Dear all, following our last CCWG call, we had reached out to our advisors to get input on the question of Global Public Interest (GPI). Below, you find the response we got from Jan Aart Scholte, which we pass on to the list with his permission. On our list, there has been quite some discussion on the question of GPI and also some confusion on 1. whom we asked 2. what we wanted to achieve with the question and 3. what the impact of the discussion on our work would be, if any. With this note, we would like to offer some responses to the above points. Ad 1 Some of you wrote that we should not get the lawyers involved in defining the GPI for various reasons. Please note that we have asked the Advisors that were picked by the Public Expert Group. We have not asked (nor do we intend to) ask our legal advisors, i.e. Holly and Rosemary and her teams to deal with this. As a reminder, all requests to the lawyers need to be certified and are then added to a public list, which can be seen here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826 Requests, their status and the answers are published on that page. Ad 2 With its comments, the ICANN Board has raised GPI concerns with some of our recommendations. It should go without saying that the Co-Chairs take these concerns seriously. While discussing this input, some of you (I think the idea came from Kavouss) suggested to investigate this further. Therefore, we have suggested to the CCWG to seek input from our independent advisors in addition to the clarifications we have asked form the Board on their application of GPI considerations. This request was supported by the CCWG. The goal is not to work on a definition of the GPI, but to better understand what definitions there are and what the impact on our work could be. Jan has kindly responded in line with views that have already been expressed by some of you on the list, i.e. that there is no easy answer to the question and that there is no universally applicable definition. We should therefore be able to put the discussion on this at rest. Ad 3 As said before, our group should continue analyzing comments and refine the recommendations where necessary to finalize consensus recommendations. While doing so, we should be conscious that the Board will apply the test whether or not our recommendations are in the GPI. Ideally, there would be no issues with the GPI as I am sure no one in our group intends to be working on recommendations that are not in the GPI. We therefore recommend we should offer information on the GPI implications (or the lack thereof) in our final report. A rationale with respect to GPI will ensure that not only the Board, but also NTIA and the whole community understands that we are taking GPI concerns seriously. We think that offering a GPI related rationale is valuable for transparency reasons and we hope that it will help everyone understand that and why our final recommendations do not or will not be against the GPI. Some of you have stated that our work on GPI will not prevent the Board from raising GPI concerns and this is certainly true. However, we are convinced that - being transparent on our view on GPI as described above and - inviting the Board to work with us even closer during this final phase and encouraging the Board to raise any issues in the process (see our e-mail to Steve Crocker) will help reduce the risk of GPI concerns being identified by the Board at a later stage. We hope this help and welcome your input of this recommendation to include a « GPI rationale » as part of our recommendations. Kind regards, Leon Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net
Thomas: Thanks for taking the time to respond carefully to the concerns raised on the list about the GPI discussion. I found the first part of your response quite satisfactory (who you asked and what you wanted to accomplish). Thanks for that clarification! On the 3rd part, however, (impact on our discussions), I am troubled. There is an obvious disconnect between using GPI as a standard and ICANN’s mission statement. The recent intervention by Mr. Carvell illustrates this. On the one hand we have worked hard to define a very specific and limited mission for ICANN; on the other hand once you invoke “the global public interest” we create pressure for ICANN to become an institution for performing a laundry list of good deeds, lifting up the poor and delivering social justice to the world in ways that may easily exceed what we currently understand as its mission. ICANN as Mother Theresa. No, please – I can’t think of a better way to blow a gaping hole in any mission limitations. The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the CCWG, is that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and _only_ its mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s really all we need to say about the GPI. Once that is accepted, we can debate what exceeds the mission and what doesn’t; we can debate what powers are necessary for ICANN to execute its mission; and we can debate what mechanisms and processes make ICANN appropriately accountable to its stakeholders without interfering with its mission. But we must not have a discussion about ICANN and GPI that is disconnected from its mission and from its accountability. As I have said before, the fact that ICANN can object to accountability measures in the name of a GPI does not mean we should be having a discussion about the meaning and implications of GPI; GPI is just a label for the board’s objection. The real debate is about which accountability measures are appropriate and tuned to ICANN’s mission. --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 2:50 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Global Public Interest discussion Dear all, following our last CCWG call, we had reached out to our advisors to get input on the question of Global Public Interest (GPI). Below, you find the response we got from Jan Aart Scholte, which we pass on to the list with his permission. On our list, there has been quite some discussion on the question of GPI and also some confusion on 1. whom we asked 2. what we wanted to achieve with the question and 3. what the impact of the discussion on our work would be, if any. With this note, we would like to offer some responses to the above points. Ad 1 Some of you wrote that we should not get the lawyers involved in defining the GPI for various reasons. Please note that we have asked the Advisors that were picked by the Public Expert Group. We have not asked (nor do we intend to) ask our legal advisors, i.e. Holly and Rosemary and her teams to deal with this. As a reminder, all requests to the lawyers need to be certified and are then added to a public list, which can be seen here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826 Requests, their status and the answers are published on that page. Ad 2 With its comments, the ICANN Board has raised GPI concerns with some of our recommendations. It should go without saying that the Co-Chairs take these concerns seriously. While discussing this input, some of you (I think the idea came from Kavouss) suggested to investigate this further. Therefore, we have suggested to the CCWG to seek input from our independent advisors in addition to the clarifications we have asked form the Board on their application of GPI considerations. This request was supported by the CCWG. The goal is not to work on a definition of the GPI, but to better understand what definitions there are and what the impact on our work could be. Jan has kindly responded in line with views that have already been expressed by some of you on the list, i.e. that there is no easy answer to the question and that there is no universally applicable definition. We should therefore be able to put the discussion on this at rest. Ad 3 As said before, our group should continue analyzing comments and refine the recommendations where necessary to finalize consensus recommendations. While doing so, we should be conscious that the Board will apply the test whether or not our recommendations are in the GPI. Ideally, there would be no issues with the GPI as I am sure no one in our group intends to be working on recommendations that are not in the GPI. We therefore recommend we should offer information on the GPI implications (or the lack thereof) in our final report. A rationale with respect to GPI will ensure that not only the Board, but also NTIA and the whole community understands that we are taking GPI concerns seriously. We think that offering a GPI related rationale is valuable for transparency reasons and we hope that it will help everyone understand that and why our final recommendations do not or will not be against the GPI. Some of you have stated that our work on GPI will not prevent the Board from raising GPI concerns and this is certainly true. However, we are convinced that - being transparent on our view on GPI as described above and - inviting the Board to work with us even closer during this final phase and encouraging the Board to raise any issues in the process (see our e-mail to Steve Crocker) will help reduce the risk of GPI concerns being identified by the Board at a later stage. We hope this help and welcome your input of this recommendation to include a « GPI rationale » as part of our recommendations. Kind regards, Leon Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net<http://rickert.net>
The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the CCWG, is that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and _/only/_ its mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s really all we need to say about the GPI.
I would agree. I'd also go further and suggest that this is in the public interest and the qualifier 'global' is entirely otiose. I cannot think that any public authority that is a member of the Governmental Advisory Committee could disagree with the proposition that "(a) it is in the /public interest/ for ICANN to perform its mission, and only its mission, properly. (b) It is also in the /public interest/ for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders." (Otherwise, it would not be part of the GAC, surely)
Let's not forget that a major reason the Board cited "GPI" as an issue is that this is their self-declared yardstick, as set forth in the Board Resolution of 16 October 2014: 1. *If the Board believes it is not in the global public interest to implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (CCWG Recommendation), it must initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. A determination that it is not in the global public interest to implement a CCWG Recommendation requires a 2/3 majority of the Board.* The Board did not choose to invoke GPI because, out of all the concepts in the world, this was the one that most perfectly encapsulated their concerns. The Board chose to invoke GPI because it needed to invoke GPI to foreshadow the process set forth in the Resolution. It was the required tool for the job. It would be too cynical to say that it is otherwise meaningless. GPI is an important (if nebulous) concept. But, if the Resolution had said "*If the Board believes it is not copacetic to implement a recommendation...." *then the Board would have written in its comments that what we proposed was likely not copacetic. Perhaps framing our rationales in terms of GPI is going to help, because it will demonstrate a difference between the CCWG's and the Board's concept of GPI. But at that point, I think it is likely to become entirely formalistic and even start to resemble a playground argument: "You say this ain't GPI -- I'll show you what I call GPI"! In reality, it will come down to discussing the concrete differences between positions -- not a "Quien es mas GPI?" contest. Greg P.S. This concern is separate and apart from my views on discussing and exploring ICANN and GPI in other fora, such as Nora Abusitta's effort. I'm all in favor of that. (Even there, I don't think there will be a Unified Definition of GPI, but rather a significant number of principles -- some interrelated, some dissonant -- which will need to be considered and balanced in any given analysis of GPI. My concern is that there will be efforts to elevate certain "public interests" over others, and resultant counterefforts necessitated by the first efforts, and we'll end up with a kind of circular tug of war (imagine a giant rope spiderweb, with each "team" hanging on to a different radius emanating from the center)). On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the CCWG,
is that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and _/only/_ its mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s really all we need to say about the GPI.
I would agree.
I'd also go further and suggest that this is in the public interest and the qualifier 'global' is entirely otiose.
I cannot think that any public authority that is a member of the Governmental Advisory Committee could disagree with the proposition that
"(a) it is in the /public interest/ for ICANN to perform its mission, and only its mission, properly.
(b) It is also in the /public interest/ for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders."
(Otherwise, it would not be part of the GAC, surely)
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
So we don't need an objective definition of the GPI anymore. We just need an objective defintinion of 2/3 of the ICANN Board. The answer is 42. No, I mean 14. On 30/12/15 17:32, Greg Shatan wrote:
Let's not forget that a major reason the Board cited "GPI" as an issue is that this is their self-declared yardstick, as set forth in the Board Resolution of 16 October 2014:
1. /If the Board believes it is not in the*global public interest* to implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (CCWG Recommendation), it must initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. A determination that it is not in the*global public interest *to implement a CCWG Recommendation requires a 2/3 majority of the Board./
/ / The Board did not choose to invoke GPI because, out of all the concepts in the world, this was the one that most perfectly encapsulated their concerns. The Board chose to invoke GPI because it needed to invoke GPI to foreshadow the process set forth in the Resolution. It was the required tool for the job.
It would be too cynical to say that it is otherwise meaningless. GPI is an important (if nebulous) concept. But, if the Resolution had said "/If the Board believes it is not copacetic to implement a recommendation...." /then the Board would have written in its comments that what we proposed was likely not copacetic.
Perhaps framing our rationales in terms of GPI is going to help, because it will demonstrate a difference between the CCWG's and the Board's concept of GPI. But at that point, I think it is likely to become entirely formalistic and even start to resemble a playground argument: "You say this ain't GPI -- I'll show you what I call GPI"! In reality, it will come down to discussing the concrete differences between positions -- not a "Quien es mas GPI?" contest.
Greg
P.S. This concern is separate and apart from my views on discussing and exploring ICANN and GPI in other fora, such as Nora Abusitta's effort. I'm all in favor of that. (Even there, I don't think there will be a Unified Definition of GPI, but rather a significant number of principles -- some interrelated, some dissonant -- which will need to be considered and balanced in any given analysis of GPI. My concern is that there will be efforts to elevate certain "public interests" over others, and resultant counterefforts necessitated by the first efforts, and we'll end up with a kind of circular tug of war (imagine a giant rope spiderweb, with each "team" hanging on to a different radius emanating from the center)).
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the CCWG, is that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and _/only/_ its mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s really all we need to say about the GPI.
I would agree.
I'd also go further and suggest that this is in the public interest and the qualifier 'global' is entirely otiose.
I cannot think that any public authority that is a member of the Governmental Advisory Committee could disagree with the proposition that
"(a) it is in the /public interest/ for ICANN to perform its mission, and only its mission, properly.
(b) It is also in the /public interest/ for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders."
(Otherwise, it would not be part of the GAC, surely)
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
"(a) it is in the /public interest/ for ICANN to perform its mission, and only its mission, properly. (b) It is also in the /public interest/ for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders." I agree also. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Dear Milton, On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Thomas:
Thanks for taking the time to respond carefully to the concerns raised on the list about the GPI discussion. I found the first part of your response quite satisfactory (who you asked and what you wanted to accomplish). Thanks for that clarification!
On the 3rd part, however, (impact on our discussions), I am troubled.
There is an obvious disconnect between using GPI as a standard and ICANN’s mission statement. The recent intervention by Mr. Carvell illustrates this. On the one hand we have worked hard to define a very specific and limited mission for ICANN; on the other hand once you invoke “the global public interest” we create pressure for ICANN to become
an institution for performing a laundry list of good deeds, lifting up the poor and delivering social justice to the world in ways that may easily exceed what we currently understand as its mission. ICANN as Mother Theresa.
Milton, If you read what you have written above, and read it again, don't you find an uncharacteristic tinge of cynicism about the concept of Global Public Interest?
No, please – I can’t think of a better way to blow a gaping hole in any mission limitations.
The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the CCWG, is that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and _only_ its mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s really all we need to say about the GPI.
Yes, but who are the stakeholders? The Domain Industry + seated constituency representatives + seated GAC representatives ? If you narrow down ICANN's mission and scope to such a degree, then ICANN would be functioning in what might be termed as "Stakeholder Interest". Only that which ICANN does in the interest of the whole world is what would qualify to termed as "Global Public Interest". Defining Global Public Interest of ICANN as encompassing the whole Internet does not imply creation of a task list, but the definition becomes a point of reference for ICANN to measure its own DNS policies and actions. The core tasks remain as those pertaining to the operation of DNS, the peripheral tasks remain as that of maintaining Security and Stability, but Global Public Interest is to defined as something that ICANN will always have in its 'view' If there is any Accountability measure that ICANN would object in the name of Global Public Interest, it would certainly be appropriate. Sivasubramanian M
Once that is accepted, we can debate what exceeds the mission and what doesn’t; we can debate what powers are necessary for ICANN to execute its mission; and we can debate what mechanisms and processes make ICANN appropriately accountable to its stakeholders without interfering with its mission. But we must not have a discussion about ICANN and GPI that is disconnected from its mission and from its accountability.
As I have said before, the fact that ICANN can object to accountability measures in the name of a GPI does not mean we should be having a discussion about the meaning and implications of GPI; GPI is just a label for the board’s objection. The real debate is about which accountability measures are appropriate and tuned to ICANN’s mission.
--MM
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 2:50 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Global Public Interest discussion
Dear all,
following our last CCWG call, we had reached out to our advisors to get input on the question of Global Public Interest (GPI). Below, you find the response we got from Jan Aart Scholte, which we pass on to the list with his permission.
On our list, there has been quite some discussion on the question of GPI and also some confusion on
1. whom we asked
2. what we wanted to achieve with the question and
3. what the impact of the discussion on our work would be, if any.
With this note, we would like to offer some responses to the above points.
Ad 1
Some of you wrote that we should not get the lawyers involved in defining the GPI for various reasons. Please note that we have asked the Advisors that were picked by the Public Expert Group.
We have not asked (nor do we intend to) ask our legal advisors, i.e. Holly and Rosemary and her teams to deal with this. As a reminder, all requests to the lawyers need to be certified and are then added to a public list, which can be seen here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826
Requests, their status and the answers are published on that page.
Ad 2
With its comments, the ICANN Board has raised GPI concerns with some of our recommendations. It should go without saying that the Co-Chairs take these concerns seriously. While discussing this input, some of you (I think the idea came from Kavouss) suggested to investigate this further.
Therefore, we have suggested to the CCWG to seek input from our independent advisors in addition to the clarifications we have asked form the Board on their application of GPI considerations. This request was supported by the CCWG. The goal is not to work on a definition of the GPI, but to better understand what definitions there are and what the impact on our work could be. Jan has kindly responded in line with views that have already been expressed by some of you on the list, i.e. that there is no easy answer to the question and that there is no universally applicable definition.
We should therefore be able to put the discussion on this at rest.
Ad 3
As said before, our group should continue analyzing comments and refine the recommendations where necessary to finalize consensus recommendations. While doing so, we should be conscious that the Board will apply the test whether or not our recommendations are in the GPI. Ideally, there would be no issues with the GPI as I am sure no one in our group intends to be working on recommendations that are not in the GPI.
We therefore recommend we should offer information on the GPI implications (or the lack thereof) in our final report. A rationale with respect to GPI will ensure that not only the Board, but also NTIA and the whole community understands that we are taking GPI concerns seriously. We think that offering a GPI related rationale is valuable for transparency reasons and we hope that it will help everyone understand that and why our final recommendations do not or will not be against the GPI.
Some of you have stated that our work on GPI will not prevent the Board from raising GPI concerns and this is certainly true. However, we are convinced that
- being transparent on our view on GPI as described above and
- inviting the Board to work with us even closer during this final phase and encouraging the Board to raise any issues in the process (see our e-mail to Steve Crocker)
will help reduce the risk of GPI concerns being identified by the Board at a later stage.
We hope this help and welcome your input of this recommendation to include a « GPI rationale » as part of our recommendations.
Kind regards,
Leon Sanchez
Mathieu Weill
Thomas Rickert
---
rickert.net
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sivasubramanian M
-----Original Message----- Milton, If you read what you have written above, and read it again, don't you find an uncharacteristic tinge of cynicism about the concept of Global Public Interest?
Siva, I have been studying various manifestations of "public interest" regulation for 30 years now. That is enough to make anyone have more than a tinge of cynicism when the term is dragged context-free and law-free into a discussion where people (like you) who are unfamiliar with the history, uses and abuses of the concept are distracted by it. I think Greg Shatan hit the nail on the head: "[if] the board Resolution had said "If the Board believes it is not copacetic to implement a recommendation...." then the Board would have written in its comments that what we proposed was likely not copacetic." So let's not get distracted by the term or the aura or the verbal connotations of the term "global public interest" or "public interest." Let's focus on ICANN's mission, the appropriate limitations on it, and the way to make sure ICANN is accountable for its proper execution of the mission. --MM
No, please – I can’t think of a better way to blow a gaping hole in any mission limitations.
The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the CCWG, is that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and _only_ its mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s really all we need to say about the GPI.
Yes, but who are the stakeholders? The Domain Industry + seated constituency representatives + seated GAC representatives ? If you narrow down ICANN's mission and scope to such a degree, then ICANN would be functioning in what might be termed as "Stakeholder Interest". Only that which ICANN does in the interest of the whole world is what would qualify to termed as "Global Public Interest". Defining Global Public Interest of ICANN as encompassing the whole Internet does not imply creation of a task list, but the definition becomes a point of reference for ICANN to measure its own DNS policies and actions. The core tasks remain as those pertaining to the operation of DNS, the peripheral tasks remain as that of maintaining Security and Stability, but Global Public Interest is to defined as something that ICANN will always have in its 'view'
If there is any Accountability measure that ICANN would object in the name of Global Public Interest, it would certainly be appropriate.
Sivasubramanian M
Once that is accepted, we can debate what exceeds the mission and what doesn’t; we can debate what powers are necessary for ICANN to execute its mission; and we can debate what mechanisms and processes make ICANN appropriately accountable to its stakeholders without interfering with its mission. But we must not have a discussion about ICANN and GPI that is disconnected from its mission and from its
accountability.
As I have said before, the fact that ICANN can object to accountability measures in the name of a GPI does not mean we should be having a discussion about the meaning and implications of GPI; GPI is just a label for the board’s objection. The real debate is about which accountability measures are appropriate and tuned to ICANN’s
mission.
--MM
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 2:50 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Global Public Interest discussion
Dear all,
following our last CCWG call, we had reached out to our advisors to get input on the question of Global Public Interest (GPI). Below, you find the response we got from Jan Aart Scholte, which we pass on to the list with his permission.
On our list, there has been quite some discussion on the question of GPI and also some confusion on
1. whom we asked
2. what we wanted to achieve with the question and
3. what the impact of the discussion on our work would be, if any.
With this note, we would like to offer some responses to the above points.
Ad 1
Some of you wrote that we should not get the lawyers involved in defining the GPI for various reasons. Please note that we have asked the Advisors that were picked by the Public Expert Group.
We have not asked (nor do we intend to) ask our legal advisors, i.e. Holly and Rosemary and her teams to deal with this. As a reminder, all requests to the lawyers need to be certified and are then added to a public list, which can be seen here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826
Requests, their status and the answers are published on that page.
Ad 2
With its comments, the ICANN Board has raised GPI concerns with some of our recommendations. It should go without saying that the Co-Chairs take these concerns seriously. While discussing this input, some of you (I think the idea came from Kavouss) suggested to investigate this
further.
Therefore, we have suggested to the CCWG to seek input from our independent advisors in addition to the clarifications we have asked form the Board on their application of GPI considerations. This request was supported by the CCWG. The goal is not to work on a definition of the GPI, but to better understand what definitions there are and what the impact on our work could be. Jan has kindly responded in line with views that have already been expressed by some of you on the list, i.e. that there is no easy answer to the question and that there is no
universally applicable definition.
We should therefore be able to put the discussion on this at rest.
Ad 3
As said before, our group should continue analyzing comments and refine the recommendations where necessary to finalize consensus recommendations. While doing so, we should be conscious that the Board will apply the test whether or not our recommendations are in the GPI. Ideally, there would be no issues with the GPI as I am sure no one in our group intends to be working on recommendations that are not in the
GPI.
We therefore recommend we should offer information on the GPI implications (or the lack thereof) in our final report. A rationale with respect to GPI will ensure that not only the Board, but also NTIA and the whole community understands that we are taking GPI concerns seriously. We think that offering a GPI related rationale is valuable for transparency reasons and we hope that it will help everyone understand that and why our final recommendations do not or will not be
against the GPI.
Some of you have stated that our work on GPI will not prevent the Board from raising GPI concerns and this is certainly true. However, we are convinced that
- being transparent on our view on GPI as described above and
- inviting the Board to work with us even closer during this final phase and encouraging the Board to raise any issues in the process (see our e-mail to Steve Crocker)
will help reduce the risk of GPI concerns being identified by the Board at a later stage.
We hope this help and welcome your input of this recommendation to include a « GPI rationale » as part of our recommendations.
Kind regards,
Leon Sanchez
Mathieu Weill
Thomas Rickert
---
rickert.net
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sivasubramanian M
Dear Milton, On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- Milton, If you read what you have written above, and read it again, don't you find an uncharacteristic tinge of cynicism about the concept of Global Public Interest?
Siva, I have been studying various manifestations of "public interest" regulation for 30 years now. That is enough to make anyone have more than a tinge of cynicism when the term is dragged context-free and law-free into a discussion where people (like you) who are unfamiliar with the history, uses and abuses of the concept are distracted by it.
Thank You Milton. I agree. I am really not familiar with the history, uses and abuses of the concept. Though aware that the term could be abused, I believe that there would be a vacuum in ICANN's mission if we are to shy away from the notion of "Global Public Interest" (with a good definition of what it implies in the context of ICANN's mission). The existing Accountability framework together with further changes would sufficiently keep abuses under check.
I think Greg Shatan hit the nail on the head:
"[if] the board Resolution had said "If the Board believes it is not copacetic to implement a recommendation...." then the Board would have written in its comments that what we proposed was likely not copacetic."
I copy below a few more remarks from Greg Shetan's message with my comments: this is their self-declared yardstick
That could change to a more broadly defined and declared yardstick, with positive attention to the concept and its definition by the community. GPI is an important (if nebulous) concept. A very important concept without which the Global ICANN is reduced to a narrow corporation, what is needed is to pay attention to the aspects that are nebulous and attain clarity. Perhaps framing our rationales in terms of GPI is going to help, because it
will demonstrate a difference between the CCWG's and the Board's concept of GPI.
Yes, the key is to minimise the difference between CCWG's and the Board's concept of Global Public Interest.
So let's not get distracted by the term or the aura or the verbal connotations of the term "global public interest" or "public interest." Let's focus on ICANN's mission, the appropriate limitations on it, and the way to make sure ICANN is accountable for its proper execution of the mission.
Milton, I totally disagree.
--MM
No, please – I can’t think of a better way to blow a gaping hole in any mission limitations.
The benchmark for the GPI, insofar as it is relevant at all in the CCWG, is that it is in the GPI for ICANN to perform its mission, and _only_ its mission, properly. It is also in the GPI for ICANN to be accountable to its stakeholders. Can we agree on that? IMHO, that’s really all we need to say about the GPI.
Yes, but who are the stakeholders? The Domain Industry + seated constituency representatives + seated GAC representatives ? If you narrow down ICANN's mission and scope to such a degree, then ICANN would be functioning in what might be termed as "Stakeholder Interest". Only that which ICANN does in the interest of the whole world is what would
qualify to
termed as "Global Public Interest". Defining Global Public Interest of ICANN as encompassing the whole Internet does not imply creation of a task list, but the definition becomes a point of reference for ICANN to measure its own DNS policies and actions. The core tasks remain as those pertaining to the operation of DNS, the peripheral tasks remain as that of maintaining Security and Stability, but Global Public Interest is to defined as something that ICANN will always have in its 'view'
If there is any Accountability measure that ICANN would object in the name of Global Public Interest, it would certainly be appropriate.
Sivasubramanian M
Once that is accepted, we can debate what exceeds the mission and what doesn’t; we can debate what powers are necessary for ICANN to execute its mission; and we can debate what mechanisms and processes make ICANN appropriately accountable to its stakeholders without interfering with its mission. But we must not have a discussion about ICANN and GPI that is disconnected from its mission and from its
accountability.
As I have said before, the fact that ICANN can object to accountability measures in the name of a GPI does not mean we should be having a discussion about the meaning and implications of GPI; GPI is just a label for the board’s objection. The real debate is about which accountability measures are appropriate and tuned to ICANN’s
mission.
--MM
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 2:50 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Global Public Interest discussion
Dear all,
following our last CCWG call, we had reached out to our advisors to get input on the question of Global Public Interest (GPI). Below, you find the response we got from Jan Aart Scholte, which we pass on to the list with his permission.
On our list, there has been quite some discussion on the question of GPI and also some confusion on
1. whom we asked
2. what we wanted to achieve with the question and
3. what the impact of the discussion on our work would be, if any.
With this note, we would like to offer some responses to the above
points.
Ad 1
Some of you wrote that we should not get the lawyers involved in defining the GPI for various reasons. Please note that we have asked the Advisors that were picked by the Public Expert Group.
We have not asked (nor do we intend to) ask our legal advisors, i.e. Holly and Rosemary and her teams to deal with this. As a reminder, all requests to the lawyers need to be certified and are then added to a public list, which can be seen here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826
Requests, their status and the answers are published on that page.
Ad 2
With its comments, the ICANN Board has raised GPI concerns with some of our recommendations. It should go without saying that the Co-Chairs take these concerns seriously. While discussing this input, some of you (I think the idea came from Kavouss) suggested to investigate this
further.
Therefore, we have suggested to the CCWG to seek input from our independent advisors in addition to the clarifications we have asked form the Board on their application of GPI considerations. This request was supported by the CCWG. The goal is not to work on a definition of the GPI, but to better understand what definitions there are and what the impact on our work could be. Jan has kindly responded in line with views that have already been expressed by some of you on the list, i.e. that there is no easy answer to the question and that
there is no universally applicable definition.
We should therefore be able to put the discussion on this at rest.
Ad 3
As said before, our group should continue analyzing comments and refine the recommendations where necessary to finalize consensus recommendations. While doing so, we should be conscious that the Board will apply the test whether or not our recommendations are in the GPI. Ideally, there would be no issues with the GPI as I am sure no one in our group intends to be working on recommendations that are not in the
GPI.
We therefore recommend we should offer information on the GPI implications (or the lack thereof) in our final report. A rationale with respect to GPI will ensure that not only the Board, but also NTIA and the whole community understands that we are taking GPI concerns seriously. We think that offering a GPI related rationale is valuable for transparency reasons and we hope that it will help everyone understand that and why our final recommendations do not or will not be
against the GPI.
Some of you have stated that our work on GPI will not prevent the Board from raising GPI concerns and this is certainly true. However, we are convinced that
- being transparent on our view on GPI as described above and
- inviting the Board to work with us even closer during this final phase and encouraging the Board to raise any issues in the process (see our e-mail to Steve Crocker)
will help reduce the risk of GPI concerns being identified by the Board at a later stage.
We hope this help and welcome your input of this recommendation to include a « GPI rationale » as part of our recommendations.
Kind regards,
Leon Sanchez
Mathieu Weill
Thomas Rickert
---
rickert.net
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sivasubramanian M
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
participants (6)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Greg Shatan -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Sivasubramanian M -
Thomas Rickert