[CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

Mon Jan 12 19:34:59 UTC 2015

Dear Tijani,

The first use of a phrase, e.g., "stakeholder" in the context of 
persistent identifier to resource association over interconnecting 
datagram networks, by some author, e.g., the organizers and participants 
of a meeting, is incidental to the scope of the benefits of persistent 
identifier to resource association over interconnecting datagram networks.

The beneficiaries during the hosttables period included government 
funded research universities, government agencies, and government 
contractors, and, using similar mechanisms, private and public 
institutions, including governments, and the first subscriber-based and 
otherwise unrestricted "public access" providers.

Over time both SRI and its data consumers transitioned from hosttables 
to the DNS, and users of similar mechanisms transitioned to the DNS, and 
the benefit expanded to include support for persistent identifiers in 
scripts other then Latin, e.g., Arabic Script, Han Script, Hangul 
Script, Cyrillic Script, ...

Were we to take the notion of "Stakeholder" from any time prior to the 
addition of support for these scripts to the IANA root zone, users of 
those scripts could be considered "customers" of the Verisign IDN 
testbed, but not "stakeholders" in the community which participates in 
the technical coordination of unique global endpoint identifiers -- the 
"ICANN community". Even today, as a speaker of minority languages, using 
extended Latin Script characters, and Scripts not yet present in the 
IANA root zone, I don't consider my language communities, as communities 
or institutions, at this point in time, to be "Stakeholders".

Ironically, a MENOG mailing dropped into my inbox while reviewing the 
paragraph above -- ICANN has openings for IDN Program Managers -- in 
Istanbul and Singapore -- which are unlikely to be competent to address 
the needs of speakers of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas. 
Clearly we are not yet "Stakeholders".

All this is simply to develop your point that the definition of 
"stakeholder" were to be static the consequences would be unfortunate, 
and on a very large scale.

Finally, as a friendly nuisance (or nuance), the parents, siblings and 
extended family members of students have an interest in the schools 
their school age dependents attend, as do the taxpayers (public schools) 
and donors (private schools), textbook vendors, lower level schools 
(student producers) and higher level general and vocational schools 
(student consumers), as well as the community as a whole.

This little bit simply to say it is more than students, teachers and 
staff that make a school.

Sincerely,

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

On 1/12/15 9:59 AM, 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*
>
> Executive Director
>
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>
> Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
>
> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
>
> Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part 
> de Bruce Tonkin
> Envoyé : samedi 10 janvier 2015 12:22
> À : accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Objet : Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"
>
> Hello Kavouss,
>
> >>  I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone 
> refers to "community"
>
> >>    What is that magic term "community» covers?
>
> >>    Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders?
>
> >>    As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto 
> agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil 
> Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, 
> Governments
>
> I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group 
> considering some definitions around that topic.
>
> For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way:
>
> "ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in 
> the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites,  and 
> attend ICANN meetings.     This group is made up of individuals from 
> GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, 
> ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc.    In my personal 
> view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil 
> Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, 
> Governments.
>
> In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are 
> members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the 
> various groups that comprise the ICANN community.   As an example, I 
> am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part 
> of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large 
> Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large.   ISOC in Australia 
> may send a representative to ICANN meetings.       A business might be 
> a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in 
> turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency,  and that 
> chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative 
> to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community.   I don't have 
> any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations.
>
> Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global 
> public interest".   In general, I personally think of the public in 
> this context as Internet users. However you could also consider 
> public  in this context to be all the people of the world.   Even 
> people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication 
> mechanism are probably affected by it in some way.
>
> The fundamental responsibility of  the Board of ICANN  is to exercise 
> their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best 
> interests of the global public interest, taking account of the 
> interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any 
> individual group or interest.    Its primary feedback mechanism for 
> determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" 
> described above.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150112/6f5ed3d2/attachment.html>