ICANN and the Public interest

[Elsa S]

Excellent, I’ll start a separate list for us four!

Thank you for volunteering folks,

Elsa
—

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:07 AM Peter Micek <petermicek at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>> --
--

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/20191009/9421cade/attachment.htm>