ICANN and the Public interest

Mon Sep 23 21:38:50 EEST 2019

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 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 <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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190923/c93b6634/attachment.htm>