[CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

Tue Jan 13 11:36:47 UTC 2015

Dear Ms. Becky Burr,

as regards your comments on the GAC, I believe it is out of the scope of this working group to express personal opinions on the performance or role of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that make up ICANN. 

When you mention community developed policy, you have to bear in mind that the GAC is already engaging with e.g. the GNSO so that it can at an early stage feed into and be a part of the development of a particular policy. Other initiatives such as the GNSO liaison to the GAC have already been put in place as well. The GAC is permanently improving its engagement with the rest of the community, improving its working methods and enhancing its transparency, for instance making almost all meetings open by default. 

On the other hand, I am not seeing any GAC member critizice the performance of other SO/ACs in this nor in any other mailing list. I believe we are all struggling to fulfil our task here, which is to improve ICANN's accountability towards the whole community of Internet.

In conclusion, I would kindly ask colleagues not to judge or undermine other SO/ACs work, even though sometimes we can disagree, as it is not constructive nor helps go forward, but on the contrary it could blur and is beyond the remit of this working group.

Thank you and best regards

Rafael Perez Galindo

________________________________________
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Burr, Becky [Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
Sent: 13 January 2015 00:14
To: Kavouss Arasteh; Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Cc: directors at omadhina.net; CCWG Accountability
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

Perhaps it would help to be clear about when we are speaking about matters within ICANN’s mission and scope, and when we are not.

When it comes to country code top level domains (ccTLDs), the conclusions of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (the FOIWG Report) speak to a rather limited set of circumstances – revocation and delegation by IANA in response to technical incompetence and substantial misbehavior as defined in RFC 1591.  Those conclusions do not, however, deprive any government of any right it may have under applicable law with respect to the operation of a ccTLD subject to its jurisdiction.  Likewise, those conclusions do not deprive any ccTLD manager of his/her/its rights under applicable law – whether contractual or otherwise.  The FOIWG report is consistent with community consensus that disputes regarding operation of a ccTLD should ordinarily be resolved in-country/territory, consistent with the rule of law, and respecting the rights of both registry operators and significantly interested parties, including the relevant government.  I say “ordinarily” because there are limited exceptions – for example, where DNS stability/security issues arise or where the circumstances under which a ccTLD was delegated (i.e., as Dr. Lisse points out, before RFC 1591) or operates (i.e., under a specific contract) compel a different result.  So, when it comes to the role of the “government” in the context of a ccTLD, a government will ordinarily have all of the authority granted by applicable law to compel an outcome consistent with the rule of law.  This does not strike me as governments having a lower status than other players.  But most of this time this is outside of the scope of the IANA functions, and we should not seek to expand IANA functions beyond the remit of RFC 1591.

Within the scope of ICANN’s remit, I often find the GAC’s role to be less than fully satisfying.  It is an “advisory” body on the one hand, but from time to time GAC Advice has been used to veto community developed policy.  That troubles me, particularly when the Advice is difficult to reconcile with ICANN’s Bylaws.  I think that the cross-community working groups on the IANA transition and on accountability offer us an opportunity to include members of the GAC in the real-time policy development process.  Although I don’t agree with everything Mr. Arasteh says, I certainly welcome his willingness to be an active part of the process.

Becky Burr

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 4:39 AM
To: Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na<mailto:el at lisse.na>>
Cc: "directors at omadhina.net<mailto:directors at omadhina.net>" <directors at omadhina.net<mailto:directors at omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

Dear Dr. Eberhard W.Lisse,
Thank you very much for your reply
First of all, I appologize if I have bothered you referring to you as Eberhard and not your full name as you wished to be so called .
I have noted that  you referred to me as Mr. Kavouss Arasteh and not my first name Kavouss .
Secondly, I have not referred to the outcome of NetMundial as the Declaration was a totally Non Binding and simply a declaration.
It was an evenet and we aprreciate the organizer of that event.
What I referred to was that atleast there was reference to the footing of each entitiy and each constituency of the Global Multistakeholder .
Whther that categorisation ( four main categories ) was or was not wrong that is another issue .
I do not intend to evaluate the performance and actions taken by various governments as this is not a proper forum and I do not have such mandate to do so.
What I am trying to find out is where is the Government's role in this business?
The only area that they are appearing is the GAC .which is simply has an advisory nature where as other players as per any structural arrangements has a decision making role .
If the Internet and ICANN is an inclussive and democratic process why governments are treated with lower status than other players?
On the other hand I have noted that an individual make comments to the process on its own behalf which create some legitimacy inconsistencies as it is not clear whom that person representing.When ICANN referrs to many comments received from those individuals who do not represtiative of many many other individuals and ICANN reacts based on such non representative views .That bothers me
Do you have a solution to propose to remedy these two basic problems?
Regards
Kavouss

2015-01-11 7:00 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na<mailto:el at lisse.na>>:
Dear Mr Arasteh,

it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced, government negotiator at work.

My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular .NA.

For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind with the IANA function operator. In other words, individually, not represented by any organization of any kind.

This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles and the Framework of Interpretation Principles.

It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in violation of international conventions and or human rights they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to security and stability of the Internet. Nothing else.

Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function Manager intervene.

To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest, equitable and reasonable job.

This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called Teranode Contract.

So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for .NA and I, do have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the property aspects here. Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll ever get to that stage.

Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a third party (unilaterally).

This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or more?) of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus.

And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and the root, however flimsy this may be.

As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned, ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter. Of course the government will be a significantly interested party as (many) others.

The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a concern.

Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I am not in doubt here.

As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts individually, so they (may) have given away some rights themselves.

Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP addresses are intriguing.

That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement, whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights, such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional Court calls Informational Self Determination.

Some governments have an worse track records than others, and some governments are more active in taking control over the Internet than others. And sovereignty doesn't trump everything else, by default.

I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in any consensus poll against any anything related thereto.

greetings, el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 10, 2015, at 23:46, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Eberhard
NTIA did say that .
It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet
 It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all.
In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else.
I do not agree with your argument at all
Tks and have a nice week-end
Kavouss

2015-01-10 22:18 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na<mailto:el at lisse.na>>:
Netmundial and its ideas will not receive consensus. Nor will (significant) government involvement.

Never mind that the NTIA has stated that governments will not be in charge.

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 10, 2015, at 16:29, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Bruce,
Thank you very much for your message.
I hope I have not bothered you.
Listen, the term " Community" was used and is being used in the entire ICANN even NTIA used that term
If you read ICG and CWG and CCWG charters and correspondence, hundreds of time refernce is made to that term.
In many ICANN alert, ICANN publication, ICANN announcement the term " Community" has been used.I am surprised that you have not heard till now about that.
In addition, NetMundial which ICANN was one of the supporting and contribulting entity  referred to   those four constituencies of Global Multistakeholder Community  composed  of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics and Governments.
The composition of Executive Committee was 24 memebrs 12 from Governments and 12 from the rest . That is why I referred to it as a defacto agreement.
In WSIS also several refernces were made to these four categories of stakeholder
 I am sorry I can not agree with your definition or description .It may be suitable for these activities that we are doing .
 See NTIA Announcement of 14 March 2014 in which this term is used )
In regard with your description of community , I am soory to disagree with you .Your description may be suitable for activities that we are doing ( ICG, CWG and CCWG ) However, for the overall issue of Global Multistakeholder Community  WE MUST TAKE THAT COMPOSITION USED IN NETMUNDIALand other fora .
Internal organicgram of ICANN does not fuklly cover the issue.
Moreover, there should be a footing criteria and legitimacy .You can not take view of an individual  and view of a " Community" witjh equal footing.It has been many cases in which an individual speaks on behalf of herself or himself thus the representation legitimacy is not observed .
 Regards
Kavouss

2015-01-10 12:21 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>:
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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=>

_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=>

_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=>

_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=>