On 10 January 2015 at 09:07, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

It is worth noting that the quartet of "Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments" doesn't map exactly to the multistakeholder groups in ICANN.

​That's because those distinctions are less important to ICANN than the more domain-industry-friendly silos of 1) Domain producers (half of the GNSO) 2) Domain consumers (the other half of the GNSO) 3) Everyone else -- the technical, governmental and non-domain-buyer user communities (advisory councils) It's ICANN with the idiosyncratic segmentation, not the rest of the world. ​ Granted, the above broad groupings also have plenty of their own internal diversities and there is some cross-pollination (as exists in the quartet). But ICANN's silos have has suited the power brokers well. ​- Evan​

Dear Eberhard NTIA did say that . It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all. In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else. I do not agree with your argument at all Tks and have a nice week-end Kavouss 2015-01-10 22:18 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:

Netmundial and its ideas will not receive consensus. Nor will (significant) government involvement.

Never mind that the NTIA has stated that governments will not be in charge.

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 10, 2015, at 16:29, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruce, Thank you very much for your message. I hope I have not bothered you. Listen, the term " Community" was used and is being used in the entire ICANN even NTIA used that term If you read ICG and CWG and CCWG charters and correspondence, hundreds of time refernce is made to that term. In many ICANN alert, ICANN publication, ICANN announcement the term " Community" has been used.I am surprised that you have not heard till now about that. In addition, NetMundial which ICANN was one of the supporting and contribulting entity referred to those four constituencies of Global Multistakeholder Community composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics and Governments. The composition of Executive Committee was 24 memebrs 12 from Governments and 12 from the rest . That is why I referred to it as a defacto agreement. In WSIS also several refernces were made to these four categories of stakeholder I am sorry I can not agree with your definition or description .It may be suitable for these activities that we are doing . See NTIA Announcement of 14 March 2014 in which this term is used ) In regard with your description of community , I am soory to disagree with you .Your description may be suitable for activities that we are doing ( ICG, CWG and CCWG ) However, for the overall issue of Global Multistakeholder Community WE MUST TAKE THAT COMPOSITION USED IN NETMUNDIALand other fora . Internal organicgram of ICANN does not fuklly cover the issue. Moreover, there should be a footing criteria and legitimacy .You can not take view of an individual and view of a " Community" witjh equal footing.It has been many cases in which an individual speaks on behalf of herself or himself thus the representation legitimacy is not observed . Regards Kavouss

2015-01-10 12:21 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:

...

Hello Kavouss,

...

...

I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to "community"

...

...

What is that magic term "community» covers?

...

...

Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders?

...

...

As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto

agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments

I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic.

For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way:

"ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments.

In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations.

Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way.

The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Dr. Eberhard W.Lisse, Thank you very much for your reply First of all, I appologize if I have bothered you referring to you as Eberhard and not your full name as you wished to be so called . I have noted that you referred to me as Mr. Kavouss Arasteh and not my first name Kavouss . Secondly, I have not referred to the outcome of NetMundial as the Declaration was a totally Non Binding and simply a declaration. It was an evenet and we aprreciate the organizer of that event. What I referred to was that atleast there was reference to the footing of each entitiy and each constituency of the Global Multistakeholder . Whther that categorisation ( four main categories ) was or was not wrong that is another issue . I do not intend to evaluate the performance and actions taken by various governments as this is not a proper forum and I do not have such mandate to do so. What I am trying to find out is where is the Government's role in this business? The only area that they are appearing is the GAC .which is simply has an advisory nature where as other players as per any structural arrangements has a decision making role . If the Internet and ICANN is an inclussive and democratic process why governments are treated with lower status than other players? On the other hand I have noted that an individual make comments to the process on its own behalf which create some legitimacy inconsistencies as it is not clear whom that person representing.When ICANN referrs to many comments received from those individuals who do not represtiative of many many other individuals and ICANN reacts based on such non representative views .That bothers me Do you have a solution to propose to remedy these two basic problems? Regards Kavouss 2015-01-11 7:00 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:

Dear Mr Arasteh,

it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced, government negotiator at work.

My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular .NA.

For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind with the IANA function operator. In other words, individually, not represented by any organization of any kind.

This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles and the Framework of Interpretation Principles.

It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in violation of international conventions and or human rights they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to security and stability of the Internet. Nothing else.

Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function Manager intervene.

To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest, equitable and reasonable job.

This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called Teranode Contract.

So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for .NA and I, do have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the property aspects here. Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll ever get to that stage.

Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a third party (unilaterally).

This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or more?) of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus.

And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and the root, however flimsy this may be.

As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned, ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter. Of course the government will be a significantly interested party as (many) others.

The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a concern.

Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I am not in doubt here.

As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts individually, so they (may) have given away some rights themselves.

Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP addresses are intriguing.

That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement, whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights, such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional Court calls Informational Self Determination.

Some governments have an worse track records than others, and some governments are more active in taking control over the Internet than others. And sovereignty doesn't trump everything else, by default.

I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in any consensus poll against any anything related thereto.

greetings, el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 10, 2015, at 23:46, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Eberhard NTIA did say that . It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all. In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else. I do not agree with your argument at all Tks and have a nice week-end Kavouss

2015-01-10 22:18 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:

...

Netmundial and its ideas will not receive consensus. Nor will (significant) government involvement.

Never mind that the NTIA has stated that governments will not be in charge.

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 10, 2015, at 16:29, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruce, Thank you very much for your message. I hope I have not bothered you. Listen, the term " Community" was used and is being used in the entire ICANN even NTIA used that term If you read ICG and CWG and CCWG charters and correspondence, hundreds of time refernce is made to that term. In many ICANN alert, ICANN publication, ICANN announcement the term " Community" has been used.I am surprised that you have not heard till now about that. In addition, NetMundial which ICANN was one of the supporting and contribulting entity referred to those four constituencies of Global Multistakeholder Community composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics and Governments. The composition of Executive Committee was 24 memebrs 12 from Governments and 12 from the rest . That is why I referred to it as a defacto agreement. In WSIS also several refernces were made to these four categories of stakeholder I am sorry I can not agree with your definition or description .It may be suitable for these activities that we are doing . See NTIA Announcement of 14 March 2014 in which this term is used ) In regard with your description of community , I am soory to disagree with you .Your description may be suitable for activities that we are doing ( ICG, CWG and CCWG ) However, for the overall issue of Global Multistakeholder Community WE MUST TAKE THAT COMPOSITION USED IN NETMUNDIALand other fora . Internal organicgram of ICANN does not fuklly cover the issue. Moreover, there should be a footing criteria and legitimacy .You can not take view of an individual and view of a " Community" witjh equal footing.It has been many cases in which an individual speaks on behalf of herself or himself thus the representation legitimacy is not observed . Regards Kavouss

2015-01-10 12:21 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> :

...

Hello Kavouss,

...

...

I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to "community"

...

...

What is that magic term "community» covers?

...

...

Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders?

...

...

As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto

agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments

I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic.

For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way:

"ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments.

In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations.

Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way.

The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

On 11-Jan-15 11:58, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

Dear Mr Arasteh.

I have also not referred to the outcome of NetMundial. So I am quite pleased that we have reached consensus to formally object to its existence and any related output.

Not sure where this 'consensus' comes from. I think the Netmundial outcome, not the current initiative, may indeed be worth considering for the recommendations it makes about accountability. avri

Perhaps it would help to be clear about when we are speaking about matters within ICANN’s mission and scope, and when we are not. When it comes to country code top level domains (ccTLDs), the conclusions of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (the FOIWG Report) speak to a rather limited set of circumstances – revocation and delegation by IANA in response to technical incompetence and substantial misbehavior as defined in RFC 1591. Those conclusions do not, however, deprive any government of any right it may have under applicable law with respect to the operation of a ccTLD subject to its jurisdiction. Likewise, those conclusions do not deprive any ccTLD manager of his/her/its rights under applicable law – whether contractual or otherwise. The FOIWG report is consistent with community consensus that disputes regarding operation of a ccTLD should ordinarily be resolved in-country/territory, consistent with the rule of law, and respecting the rights of both registry operators and significantly interested parties, including the relevant government. I say “ordinarily” because there are limited exceptions – for example, where DNS stability/security issues arise or where the circumstances under which a ccTLD was delegated (i.e., as Dr. Lisse points out, before RFC 1591) or operates (i.e., under a specific contract) compel a different result. So, when it comes to the role of the “government” in the context of a ccTLD, a government will ordinarily have all of the authority granted by applicable law to compel an outcome consistent with the rule of law. This does not strike me as governments having a lower status than other players. But most of this time this is outside of the scope of the IANA functions, and we should not seek to expand IANA functions beyond the remit of RFC 1591. Within the scope of ICANN’s remit, I often find the GAC’s role to be less than fully satisfying. It is an “advisory” body on the one hand, but from time to time GAC Advice has been used to veto community developed policy. That troubles me, particularly when the Advice is difficult to reconcile with ICANN’s Bylaws. I think that the cross-community working groups on the IANA transition and on accountability offer us an opportunity to include members of the GAC in the real-time policy development process. Although I don’t agree with everything Mr. Arasteh says, I certainly welcome his willingness to be an active part of the process. Becky Burr J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 4:39 AM To: Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Cc: "directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community" Dear Dr. Eberhard W.Lisse, Thank you very much for your reply First of all, I appologize if I have bothered you referring to you as Eberhard and not your full name as you wished to be so called . I have noted that you referred to me as Mr. Kavouss Arasteh and not my first name Kavouss . Secondly, I have not referred to the outcome of NetMundial as the Declaration was a totally Non Binding and simply a declaration. It was an evenet and we aprreciate the organizer of that event. What I referred to was that atleast there was reference to the footing of each entitiy and each constituency of the Global Multistakeholder . Whther that categorisation ( four main categories ) was or was not wrong that is another issue . I do not intend to evaluate the performance and actions taken by various governments as this is not a proper forum and I do not have such mandate to do so. What I am trying to find out is where is the Government's role in this business? The only area that they are appearing is the GAC .which is simply has an advisory nature where as other players as per any structural arrangements has a decision making role . If the Internet and ICANN is an inclussive and democratic process why governments are treated with lower status than other players? On the other hand I have noted that an individual make comments to the process on its own behalf which create some legitimacy inconsistencies as it is not clear whom that person representing.When ICANN referrs to many comments received from those individuals who do not represtiative of many many other individuals and ICANN reacts based on such non representative views .That bothers me Do you have a solution to propose to remedy these two basic problems? Regards Kavouss 2015-01-11 7:00 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Dear Mr Arasteh, it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced, government negotiator at work. My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular .NA. For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind with the IANA function operator. In other words, individually, not represented by any organization of any kind. This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles and the Framework of Interpretation Principles. It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in violation of international conventions and or human rights they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to security and stability of the Internet. Nothing else. Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function Manager intervene. To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest, equitable and reasonable job. This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called Teranode Contract. So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for .NA and I, do have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the property aspects here. Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll ever get to that stage. Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a third party (unilaterally). This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or more?) of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus. And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and the root, however flimsy this may be. As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned, ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter. Of course the government will be a significantly interested party as (many) others. The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a concern. Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I am not in doubt here. As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts individually, so they (may) have given away some rights themselves. Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP addresses are intriguing. That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement, whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights, such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional Court calls Informational Self Determination. Some governments have an worse track records than others, and some governments are more active in taking control over the Internet than others. And sovereignty doesn't trump everything else, by default. I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in any consensus poll against any anything related thereto. greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 10, 2015, at 23:46, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Eberhard NTIA did say that . It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all. In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else. I do not agree with your argument at all Tks and have a nice week-end Kavouss 2015-01-10 22:18 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Netmundial and its ideas will not receive consensus. Nor will (significant) government involvement. Never mind that the NTIA has stated that governments will not be in charge. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 10, 2015, at 16:29, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, Thank you very much for your message. I hope I have not bothered you. Listen, the term " Community" was used and is being used in the entire ICANN even NTIA used that term If you read ICG and CWG and CCWG charters and correspondence, hundreds of time refernce is made to that term. In many ICANN alert, ICANN publication, ICANN announcement the term " Community" has been used.I am surprised that you have not heard till now about that. In addition, NetMundial which ICANN was one of the supporting and contribulting entity referred to those four constituencies of Global Multistakeholder Community composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics and Governments. The composition of Executive Committee was 24 memebrs 12 from Governments and 12 from the rest . That is why I referred to it as a defacto agreement. In WSIS also several refernces were made to these four categories of stakeholder I am sorry I can not agree with your definition or description .It may be suitable for these activities that we are doing . See NTIA Announcement of 14 March 2014 in which this term is used ) In regard with your description of community , I am soory to disagree with you .Your description may be suitable for activities that we are doing ( ICG, CWG and CCWG ) However, for the overall issue of Global Multistakeholder Community WE MUST TAKE THAT COMPOSITION USED IN NETMUNDIALand other fora . Internal organicgram of ICANN does not fuklly cover the issue. Moreover, there should be a footing criteria and legitimacy .You can not take view of an individual and view of a " Community" witjh equal footing.It has been many cases in which an individual speaks on behalf of herself or himself thus the representation legitimacy is not observed . Regards Kavouss 2015-01-10 12:21 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>: Hello Kavouss,

...

I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to "community"

...

What is that magic term "community» covers?

...

Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders?

...

As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments

I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic. For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way: "ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments. In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations. Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way. The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=>

I stand corrected Sent from my iPad On Jan 12, 2015, at 6:35 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: I could not have put it more succinctly :-)-O Though the incorrect use of the terminology irritates me, as a fellow member of the former DRD and FoI Wg, it's not IANA, is either the IANA Function or the IANA Function Manager. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 13, 2015, at 01:14, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: Perhaps it would help to be clear about when we are speaking about matters within ICANN’s mission and scope, and when we are not. When it comes to country code top level domains (ccTLDs), the conclusions of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (the FOIWG Report) speak to a rather limited set of circumstances – revocation and delegation by IANA in response to technical incompetence and substantial misbehavior as defined in RFC 1591. Those conclusions do not, however, deprive any government of any right it may have under applicable law with respect to the operation of a ccTLD subject to its jurisdiction. Likewise, those conclusions do not deprive any ccTLD manager of his/her/its rights under applicable law – whether contractual or otherwise. The FOIWG report is consistent with community consensus that disputes regarding operation of a ccTLD should ordinarily be resolved in-country/territory, consistent with the rule of law, and respecting the rights of both registry operators and significantly interested parties, including the relevant government. I say “ordinarily” because there are limited exceptions – for example, where DNS stability/security issues arise or where the circumstances under which a ccTLD was delegated (i.e., as Dr. Lisse points out, before RFC 1591) or operates (i.e., under a specific contract) compel a different result. So, when it comes to the role of the “government” in the context of a ccTLD, a government will ordinarily have all of the authority granted by applicable law to compel an outcome consistent with the rule of law. This does not strike me as governments having a lower status than other players. But most of this time this is outside of the scope of the IANA functions, and we should not seek to expand IANA functions beyond the remit of RFC 1591. Within the scope of ICANN’s remit, I often find the GAC’s role to be less than fully satisfying. It is an “advisory” body on the one hand, but from time to time GAC Advice has been used to veto community developed policy. That troubles me, particularly when the Advice is difficult to reconcile with ICANN’s Bylaws. I think that the cross-community working groups on the IANA transition and on accountability offer us an opportunity to include members of the GAC in the real-time policy development process. Although I don’t agree with everything Mr. Arasteh says, I certainly welcome his willingness to be an active part of the process. Becky Burr J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 4:39 AM To: Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Cc: "directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community" Dear Dr. Eberhard W.Lisse, Thank you very much for your reply First of all, I appologize if I have bothered you referring to you as Eberhard and not your full name as you wished to be so called . I have noted that you referred to me as Mr. Kavouss Arasteh and not my first name Kavouss . Secondly, I have not referred to the outcome of NetMundial as the Declaration was a totally Non Binding and simply a declaration. It was an evenet and we aprreciate the organizer of that event. What I referred to was that atleast there was reference to the footing of each entitiy and each constituency of the Global Multistakeholder . Whther that categorisation ( four main categories ) was or was not wrong that is another issue . I do not intend to evaluate the performance and actions taken by various governments as this is not a proper forum and I do not have such mandate to do so. What I am trying to find out is where is the Government's role in this business? The only area that they are appearing is the GAC .which is simply has an advisory nature where as other players as per any structural arrangements has a decision making role . If the Internet and ICANN is an inclussive and democratic process why governments are treated with lower status than other players? On the other hand I have noted that an individual make comments to the process on its own behalf which create some legitimacy inconsistencies as it is not clear whom that person representing.When ICANN referrs to many comments received from those individuals who do not represtiative of many many other individuals and ICANN reacts based on such non representative views .That bothers me Do you have a solution to propose to remedy these two basic problems? Regards Kavouss 2015-01-11 7:00 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Dear Mr Arasteh, it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced, government negotiator at work. My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular .NA. For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind with the IANA function operator. In other words, individually, not represented by any organization of any kind. This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles and the Framework of Interpretation Principles. It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in violation of international conventions and or human rights they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to security and stability of the Internet. Nothing else. Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function Manager intervene. To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest, equitable and reasonable job. This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called Teranode Contract. So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for .NA and I, do have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the property aspects here. Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll ever get to that stage. Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a third party (unilaterally). This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or more?) of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus. And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and the root, however flimsy this may be. As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned, ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter. Of course the government will be a significantly interested party as (many) others. The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a concern. Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I am not in doubt here. As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts individually, so they (may) have given away some rights themselves. Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP addresses are intriguing. That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement, whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights, such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional Court calls Informational Self Determination. Some governments have an worse track records than others, and some governments are more active in taking control over the Internet than others. And sovereignty doesn't trump everything else, by default. I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in any consensus poll against any anything related thereto. greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 10, 2015, at 23:46, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Eberhard NTIA did say that . It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all. In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else. I do not agree with your argument at all Tks and have a nice week-end Kavouss 2015-01-10 22:18 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Netmundial and its ideas will not receive consensus. Nor will (significant) government involvement. Never mind that the NTIA has stated that governments will not be in charge. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 10, 2015, at 16:29, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, Thank you very much for your message. I hope I have not bothered you. Listen, the term " Community" was used and is being used in the entire ICANN even NTIA used that term If you read ICG and CWG and CCWG charters and correspondence, hundreds of time refernce is made to that term. In many ICANN alert, ICANN publication, ICANN announcement the term " Community" has been used.I am surprised that you have not heard till now about that. In addition, NetMundial which ICANN was one of the supporting and contribulting entity referred to those four constituencies of Global Multistakeholder Community composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics and Governments. The composition of Executive Committee was 24 memebrs 12 from Governments and 12 from the rest . That is why I referred to it as a defacto agreement. In WSIS also several refernces were made to these four categories of stakeholder I am sorry I can not agree with your definition or description .It may be suitable for these activities that we are doing . See NTIA Announcement of 14 March 2014 in which this term is used ) In regard with your description of community , I am soory to disagree with you .Your description may be suitable for activities that we are doing ( ICG, CWG and CCWG ) However, for the overall issue of Global Multistakeholder Community WE MUST TAKE THAT COMPOSITION USED IN NETMUNDIALand other fora . Internal organicgram of ICANN does not fuklly cover the issue. Moreover, there should be a footing criteria and legitimacy .You can not take view of an individual and view of a " Community" witjh equal footing.It has been many cases in which an individual speaks on behalf of herself or himself thus the representation legitimacy is not observed . Regards Kavouss 2015-01-10 12:21 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>: Hello Kavouss,

...

I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to "community"

...

What is that magic term "community» covers?

...

Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders?

...

As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments

I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic. For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way: "ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments. In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations. Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way. The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...

Dear Ms. Becky Burr, as regards your comments on the GAC, I believe it is out of the scope of this working group to express personal opinions on the performance or role of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that make up ICANN. When you mention community developed policy, you have to bear in mind that the GAC is already engaging with e.g. the GNSO so that it can at an early stage feed into and be a part of the development of a particular policy. Other initiatives such as the GNSO liaison to the GAC have already been put in place as well. The GAC is permanently improving its engagement with the rest of the community, improving its working methods and enhancing its transparency, for instance making almost all meetings open by default. On the other hand, I am not seeing any GAC member critizice the performance of other SO/ACs in this nor in any other mailing list. I believe we are all struggling to fulfil our task here, which is to improve ICANN's accountability towards the whole community of Internet. In conclusion, I would kindly ask colleagues not to judge or undermine other SO/ACs work, even though sometimes we can disagree, as it is not constructive nor helps go forward, but on the contrary it could blur and is beyond the remit of this working group. Thank you and best regards Rafael Perez Galindo ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Burr, Becky [Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: 13 January 2015 00:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh; Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: directors@omadhina.net; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community" Perhaps it would help to be clear about when we are speaking about matters within ICANN’s mission and scope, and when we are not. When it comes to country code top level domains (ccTLDs), the conclusions of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (the FOIWG Report) speak to a rather limited set of circumstances – revocation and delegation by IANA in response to technical incompetence and substantial misbehavior as defined in RFC 1591. Those conclusions do not, however, deprive any government of any right it may have under applicable law with respect to the operation of a ccTLD subject to its jurisdiction. Likewise, those conclusions do not deprive any ccTLD manager of his/her/its rights under applicable law – whether contractual or otherwise. The FOIWG report is consistent with community consensus that disputes regarding operation of a ccTLD should ordinarily be resolved in-country/territory, consistent with the rule of law, and respecting the rights of both registry operators and significantly interested parties, including the relevant government. I say “ordinarily” because there are limited exceptions – for example, where DNS stability/security issues arise or where the circumstances under which a ccTLD was delegated (i.e., as Dr. Lisse points out, before RFC 1591) or operates (i.e., under a specific contract) compel a different result. So, when it comes to the role of the “government” in the context of a ccTLD, a government will ordinarily have all of the authority granted by applicable law to compel an outcome consistent with the rule of law. This does not strike me as governments having a lower status than other players. But most of this time this is outside of the scope of the IANA functions, and we should not seek to expand IANA functions beyond the remit of RFC 1591. Within the scope of ICANN’s remit, I often find the GAC’s role to be less than fully satisfying. It is an “advisory” body on the one hand, but from time to time GAC Advice has been used to veto community developed policy. That troubles me, particularly when the Advice is difficult to reconcile with ICANN’s Bylaws. I think that the cross-community working groups on the IANA transition and on accountability offer us an opportunity to include members of the GAC in the real-time policy development process. Although I don’t agree with everything Mr. Arasteh says, I certainly welcome his willingness to be an active part of the process. Becky Burr J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 4:39 AM To: Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Cc: "directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community" Dear Dr. Eberhard W.Lisse, Thank you very much for your reply First of all, I appologize if I have bothered you referring to you as Eberhard and not your full name as you wished to be so called . I have noted that you referred to me as Mr. Kavouss Arasteh and not my first name Kavouss . Secondly, I have not referred to the outcome of NetMundial as the Declaration was a totally Non Binding and simply a declaration. It was an evenet and we aprreciate the organizer of that event. What I referred to was that atleast there was reference to the footing of each entitiy and each constituency of the Global Multistakeholder . Whther that categorisation ( four main categories ) was or was not wrong that is another issue . I do not intend to evaluate the performance and actions taken by various governments as this is not a proper forum and I do not have such mandate to do so. What I am trying to find out is where is the Government's role in this business? The only area that they are appearing is the GAC .which is simply has an advisory nature where as other players as per any structural arrangements has a decision making role . If the Internet and ICANN is an inclussive and democratic process why governments are treated with lower status than other players? On the other hand I have noted that an individual make comments to the process on its own behalf which create some legitimacy inconsistencies as it is not clear whom that person representing.When ICANN referrs to many comments received from those individuals who do not represtiative of many many other individuals and ICANN reacts based on such non representative views .That bothers me Do you have a solution to propose to remedy these two basic problems? Regards Kavouss 2015-01-11 7:00 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Dear Mr Arasteh, it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced, government negotiator at work. My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular .NA. For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind with the IANA function operator. In other words, individually, not represented by any organization of any kind. This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles and the Framework of Interpretation Principles. It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in violation of international conventions and or human rights they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to security and stability of the Internet. Nothing else. Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function Manager intervene. To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest, equitable and reasonable job. This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called Teranode Contract. So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for .NA and I, do have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the property aspects here. Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll ever get to that stage. Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a third party (unilaterally). This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or more?) of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus. And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and the root, however flimsy this may be. As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned, ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter. Of course the government will be a significantly interested party as (many) others. The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a concern. Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I am not in doubt here. As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts individually, so they (may) have given away some rights themselves. Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP addresses are intriguing. That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement, whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights, such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional Court calls Informational Self Determination. Some governments have an worse track records than others, and some governments are more active in taking control over the Internet than others. And sovereignty doesn't trump everything else, by default. I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in any consensus poll against any anything related thereto. greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 10, 2015, at 23:46, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Eberhard NTIA did say that . It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all. In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else. I do not agree with your argument at all Tks and have a nice week-end Kavouss 2015-01-10 22:18 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Netmundial and its ideas will not receive consensus. Nor will (significant) government involvement. Never mind that the NTIA has stated that governments will not be in charge. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 10, 2015, at 16:29, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, Thank you very much for your message. I hope I have not bothered you. Listen, the term " Community" was used and is being used in the entire ICANN even NTIA used that term If you read ICG and CWG and CCWG charters and correspondence, hundreds of time refernce is made to that term. In many ICANN alert, ICANN publication, ICANN announcement the term " Community" has been used.I am surprised that you have not heard till now about that. In addition, NetMundial which ICANN was one of the supporting and contribulting entity referred to those four constituencies of Global Multistakeholder Community composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics and Governments. The composition of Executive Committee was 24 memebrs 12 from Governments and 12 from the rest . That is why I referred to it as a defacto agreement. In WSIS also several refernces were made to these four categories of stakeholder I am sorry I can not agree with your definition or description .It may be suitable for these activities that we are doing . See NTIA Announcement of 14 March 2014 in which this term is used ) In regard with your description of community , I am soory to disagree with you .Your description may be suitable for activities that we are doing ( ICG, CWG and CCWG ) However, for the overall issue of Global Multistakeholder Community WE MUST TAKE THAT COMPOSITION USED IN NETMUNDIALand other fora . Internal organicgram of ICANN does not fuklly cover the issue. Moreover, there should be a footing criteria and legitimacy .You can not take view of an individual and view of a " Community" witjh equal footing.It has been many cases in which an individual speaks on behalf of herself or himself thus the representation legitimacy is not observed . Regards Kavouss 2015-01-10 12:21 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>: Hello Kavouss,

...

I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to "community"

...

What is that magic term "community» covers?

...

Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders?

...

As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments

I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic. For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way: "ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments. In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations. Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way. The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nHustl3YR0ssOn9-CCvn2LlcqE_ysmPni50BGJKyTaU&s=OZ68PP_HzXQgmP289vfXYYoYW8EsT9fm-C-VPJko0Cw&e=>

Needless to say, I apologize for any lack of clarity in my comment. To the extent my comment was critical about how ICANN has used/responded to GAC Advice, I believe that is directly relevant to our work on accountability. Sent from my iPad

On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:56 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:

With respect, Mr. galindo, I believe you misunderstood my comment. I was not criticizing the performance of the GAC at all. Rather I was commenting on structural issues about the role assigned to the GAC within ICANN - and responding to Mr. Aristeh's comment on that point specifically.

Sent from my iPad

...

On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:36 AM, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> wrote:

Dear Ms. Becky Burr,

as regards your comments on the GAC, I believe it is out of the scope of this working group to express personal opinions on the performance or role of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that make up ICANN.

When you mention community developed policy, you have to bear in mind that the GAC is already engaging with e.g. the GNSO so that it can at an early stage feed into and be a part of the development of a particular policy. Other initiatives such as the GNSO liaison to the GAC have already been put in place as well. The GAC is permanently improving its engagement with the rest of the community, improving its working methods and enhancing its transparency, for instance making almost all meetings open by default.

On the other hand, I am not seeing any GAC member critizice the performance of other SO/ACs in this nor in any other mailing list. I believe we are all struggling to fulfil our task here, which is to improve ICANN's accountability towards the whole community of Internet.

In conclusion, I would kindly ask colleagues not to judge or undermine other SO/ACs work, even though sometimes we can disagree, as it is not constructive nor helps go forward, but on the contrary it could blur and is beyond the remit of this working group.

Thank you and best regards

Rafael Perez Galindo

________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Burr, Becky [Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: 13 January 2015 00:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh; Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: directors@omadhina.net; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

Perhaps it would help to be clear about when we are speaking about matters within ICANN’s mission and scope, and when we are not.

When it comes to country code top level domains (ccTLDs), the conclusions of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (the FOIWG Report) speak to a rather limited set of circumstances – revocation and delegation by IANA in response to technical incompetence and substantial misbehavior as defined in RFC 1591. Those conclusions do not, however, deprive any government of any right it may have under applicable law with respect to the operation of a ccTLD subject to its jurisdiction. Likewise, those conclusions do not deprive any ccTLD manager of his/her/its rights under applicable law – whether contractual or otherwise. The FOIWG report is consistent with community consensus that disputes regarding operation of a ccTLD should ordinarily be resolved in-country/territory, consistent with the rule of law, and respecting the rights of both registry operators and significantly interested parties, including the relevant government. I say “ordinarily” because there are limited exceptions – for example, where DNS stability/security issues arise or where the circumstances under which a ccTLD was delegated (i.e., as Dr. Lisse points out, before RFC 1591) or operates (i.e., under a specific contract) compel a different result. So, when it comes to the role of the “government” in the context of a ccTLD, a government will ordinarily have all of the authority granted by applicable law to compel an outcome consistent with the rule of law. This does not strike me as governments having a lower status than other players. But most of this time this is outside of the scope of the IANA functions, and we should not seek to expand IANA functions beyond the remit of RFC 1591.

Within the scope of ICANN’s remit, I often find the GAC’s role to be less than fully satisfying. It is an “advisory” body on the one hand, but from time to time GAC Advice has been used to veto community developed policy. That troubles me, particularly when the Advice is difficult to reconcile with ICANN’s Bylaws. I think that the cross-community working groups on the IANA transition and on accountability offer us an opportunity to include members of the GAC in the real-time policy development process. Although I don’t agree with everything Mr. Arasteh says, I certainly welcome his willingness to be an active part of the process.

Becky Burr

J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 4:39 AM To: Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Cc: "directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

Dear Dr. Eberhard W.Lisse, Thank you very much for your reply First of all, I appologize if I have bothered you referring to you as Eberhard and not your full name as you wished to be so called . I have noted that you referred to me as Mr. Kavouss Arasteh and not my first name Kavouss . Secondly, I have not referred to the outcome of NetMundial as the Declaration was a totally Non Binding and simply a declaration. It was an evenet and we aprreciate the organizer of that event. What I referred to was that atleast there was reference to the footing of each entitiy and each constituency of the Global Multistakeholder . Whther that categorisation ( four main categories ) was or was not wrong that is another issue . I do not intend to evaluate the performance and actions taken by various governments as this is not a proper forum and I do not have such mandate to do so. What I am trying to find out is where is the Government's role in this business? The only area that they are appearing is the GAC .which is simply has an advisory nature where as other players as per any structural arrangements has a decision making role . If the Internet and ICANN is an inclussive and democratic process why governments are treated with lower status than other players? On the other hand I have noted that an individual make comments to the process on its own behalf which create some legitimacy inconsistencies as it is not clear whom that person representing.When ICANN referrs to many comments received from those individuals who do not represtiative of many many other individuals and ICANN reacts based on such non representative views .That bothers me Do you have a solution to propose to remedy these two basic problems? Regards Kavouss

2015-01-11 7:00 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Dear Mr Arasteh,

it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced, government negotiator at work.

My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular .NA.

For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind with the IANA function operator. In other words, individually, not represented by any organization of any kind.

This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles and the Framework of Interpretation Principles.

It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in violation of international conventions and or human rights they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to security and stability of the Internet. Nothing else.

Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function Manager intervene.

To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest, equitable and reasonable job.

This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called Teranode Contract.

So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for .NA and I, do have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the property aspects here. Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll ever get to that stage.

Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a third party (unilaterally).

This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or more?) of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus.

And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and the root, however flimsy this may be.

As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned, ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter. Of course the government will be a significantly interested party as (many) others.

The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a concern.

Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I am not in doubt here.

As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts individually, so they (may) have given away some rights themselves.

Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP addresses are intriguing.

That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement, whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights, such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional Court calls Informational Self Determination.

Some governments have an worse track records than others, and some governments are more active in taking control over the Internet than others. And sovereignty doesn't trump everything else, by default.

I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in any consensus poll against any anything related thereto.

greetings, el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 10, 2015, at 23:46, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Eberhard NTIA did say that . It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all. In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else. I do not agree with your argument at all Tks and have a nice week-end Kavouss

2015-01-10 22:18 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Netmundial and its ideas will not receive consensus. Nor will (significant) government involvement.

Never mind that the NTIA has stated that governments will not be in charge.

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 10, 2015, at 16:29, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Bruce, Thank you very much for your message. I hope I have not bothered you. Listen, the term " Community" was used and is being used in the entire ICANN even NTIA used that term If you read ICG and CWG and CCWG charters and correspondence, hundreds of time refernce is made to that term. In many ICANN alert, ICANN publication, ICANN announcement the term " Community" has been used.I am surprised that you have not heard till now about that. In addition, NetMundial which ICANN was one of the supporting and contribulting entity referred to those four constituencies of Global Multistakeholder Community composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics and Governments. The composition of Executive Committee was 24 memebrs 12 from Governments and 12 from the rest . That is why I referred to it as a defacto agreement. In WSIS also several refernces were made to these four categories of stakeholder I am sorry I can not agree with your definition or description .It may be suitable for these activities that we are doing . See NTIA Announcement of 14 March 2014 in which this term is used ) In regard with your description of community , I am soory to disagree with you .Your description may be suitable for activities that we are doing ( ICG, CWG and CCWG ) However, for the overall issue of Global Multistakeholder Community WE MUST TAKE THAT COMPOSITION USED IN NETMUNDIALand other fora . Internal organicgram of ICANN does not fuklly cover the issue. Moreover, there should be a footing criteria and legitimacy .You can not take view of an individual and view of a " Community" witjh equal footing.It has been many cases in which an individual speaks on behalf of herself or himself thus the representation legitimacy is not observed . Regards Kavouss

2015-01-10 12:21 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>: Hello Kavouss,

...

...

I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to "community"

...

...

What is that magic term "community» covers?

...

...

Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders?

...

...

As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments

I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic.

For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way:

"ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments.

In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations.

Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way.

The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

Dear Co-Chairs, through the co-chairs: It is most certainly WITHIN the scope to express personal opinions about the performance or role of the AC or SOs. Especially somone as eminently familiar as Becky. My personal opinion is and has always been that we need the GAC as much as a goitre, but then that ship has sailed. Long ago. Hence we should argue on the merits. And engage the GAC and its/our reps on the merits to improve their future advice. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s

On Jan 13, 2015, at 14:34, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> wrote:

Dear Ms. Burr,

Thank you for your kind email. The misunderstanding is now cleared up.

Just to finish my comment on the role of the GAC, I believe ICANN bylaws are pretty clear when they state in Section I.2.11 that in performing its mission, one of the core values that should guide ICANN decisions and actions is “while remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations.” Again Section XI.2.1.j goes on to state that “the advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies”. In order to perform this role properly and give the best possible Advice regarding public policy, the GAC is engaging with the community as early as possible in the PDP and improving its methods as described briefly in my email below.

But anyway I think there are many other much more important issues for discussion related to ICANN Accountability, such as enhanced redress and appeal mechanisms, rather than the role of the GAC.

Best regards

Rafael Perez Galindo

________________________________________ From: Burr, Becky [Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: 13 January 2015 12:56 To: Perez Galindo, Rafael Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Dr Eberhard W Lisse; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

With respect, Mr. galindo, I believe you misunderstood my comment. I was not criticizing the performance of the GAC at all. Rather I was commenting on structural issues about the role assigned to the GAC within ICANN - and responding to Mr. Aristeh's comment on that point specifically.

Sent from my iPad

...

On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:36 AM, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> wrote:

Dear Ms. Becky Burr,

as regards your comments on the GAC, I believe it is out of the scope of this working group to express personal opinions on the performance or role of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees that make up ICANN.

When you mention community developed policy, you have to bear in mind that the GAC is already engaging with e.g. the GNSO so that it can at an early stage feed into and be a part of the development of a particular policy. Other initiatives such as the GNSO liaison to the GAC have already been put in place as well. The GAC is permanently improving its engagement with the rest of the community, improving its working methods and enhancing its transparency, for instance making almost all meetings open by default.

On the other hand, I am not seeing any GAC member critizice the performance of other SO/ACs in this nor in any other mailing list. I believe we are all struggling to fulfil our task here, which is to improve ICANN's accountability towards the whole community of Internet.

In conclusion, I would kindly ask colleagues not to judge or undermine other SO/ACs work, even though sometimes we can disagree, as it is not constructive nor helps go forward, but on the contrary it could blur and is beyond the remit of this working group.

Thank you and best regards

Rafael Perez Galindo

________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Burr, Becky [Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: 13 January 2015 00:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh; Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: directors@omadhina.net; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

Perhaps it would help to be clear about when we are speaking about matters within ICANN’s mission and scope, and when we are not.

When it comes to country code top level domains (ccTLDs), the conclusions of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (the FOIWG Report) speak to a rather limited set of circumstances – revocation and delegation by IANA in response to technical incompetence and substantial misbehavior as defined in RFC 1591. Those conclusions do not, however, deprive any government of any right it may have under applicable law with respect to the operation of a ccTLD subject to its jurisdiction. Likewise, those conclusions do not deprive any ccTLD manager of his/her/its rights under applicable law – whether contractual or otherwise. The FOIWG report is consistent with community consensus that disputes regarding operation of a ccTLD should ordinarily be resolved in-country/territory, consistent with the rule of law, and respecting the rights of both registry operators and significantly interested parties, including the relevant government. I say “ordinarily” because there are limited exceptions – for example, where DNS stability/security issues arise or where the circumstances under which a ccTLD was delegated (i.e., as Dr. Lisse points out, before RFC 1591) or operates (i.e., under a specific contract) compel a different result. So, when it comes to the role of the “government” in the context of a ccTLD, a government will ordinarily have all of the authority granted by applicable law to compel an outcome consistent with the rule of law. This does not strike me as governments having a lower status than other players. But most of this time this is outside of the scope of the IANA functions, and we should not seek to expand IANA functions beyond the remit of RFC 1591.

Within the scope of ICANN’s remit, I often find the GAC’s role to be less than fully satisfying. It is an “advisory” body on the one hand, but from time to time GAC Advice has been used to veto community developed policy. That troubles me, particularly when the Advice is difficult to reconcile with ICANN’s Bylaws. I think that the cross-community working groups on the IANA transition and on accountability offer us an opportunity to include members of the GAC in the real-time policy development process. Although I don’t agree with everything Mr. Arasteh says, I certainly welcome his willingness to be an active part of the process.

Becky Burr

J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 4:39 AM To: Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Cc: "directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

Dear Dr. Eberhard W.Lisse, Thank you very much for your reply First of all, I appologize if I have bothered you referring to you as Eberhard and not your full name as you wished to be so called . I have noted that you referred to me as Mr. Kavouss Arasteh and not my first name Kavouss . Secondly, I have not referred to the outcome of NetMundial as the Declaration was a totally Non Binding and simply a declaration. It was an evenet and we aprreciate the organizer of that event. What I referred to was that atleast there was reference to the footing of each entitiy and each constituency of the Global Multistakeholder . Whther that categorisation ( four main categories ) was or was not wrong that is another issue . I do not intend to evaluate the performance and actions taken by various governments as this is not a proper forum and I do not have such mandate to do so. What I am trying to find out is where is the Government's role in this business? The only area that they are appearing is the GAC .which is simply has an advisory nature where as other players as per any structural arrangements has a decision making role . If the Internet and ICANN is an inclussive and democratic process why governments are treated with lower status than other players? On the other hand I have noted that an individual make comments to the process on its own behalf which create some legitimacy inconsistencies as it is not clear whom that person representing.When ICANN referrs to many comments received from those individuals who do not represtiative of many many other individuals and ICANN reacts based on such non representative views .That bothers me Do you have a solution to propose to remedy these two basic problems? Regards Kavouss

2015-01-11 7:00 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Dear Mr Arasteh,

it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced, government negotiator at work.

My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular .NA.

For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind with the IANA function operator. In other words, individually, not represented by any organization of any kind.

This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles and the Framework of Interpretation Principles.

It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in violation of international conventions and or human rights they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to security and stability of the Internet. Nothing else.

Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function Manager intervene.

To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest, equitable and reasonable job.

This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called Teranode Contract.

So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for .NA and I, do have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the property aspects here. Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll ever get to that stage.

Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a third party (unilaterally).

This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or more?) of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus.

And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and the root, however flimsy this may be.

As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned, ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter. Of course the government will be a significantly interested party as (many) others.

The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a concern.

Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I am not in doubt here.

As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts individually, so they (may) have given away some rights themselves.

Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP addresses are intriguing.

That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement, whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights, such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional Court calls Informational Self Determination.

Some governments have an worse track records than others, and some governments are more active in taking control over the Internet than others. And sovereignty doesn't trump everything else, by default.

I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in any consensus poll against any anything related thereto.

greetings, el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 10, 2015, at 23:46, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Eberhard NTIA did say that . It stated that it does not allow that any individual government or any government oriented or intergovernmental organization control the Internet It seems that yopu are not in favouir of involving governments as part of multistakeholder at all. In that case Internet being inclussive and democratic is simply a slogan and nothing else. I do not agree with your argument at all Tks and have a nice week-end Kavouss

2015-01-10 22:18 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Netmundial and its ideas will not receive consensus. Nor will (significant) government involvement.

Never mind that the NTIA has stated that governments will not be in charge.

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 10, 2015, at 16:29, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Bruce, Thank you very much for your message. I hope I have not bothered you. Listen, the term " Community" was used and is being used in the entire ICANN even NTIA used that term If you read ICG and CWG and CCWG charters and correspondence, hundreds of time refernce is made to that term. In many ICANN alert, ICANN publication, ICANN announcement the term " Community" has been used.I am surprised that you have not heard till now about that. In addition, NetMundial which ICANN was one of the supporting and contribulting entity referred to those four constituencies of Global Multistakeholder Community composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics and Governments. The composition of Executive Committee was 24 memebrs 12 from Governments and 12 from the rest . That is why I referred to it as a defacto agreement. In WSIS also several refernces were made to these four categories of stakeholder I am sorry I can not agree with your definition or description .It may be suitable for these activities that we are doing . See NTIA Announcement of 14 March 2014 in which this term is used ) In regard with your description of community , I am soory to disagree with you .Your description may be suitable for activities that we are doing ( ICG, CWG and CCWG ) However, for the overall issue of Global Multistakeholder Community WE MUST TAKE THAT COMPOSITION USED IN NETMUNDIALand other fora . Internal organicgram of ICANN does not fuklly cover the issue. Moreover, there should be a footing criteria and legitimacy .You can not take view of an individual and view of a " Community" witjh equal footing.It has been many cases in which an individual speaks on behalf of herself or himself thus the representation legitimacy is not observed . Regards Kavouss

2015-01-10 12:21 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>: Hello Kavouss,

...

...

I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to "community"

...

...

What is that magic term "community» covers?

...

...

Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders?

...

...

As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments

I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic.

For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way:

"ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments.

In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations.

Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way.

The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

Mathieu, and others Please find attached my comments in form of revision marks my comments Kavouss 2015-01-12 9:26 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:

Dear Colleagues,

This discussion about the "community" is quite relevant to our group. May I suggest to turn these discussions into proposed edits to the draft document regarding scope and definitions ? Essentially within the section regarding stakeholders.

I attach the documents once again.

Best Mathieu Le 10/01/2015 12:21, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :

Hello Kavouss,

...

I have one question which continued to bother me as everyone refers to

...

...

"community" What is that magic term "community» covers? Does it includes or embrace the entire multistakeholders? As it was discussed at several occasion, there is a defacto agreement that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments

I think that is a good question, and probably worth this group considering some definitions around that topic.

For me personally, I tend to think of the terms in the following way:

"ICANN Community" - this is the group of people that participate in the various ICANN working groups via email, phone, or websites, and attend ICANN meetings. This group is made up of individuals from GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups, GAC, SSAC, ALAC, RSSAC, ccTLD representatives, RIR representatives etc. In my personal view, it is multi-stakeholder in that it includes people from Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community including academics, Governments.

In addition to that there is a wider community of people that are members of the various organizations that are in turn members of the various groups that comprise the ICANN community. As an example, I am a member of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) which is part of the Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (APRALO) which is part of At-large. ISOC in Australia may send a representative to ICANN meetings. A business might be a member of a chamber of commerce or business association, which in turn could be a member of the ICANN business constituency, and that chamber of commerce or business association may send a representative to an ICANN meeting as a member of the ICANN community. I don't have any specific name for this wider group of people and organizations.

Then there is term "public" which is used within the term "global public interest". In general, I personally think of the public in this context as Internet users. However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way.

The fundamental responsibility of the Board of ICANN is to exercise their judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual group or interest. Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

hi, out of curiosity, if we want open format why aren't we talking about ODT. PDF costs money to edit. avri On 12-Jan-15 06:30, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

can we please arrange for an open format such as PDF?

greetings, el

Well, then there is highly available content <http://icannwiki.com/NCUC> out there to the contrary that needs to be fixed (which also indicates that at one time that was indeed the case). On 12 January 2015 at 05:20, Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net> wrote:

Actually, Evan, the Noncommercial Users Constituency does represent ALL users within the GNSO. Ownership of a domain name is NOT a prerequisite for NCUC membership. Per the NCUC Bylaws, section 111(h)(11) NCUC membership is open to:

ii) An Individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with the public-interest aspects of domain name policy, and is not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group;

Domain name ownership, again, is not required, contrary to your assertion. Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Sent from my iPhone

-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan

...

Consider the NCUC, which by its very name is intended to represent "users" within the GNSO. Ownership of at least one domain name is a pre-requisite of NCUC membership. So what constituency (that is, a full voting GNSO component, as opposed to a non-voting advisory body) represents non-domain-owning Internet "users".

...

However you could also consider public in this context to be all the people of the world. Even people that don't directly use the Internet as a communication mechanism are probably affected by it in some way.

​Indeed. But what say have they traditionally had within ICANN?

Of course, there is the ALAC, which has a Bylaw mandate to speak for end users. But, the gap between speaking and being listened to has been, while slowly closing, still rather wide.

I don't have to go far into the world to see a perception of ICANN as a compact between domain sellers and domain buyers that considers only their interests, with general indifference to consequences beyond those two groups. There has never, in the time I have been involved as a volunteer here, been any core conversation about the ethics of enabling dictionary words to be commoditized in a manner that goes well outside the bounds of trademark treaty. Other non-debated core values have not only led to the maximization of duplicate and defensive domains, but now seem to depend upon them for some participants' business models; these fundamental choices clearly did not consider -- and certainly did not engage -- the broader world.

...

Its primary feedback mechanism for determining the global public interest is the "ICANN community" described above.

​That's the theory.​

​The ongoing (and recently escalating) friction between the ICANN board and its two "global public interest" Advisory Boards​ indicates that this mechanism is not as effective as it should be.

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

To clear up any misunderstanding, one is not required to own a domain name in order to join the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). NCSG's charter section 2.2.5 allows for individual members under 3 different circumstances and only the first requires the registration of a domain name. Text shown below. Thanks, Robin NCSG Charter 2.2.5. New Individual Members -­‐ Eligible Individuals. Individual persons who agree to advocate for a noncommercial public-­‐interest position within the Stakeholder group and who fall within one of the following three categories are eligible to join as an “Individual Member”: 1. An Individual who has registered domain name(s) for personal, family or other noncommercial use; or 2. An Individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with the noncommercial public-­‐interest aspects of domain name policy, and is not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group; or 3. An Individual who is employed by or a member of a non-­‐member noncommercial organization (universities, colleges, large NGOs) can join NCSG in his or her individual capacity if their organization has not already joined the NCSG. The Executive Committee shall, at its discretion, determine limits to the total number of Individual members who can join from any single organization (provided the limit shall apply to all Organizations, of the same size category, equally). An individual who is a member of or employee of a noncommercial organization, which is itself a member of the NCSG, may apply for, or retain membership, in the NCSG only under the first criteria for individual membership, i.e. be an individual noncommercial registrant. Such membership is subject to Executive Committee review. ... On Jan 12, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

I am afraid that is not quite the case.

Your reference to III(h)(11) is correct, but you missed III(a)(2) which says "Be the exclusive user of at least one domain name. This can be verified by its listing as the registrant and/or administrative contact in the WHOIS data of the domain name, by the name resolving to a website controlled by and representing the organization, or other indications that prove to Secretary-Treasurer and Chair that the prospective Member Organization is the primary user of a domain name."

Also, the NCUC is a subset of the NCSG, and the NCSG charter 2.2.1.2 includes those words as well.

The issue of whether GNSO participation was open to non-registrants was discussed during the last GNSO re-organization, and the Board made it clear that it was registrants. I believe that the ALAC was the only part of ICANN that objected to that.

Alan

At 12/01/2015 05:20 AM, Edward Morris wrote:

...

Actually, Evan, the Noncommercial Users Constituency does represent ALL users within the GNSO. Ownership of a domain name is NOT a prerequisite for NCUC membership. Per the NCUC Bylaws, section 111(h)(11) NCUC membership is open to:

ii) An Individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with the public-interest aspects of domain name policy, and is not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group;

Domain name ownership, again, is not required, contrary to your assertion. Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Sent from my iPhone

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Well Alan, Not really on topic, however, just to correct the record. On individual members I include the entire section, please note the first sentence. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter *2.2.5. New Individual Members ‑ Eligible Individuals*. Individual persons who agree to advocate for a noncommercial public‑interest position within the Stakeholder group and _who fall within one of the following three categories are eligible to join as an “Individual Member”:_ 1. An Individual who has registered domain name(s) for personal, family or other noncommercial use; or 2. An Individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with the noncommercial public‑interest aspects of domain name policy, and is not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group; or 3. An Individual who is employed by or a member of a non-member noncommercial organization (universities, colleges, large NGOs) can join NCSG in his or her individual capacity if their organization has not already joined the NCSG. The Executive Committee shall, at its discretion, determine limits to the total number of Individual members who can join from any single organization (provided the limit shall apply to all Organizations, of the same size category, equally). An individual who is a member of or employee of a noncommercial organization, which is itself a member of the NCSG, may apply for, or retain membership, in the NCSG only under the first criteria for individual membership, i.e. be an individual noncommercial registrant. Such membership is subject to Executive Committee review. -- For Organizational members, yes, they need to be registrants, for individual users they do not. The NCSG SG accepts individual non commercial users. And except for NARALO, and perhaps soon EUROLO, is the only place for the civil society user. avri On 12-Jan-15 13:13, Alan Greenberg wrote:

I am afraid that is not quite the case.

Your reference to III(h)(11) is correct, but you missed III(a)(2) which says "Be the exclusive user of at least one domain name. This can be verified by its listing as the registrant and/or administrative contact in the WHOIS data of the domain name, by the name resolving to a website controlled by and representing the organization, or other indications that prove to Secretary-Treasurer and Chair that the prospective Member Organization is the primary user of a domain name."

Also, the NCUC is a subset of the NCSG, and the NCSG charter 2.2.1.2 includes those words as well.

The issue of whether GNSO participation was open to non-registrants was discussed during the last GNSO re-organization, and the Board made it clear that it was registrants. I believe that the ALAC was the only part of ICANN that objected to that.

Alan

At 12/01/2015 05:20 AM, Edward Morris wrote:

...

Actually, Evan, the Noncommercial Users Constituency does represent ALL users within the GNSO. Ownership of a domain name is NOT a prerequisite for NCUC membership. Per the NCUC Bylaws, section 111(h)(11) NCUC membership is open to:

ii) An Individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with the public-interest aspects of domain name policy, and is not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group;

Domain name ownership, again, is not required, contrary to your assertion. Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Sent from my iPhone

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community