[Poll] reminder: Topics for discussion: NCSG - ICANN Board meeting Tuesday 9th February

[Sam Lanfranco]

The comments by Avri and Wolfgang do a good job of sketching out the 
perspectives that are being discussed in NCSG with regard to Human 
Rights (HR) and Public Interest (PI). Avri is of course correct that any 
approach to PI needs to be consistent and compliant with HR. At the 
global level there is always an ongoing dialogue around what constitutes 
Human Rights (for example now in the Internet ecosphere) and how they 
apply to organizations –Civil Society Actors and Human Rights Defenders- 
as well as individuals. There is also always a more complicated debate 
around Public Interest since each definition of Public Interest 
allocates private rights in different ways, as is seen in ICANN 
discussions involving PI.

While the constituencies of ICANN engage, within themselves and with 
others, in a global dialogue around HR and PI, both to help understand 
and shape the meanings, there is a more limited task with regard to 
ICANN itself. ICANN is a multistakeholder Civil Society Actor whose 
"short form" mission and vision are the security and stability of the 
DNS. ICANN is neither a Human Rights Defender nor a Public Interest 
advocate.

 From a Civil Society Actor/Human Rights Defender perspective, the 
question is how consistent and compliant is ICANN policy and practice 
with respect to Human Rights standards, and what can be done to 
strengthen ICANN’s position there, possibly as a leader in their 
application within the Internet ecosystem. This can be approached in a 
variety of ways, some of which have been discussed with NCSG.

While one cannot define Public Interest in the absence of Human Rights, 
it is important to remember that beyond how human rights constrain 
definitions of Public Interest, there is no single definition of Public 
Interest. Human Rights principles dictate that Public Interest cannot 
put the interests of one gender, orientation, or race above another, but 
those principles offer limited guidance when it comes to the interests 
of citizens versus refugees, or differential community Internet access.

This is where ICANN’s multistakeholder structure can stand out, engage 
in internal dialogue, draw on Civil Society notions of Public Interest, 
draw on divergent views on how markets and policies serve the Public 
Interest, and on notions of Civic and Corporate Social Responsibility, 
all of which have at their core deep seated notions of social justice 
which themselves are linked to Human Rights. The task is not to step 
back and help definition each of these core terms but to assess ICANN 
policy and practice with respect to inclusive notions of the Public 
Interest. The common goal is to examine and improve ICANN’s policies and 
practices.

Sam Lanfranco, Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150130/76215e16/attachment.htm>