
that during the selection of a NEW ccTLD Manager (by way of creation
of a new ccTLD, the next one would be .SS probably, or after
revocation) Interested Parties and Significantly Interested Parties
have a role to play

But in the context of Internet Governance, no stakeholder has ANY
input into CURRENT management as long as the current ccTLD Manager
does not substantively misbehave.

This comes from the safety, stability requirement but also from the
requirement to do a competent, honest and equitable job as per
RFC1591.

It's debatable whether this even applies to preexisting ccTLDs, but
as it is easy to not substantively misbehave, it achieved unanimous
consent.

That does not mean that a particular government may or may not act
harshly against a ccTLD Manager, but it does not get into the realm
of Accountability, of Internet Governance.

greetings, el


On 2015-01-12 19:59 , Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> Bruce, Kavouss and all,
> 
>  
> 
> Stakeholders were defined for the first time in the World Summit
> on Information Society (WSIS) as:
> 
> · Governments
> 
> · International Organizations
> 
> · Private Sector
> 
> · Civil Society
> 
> Where Academic and Technical community were included in the civil
> society.  And then, the international organization was dropped and
> Civil society was split in 2 parts: Civil Society and Academic and
> technical community.
> 
>  
> 
> I don’t think this definition is static and believe that
> stakeholders for the WSIS couldn’t be other thing that the 4
> listed components because it was used to make the civil society
> activists participate in the room instead of demonstrating outside
> and having confrontation with the police.
> 
>  
> 
> In a school, we can define 3 stakeholders: teachers, staff and
> students since the interest of each of those components is
> different.  In ICANN, you have civil society in At-Large and the
> non commercial stakeholder group in the GNSO. You may also find
> them in other SO and AC. You may find private sector in the GNSO,
> ccNSO, SSAC, etc.
> 
> Defining the ICANN stakeholders as Civil Society, Governments,
> Private sector and technical and academic community is not
> relevant in my point of view; they are more At-Large, Registries,
> Registrars, business constituency, non commercial stakeholder
> group, GAC, etc….  because those group have each its own
> interest and the multi-stakeholder model is intended to represent
> the interest of the whole community.
> 
>  
> 
> Coming back to the global public interest, it was clearly
> explained in the articles to be the *benefit of the* *public and
> not the private gain of any person (financial, political, etc.).*
> 
> The publicis everyone, and the global public interest is the
> common interest of all this public.
> 
>  
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
[...]