ICANN and the Public interest

[Peter Micek]

Please loop me in as well, thank you.
Peter

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:25 PM Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <
rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:

> I can! Just loop me in the doc
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:11 PM Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Amr,
>>
>> Thank you so much for stepping up on this. And for raising important
>> points on the list.
>>
>> Given that noone else has written back yet and given the short amount of
>> time we have, I guess the best way forward would be to draft an initial
>> response and then take it from there on the list over two days’ time from
>> the 11th so that the PC would also have time to review the document before
>> submission time. What do you think?
>>
>> I’d be more than happy to help post initial drafting! Anyone else willing
>> to help Amr and I with this?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Elsa
>> —
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:51 AM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I might be able to help draft something, but don’t believe I’ll be able
>>> to begin before Friday, 11 October. My personal views on how ICANN should
>>> tackle the “Global Public Interest” (GPI) are pretty consistent with the
>>> recent text prepared by Farzaneh and Elsa, which was included in a recent letter
>>> from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/drazek-et-al-to-icann-board-09sep19-en.pdf>.
>>> It wouldn’t be too challenging to elaborate on this further.
>>>
>>> However, I should note that in the past, the NCSG has not had a
>>> consensus position on this topic (kind of similar to the recent discussion
>>> on ICANN regulating gTLD domain name registration pricing). GPI hasn’t come
>>> up on this mailing list in a while, so I honestly don’t recall who had
>>> previously engaged in our discussion on this, nor what their rationale was.
>>> Apologies for that. I do, however, know quite well what my views on the
>>> subject are. :-) I just hesitate to present those as NCSG views, as I do
>>> not know that it would be correct for me to do so.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2019, at 5:07 AM, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> The deadline for submission of this comment is the 18th of this month
>>> and according to Rafik noone has volunteered to write an NCSG response yet.
>>> I’d be happy to help support the team of volunteers anyway possible, but
>>> cannot write the comment myself due to a big workload on the council side.
>>> However I would really encourage a small team of us to engage with this
>>> topic urgently.
>>>
>>> Any volunteers willing to work together?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> E.
>>> —
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:39 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
>>> mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for references Elsa. I'll go dig out the archives.
>>>>
>>>> Very best regards
>>>>
>>>> Tomslin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 11:27, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It’s also good to note that these two instances were not the only
>>>>> ones, however I shared them here promptly, for the sake of providing a
>>>>> couple of examples. I’m sure others on the PC would be able to provide more
>>>>> details :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Elsa
>>>>> —
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 9:24 PM Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Tomslin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the question!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually in Kobe, (off the top of my head) we had a meeting with the
>>>>>> board where Global Public Interest was discussed. I’m pretty sure if you
>>>>>> look at the archives of that meeting which I think was recorded, you’d find
>>>>>> several statements by NCSG reps on the issue in conversation with board
>>>>>> members. I remember quite vividly that we mentioned, it’s best not to use
>>>>>> the term loosely, if at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We’ve also raised the issue of the use of “global public interest”
>>>>>> most recently at the GNSO Council level. The board recently sent a letter
>>>>>> to the coyncil about Phase 1 of the EPDP and referred to “Global Public
>>>>>> Interest” in their reasoning for concern within the letter. NCSG pushed for
>>>>>> expressing concern about the use of the term in the letter from the GNSO
>>>>>> Council and our wording was incorporated into the GNSO Council’s reply.
>>>>>> This should definitely be in the archives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apologies that i will not be able to provide links at the moment,
>>>>>> however I thought the question needed to be answered promptly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E.
>>>>>> —
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 8:25 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
>>>>>> mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Milton for the nudge and thanks Rafik for the details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> , you said "*Even though NCSG in the
>>>>>>> past year as far as I’ve seen, has been pushing for not using the word from
>>>>>>> the start,*" do we (NCSG) have any formal statement on this
>>>>>>> recorded somewhere that I can take a look at?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tomslin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 10:05, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the details about public consultation below. I created a google doc
>>>>>>>> so we can start the drafting for a NCSG Comment
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nZJ91SSW55Isl2iBAEASopfYnWcsgsBcXdB5hUUjNdI/edit.
>>>>>>>> you can listen to webinar recordings  here
>>>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/prjxplrpublicint/GPI+Toolkit .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From 18 September – 18 October 2019, a community consultation is
>>>>>>>> taking place on the global public interest framework proposed by
>>>>>>>> the ICANN Board. In reviewing the proposal, the ICANN Board is asking the
>>>>>>>> ICANN community to consider the following questions for input to the ICANN
>>>>>>>> Board:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.  What are your thoughts on the proposed framework approach? Do
>>>>>>>> you have any suggestions for how it could be improved?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2.  What are your thoughts on the proposed approach for decisions
>>>>>>>> in the ICANN ecosystem to be accompanied by a consideration of their impact
>>>>>>>> on the global public interest (as well as an explanation regarding
>>>>>>>> what is meant by the GPI in the specific case)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3.  How do you see this working for the Supporting Organization
>>>>>>>> (SO), Advisory Committee (AC), constituency, group, review team, or
>>>>>>>> cross-community working group (CCWG) to which you are contributing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The global public interest is central to many of ICANN’s primary
>>>>>>>> governance documents, and the ICANN Board hopes to play a role in
>>>>>>>> facilitating a bottom-up, community-driven process to develop a framework
>>>>>>>> as a toolkit for the ICANN community to consider the global public interest.
>>>>>>>> These considerations would not change the process by which decisions are
>>>>>>>> made but could instead serve as tools for the community to reinforce the
>>>>>>>> commitment to the public interest and to demonstrate how specific
>>>>>>>> recommendations, advice, and public comments are in the global
>>>>>>>> public interest. This includes the ICANN community guiding the
>>>>>>>> ICANN Board about the public interest determination the latter
>>>>>>>> must make in its decisions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To learn more about the framework, please read the discussion
>>>>>>>> paper [r20.rs6.net]
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D0014631p6ECz1koeg6ajMSzZrFT7DO05069BKNDJvhNpKDU-2D38mdcxCqJ1EJzj5gscgfkGfGj-2DFGI3o7d-5FcGAxvEYcLuDt-2DuNbFw7pLtAPwsOOBVyljJ-5FnOUkAdXGEq-5Fpqhnx9MAz7aDEHi3hvOaYb3gqWjXDXghZrpf0Ca1iUZzXdnGBbim2ZY09p7WU0m-2DXOMIhpn2CTVR7lR4v-2DDeX-5F4RZFHV0Vx2gnIRwJwkZKqQoiglVM4l6PG-2Df7xB-5FIkXMVwTDMtu5FHvXFhlTLLJIN5Jg-3D-3D-26c-3Dz44JySTIvEGqNJPIjwWImwF59dG21I-2DoxnM1Mz6G5PmaucLg5GaW-5Fg-3D-3D-26ch-3DFcbT1z5bmkz6UEfk6eUJehq3ywPR-5FHTaxr7BzhY6q17TcrAkO831rw-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Zrm2TmioSoHmD-RVsf08eb9s33A4I2k08_uP0LOo_zA&s=Y1oSQaaaH67cndtqhCcGryOkThAU0RpFNJVzZzD0mGc&e=>.
>>>>>>>> Community feedback is welcome by *Friday, 18 October 2019 via
>>>>>>>> email at **gpitoolkit at icann.org <gpitoolkit at icann.org>*. After the
>>>>>>>> community consultation, there will be a public session at ICANN66,
>>>>>>>> followed by a Public Comment proceeding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le mar. 24 sept. 2019 à 08:53, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> a
>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing Milton!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ICANN seems adamant about using the terms on a context to context
>>>>>>>>> basis given the new proposed path forward, also shared in two webinars this
>>>>>>>>> month.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even though NCSG in the past year as far as I’ve seen, has been
>>>>>>>>> pushing for not using the word from the start, it seems we might have to
>>>>>>>>> actively work on mitigating the risk of its use in a more structurally
>>>>>>>>> biased way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I’m keeping an eye out for any developments on the consultation
>>>>>>>>> phase (even though I would have preferred a formal public comment phase
>>>>>>>>> instead), but would also invite that we all have a discussion about the
>>>>>>>>> proposed way forward by ICANN, more meticulously and collectively.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Elsa
>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:59 PM Mueller, Milton L <
>>>>>>>>> milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was reading some scholarly literature about public service
>>>>>>>>>> broadcasting and came across this statement from a GigaNet colleague, Yik
>>>>>>>>>> Chin:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “The Constitution of the PRC indeed speaks the language of the
>>>>>>>>>> Public Interest (PI), and the term regularly appears in legal provisions
>>>>>>>>>> without definition. There have been no juridical interpretations of ‘PI’,
>>>>>>>>>> either. This ambiguity gives discretionary power to the authorities to
>>>>>>>>>> interpret ‘PI’ in ways that invade and deprive individuals of their rights.
>>>>>>>>>> Chin, Y.C 2012.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Food for thought
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> School of Public Policy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Elsa Saade
>>>>>>>>> Consultant
>>>>>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elsa Saade
>>>>>> Consultant
>>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Elsa Saade
>>>>> Consultant
>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> --
>>>
>>> Elsa Saade
>>> Consultant
>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> --
>>
>> Elsa Saade
>> Consultant
>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191009/46e91735/attachment.htm>