ICANN and the Public interest
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at DNRC.TECH
Thu Oct 10 12:43:35 EEST 2019
Could you add me too, Elsa, tx!
Kathy
On 10/9/2019 3:23 PM, Elsa S wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:mesumbeslin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Milton for the nudge and
>> thanks Rafik for the details.
>>
>> @Elsa S <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> globalpublic 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
--
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191010/a3851cbb/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list