What public interest would be inconsistent with human rights? **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:21 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Hi, Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law. However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights. As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights. Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights. So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights." avri I On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, We should avoid to be engaged doing something that we know would no tangible results. I do not be infavour of replacing public interest With anything such as human rights and freedom Of expression, acknowledging That the latter two issues are very important But are quite difficult to limit public interests to These two issues Pls be prudent Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> > wrote: I'm a bit confused Tijani. First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document. Best, Ed Sent from my iPad On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> > wrote: Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion. The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Yes, I made this suggestion. Thanks, Robin On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Dear Adam, I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom. Tijani -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. Best, Adam _____ <http://www.avast.com/> <~WRD000.jpg> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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 _____ <http://www.avast.com/> <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. <http://www.avast.com/> <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <http://www.avast.com/> <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ <http://www.avast.com/> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <http://www.avast.com/> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <http://www.avast.com/> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <http://www.avast.com/>

Dear Avri See my comment/question below Thanks Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

El feb 18, 2015, a las 10:20, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> escribió:

Hi,

Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law.

However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights.

As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights.

Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights.

So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."

Within ICANN narrowly define technical scope??!

avri

I

...

On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, We should avoid to be engaged doing something that we know would no tangible results. I do not be infavour of replacing public interest With anything such as human rights and freedom Of expression, acknowledging That the latter two issues are very important But are quite difficult to limit public interests to These two issues Pls be prudent Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

...

I'm a bit confused Tijani.

First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:

...

Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion.

The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone: + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax: + 216 70 853 376

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Yes, I made this suggestion.

Thanks,

Robin

On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Dear Adam,

I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom.

Tijani

-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week.

Best,

Adam

<~WRD000.jpg>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.

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

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.

_______________________________________________ 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

I like It Thanks Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

El feb 18, 2015, a las 11:36, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> escribió:

Hi,

...

On 18-Feb-15 11:51, "Carlos Raúl G." wrote:

...

So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."

Within ICANN narrowly define technical scope??!

Of course it needs to be in scope. and yet that scope is as hard to define as public interest is. For example, by my definition of 'technical', ICANN does almost nothing technical outside of IANA, unless you include IT..

But over the years the technical scope has been defined in an ICANN context to include all kinds of policy stuff that can be defined as technical in perhaps a legal, financial or organizational context. The boarders on that definition are fuzzy at best.

But if we want to add further conditionalizing words, we could say

"public interest consistent with human rights and within ICANN's scope."

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

Dear Robin, Avri, Prof. Scott Hempling, of Georgetown University who is a specialist in regulatory law has a very good one. I know that the Internet is ver special and very different from 20th century public utilities, but sometimes past experience does help....... Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone El feb 18, 2015, a las 12:02, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:

...

...

"public interest consistent with human rights and within ICANN's scope."

This is a good compromise and sufficiently addresses my concern that "public interest" alone is too vague and subject to numerous conflicting interpretations.

Thank you, Robin

...

On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Carlos Raúl G. wrote:

I like It Thanks

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

...

El feb 18, 2015, a las 11:36, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> escribió:

Hi,

...

...

On 18-Feb-15 11:51, "Carlos Raúl G." wrote: So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."

Within ICANN narrowly define technical scope??!

Of course it needs to be in scope. and yet that scope is as hard to define as public interest is. For example, by my definition of 'technical', ICANN does almost nothing technical outside of IANA, unless you include IT..

But over the years the technical scope has been defined in an ICANN context to include all kinds of policy stuff that can be defined as technical in perhaps a legal, financial or organizational context. The boarders on that definition are fuzzy at best.

But if we want to add further conditionalizing words, we could say

"public interest consistent with human rights and within ICANN's scope."

_______________________________________________ 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 Avri, I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards, Olivier On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law.

However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights.

As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights.

Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights.

So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."

avri

I

On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear All, We should avoid to be engaged doing something that we know would no tangible results. I do not be infavour of replacing public interest With anything such as human rights and freedom Of expression, acknowledging That the latter two issues are very important But are quite difficult to limit public interests to These two issues Pls be prudent Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:

...

I'm a bit confused Tijani.

First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> wrote:

...

Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion.

The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Tijani BEN JEMAA*

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)

Phone: + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax: + 216 70 853 376

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*De :*Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] *Envoyé :* mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 *À :* Tijani BEN JEMAA *Cc :* 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Yes, I made this suggestion.

Thanks,

Robin

On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Dear Adam,

I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom.

Tijani

-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week.

Best,

Adam

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<~WRD000.jpg> <http://www.avast.com/>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

_______________________________________________ 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

_______________________________________________ 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

---

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

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

Thank you Suzanne In one of the (many) Tuesday meetings with the Board, the NCSG I think, some of the Board Members were very positive about a clearly delimited inclusion of Human Rigths. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez GNSO Council +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

El feb 18, 2015, a las 12:13, Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov> escribió:

Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative. The GAC reached agreement in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not yet arrived at a shared vision. In the absence of broad, community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human rights? Cheers, Suz

Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 FX: 202-482-1865

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM To: Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Dear Avri,

I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards,

Olivier

...

On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote: Hi,

Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law.

However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights.

As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights.

Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights.

So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."

avri

I

...

On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, We should avoid to be engaged doing something that we know would no tangible results. I do not be infavour of replacing public interest With anything such as human rights and freedom Of expression, acknowledging That the latter two issues are very important But are quite difficult to limit public interests to These two issues Pls be prudent Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

...

I'm a bit confused Tijani.

First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:

...

Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion.

The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Yes, I made this suggestion.

Thanks, Robin

On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Dear Adam,

I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom.

Tijani

-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week.

Best,

Adam

<~WRD000.jpg> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.

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

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. _______________________________________________ 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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

I am of the view that different members of the ICANN community understand quite differently the relationship "ICANN-HR-Public Interest". The fact that ICANN is more attentive to human rights considerations does not entail an extension of its corporate mandate, but a proper and timely assessment of some of its activities and operations in light of the particular circumstances in which a given decision is made, a TLD is delegated, a Board resolution is passed, etc.. Some tend to see this more as a human rights impact assessment rather than an implementation of the human rights International instruments by the book. Human Rights as such are binding only for state actors, however that does not enter into conflict with the fact that a more attentive approach by ICANN towards human rights and "ethical business" could help the organisation develop a more accountable and transparent way of doing business. To complicate the landscape a bit further, one can factor in "public interest" considerations. I believe each nation, each jurisdiction, could come up with its own interpretation of what public interest means, but that must not enter into conflict with the fact that any definition of public interest could be perfectly enhanced by making reference to human rights international standards (something we all know about and for which one can easily find widely accepted references online/codified). Right now ICANNs notion of public interest is insufficiently clear to provide guidance to the policy development process and that does not play in favour of any stakeholder: it can be abused by parties wanting to place literally "everything" under the public interest, and it can be downplayed by parties only interested in the economic angle of the DNS. Accountability requires measurable standards; Human rights could serve to delineate the notion of public interest but since the concept of public interest is so much broader than that, that the conversation could last ad infinitum. In sum, while some parts of the community continue to discuss whether is adequate to include references to human rights in the Bylaws, or draw a link between human rights and public interest, which I find a valuable but lengthy discussion, there is some low hanging fruit in the ICANN strategy panel on Public Responsibility Framework which could easily be turned into a proper Corporate Social Responsibility strategy, based on measurable indicators. Google does it, Microsoft does it, Yahoo does it…. My question is, why are we still focusing on HR and public interest rather than giving a different spin to this heading and renaming to "CSR"? Isn't' it easier to deal with CSR concepts and frameworks in a corporate environment like ICANN? Last not least, my purely personal view is that the fact that there is no GAC consensus in the realm of HR and ICANN is irrelevant for the community and for this group so as to continue discussions around proposals that touch upon ICANN and human rights. In fact, the discussions in this group could well enlighten or provide useful feedback to those discussions in the GAC or in the recently created CCWG-Human Rights in the future. I fail to see why the remit of one group one should prevent the work of the other, and vice versa. Best regards (Ms) Camino Manjon-Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 - International relations Internet Governance Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/109) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447 E: Camino.Manjon@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Camino.Manjon@ec.europa.eu> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:05 PM To: Suzanne Radell Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 I am loathe to build a hard linkage between "public interest" and "human rights." I don't think it will benefit consideration of either one. Each of these issues raise complexities in the ICANN context. There is no clear definition of "public interest" in the ICANN context. There is also no clear definition of "human rights" in the ICANN context. While human rights are critically important and no one (well, hardly anyone) is against human rights, ICANN is not a human rights organization per se. Many of the things that ICANN does in the "public interest" have nothing to do with human rights (positively or negatively). There may also be human rights issues that are not directly related to whether ICANN is acting in the "public interest." I would instead suggest that work related to ICANN and the "global public interest" and ICANN and its relationship to human rights should proceed separately. There is room for significant debate on each of these topics, and tying them together will delay or sink both. That does not mean bringing up "human rights" in the discussion of "global public interest" is taboo -- far from it. This group may find interesting the following excerpts from the Report of Public Comments on the ICANN Draft 5-Year Plan (available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-five-year-...) COMMENT: The entire objective is based on the concept of “public interest” which has a different meaning in different places (countries and contexts). Therefore, agreeing on a definition – that should include clear boundaries – of “public interest” should be at the core of the entire objective ANSWER: Work was carried out by the Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework in consultation with the community through webinars and open sessions at ICANN meetings. We will build on this work moving forward and will work on agreeing on definition of “public interest” within the ICANN context with the community. COMMENT: S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a “steward of the public interest” as part of Strategic Objective 5: “Develop and Implement a Global Public Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN’s Mission”. The sole metric of S.G. 5.1 refers to a “common consensus based definition of public interest”. Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it? If not, how does ICANN propose to develop one? ANSWER: The definition was developed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility framework. The Panel defined the global public interest of the Internet as ensuring that the Internet “becomes, and continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe”. Recognizing that this is a broad concept that permeates all of ICANN’s work, the Panel determined that for practical and operational reasons “public responsibility” work should be streamlined through one department tasked with serving the community, broadening it, and facilitating participation through specific and measurable tracks. Building on the work of the Panel and community requests, the DPRD [Development and Public Responsibility Department] is an operational department focused on public responsibility work centered on the priorities and focus areas identified through the regional engagement strategies and through community engagement with the Panel. The DPRD functions in collaboration with regional VPs, other ICANN departments, external organizations, and through engagement with Governments, ccTLD admins, and GAC members in developing and underdeveloped countries who serve as key entry points to these regions so that we can assist in strengthening IG structures leading to eventual handover to SO/ACs and the wider community. In other words, it appears that ICANN will be using as a definition of “global public interest” a standard developed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, one of several panels appointed in 2013 by ICANN's leadership without community input and whose final report, issued about a year ago, seemingly sank without a trace (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en ). This raises an accountability issue in and of itself..... Greg On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>> wrote: Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative. The GAC reached agreement in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not yet arrived at a shared vision. In the absence of broad, community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human rights? Cheers, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167<tel:202-482-3167> FX: 202-482-1865<tel:202-482-1865> ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM To: Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Dear Avri, I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards, Olivier On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law. However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights. As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights. Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights. So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights." avri I On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, We should avoid to be engaged doing something that we know would no tangible results. I do not be infavour of replacing public interest With anything such as human rights and freedom Of expression, acknowledging That the latter two issues are very important But are quite difficult to limit public interests to These two issues Pls be prudent Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: I'm a bit confused Tijani. First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document. Best, Ed Sent from my iPad On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> wrote: Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion. The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605<tel:%2B%20216%2041%20649%20605> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114<tel:%2B%20216%2098%20330%20114> Fax: + 216 70 853 376<tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Yes, I made this suggestion. Thanks, Robin On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Dear Adam, I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom. Tijani -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. Best, Adam ________________________________ <~WRD000.jpg><http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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 -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

Greg, Thanks, I also agree with your previous message, which came in right when I was drafting mine. I do not mean to downplay the importance of the HR and public interest debate, as our delegation has been one of the main defenders of it in the GAC, but in the interest of time, I believe that CSR policies can perfectly incorporate HR standards, HR impact assessments, etc. in a much more practical / operational way. Other members of the group proposed it at the ICANN and HR session in SGP. There are a number of templates which could be used to this end, but which certainly require adaptation to the specific case of ICANN's mandate and DNS operations. Regards Camino From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:35 PM To: MANJON Camino (CNECT) Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Camino, I think the suggestion of re-framing the Human Rights issue in a Corporate Social Responsibility framework is an excellent and pragmatic one. This is much more "native" to a corporate entity like ICANN, and there are a lot of well-developed materials, practices and policies for CSR. This makes CSR more "adoptable" in the short run than a human rights platform. HR may be broader than CSR, but we could see what issues remain after a CSR framework for ICANN is identified. Greg On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, <Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu>> wrote: I am of the view that different members of the ICANN community understand quite differently the relationship "ICANN-HR-Public Interest". The fact that ICANN is more attentive to human rights considerations does not entail an extension of its corporate mandate, but a proper and timely assessment of some of its activities and operations in light of the particular circumstances in which a given decision is made, a TLD is delegated, a Board resolution is passed, etc.. Some tend to see this more as a human rights impact assessment rather than an implementation of the human rights International instruments by the book. Human Rights as such are binding only for state actors, however that does not enter into conflict with the fact that a more attentive approach by ICANN towards human rights and "ethical business" could help the organisation develop a more accountable and transparent way of doing business. To complicate the landscape a bit further, one can factor in "public interest" considerations. I believe each nation, each jurisdiction, could come up with its own interpretation of what public interest means, but that must not enter into conflict with the fact that any definition of public interest could be perfectly enhanced by making reference to human rights international standards (something we all know about and for which one can easily find widely accepted references online/codified). Right now ICANNs notion of public interest is insufficiently clear to provide guidance to the policy development process and that does not play in favour of any stakeholder: it can be abused by parties wanting to place literally "everything" under the public interest, and it can be downplayed by parties only interested in the economic angle of the DNS. Accountability requires measurable standards; Human rights could serve to delineate the notion of public interest but since the concept of public interest is so much broader than that, that the conversation could last ad infinitum. In sum, while some parts of the community continue to discuss whether is adequate to include references to human rights in the Bylaws, or draw a link between human rights and public interest, which I find a valuable but lengthy discussion, there is some low hanging fruit in the ICANN strategy panel on Public Responsibility Framework which could easily be turned into a proper Corporate Social Responsibility strategy, based on measurable indicators. Google does it, Microsoft does it, Yahoo does it…. My question is, why are we still focusing on HR and public interest rather than giving a different spin to this heading and renaming to "CSR"? Isn't' it easier to deal with CSR concepts and frameworks in a corporate environment like ICANN? Last not least, my purely personal view is that the fact that there is no GAC consensus in the realm of HR and ICANN is irrelevant for the community and for this group so as to continue discussions around proposals that touch upon ICANN and human rights. In fact, the discussions in this group could well enlighten or provide useful feedback to those discussions in the GAC or in the recently created CCWG-Human Rights in the future. I fail to see why the remit of one group one should prevent the work of the other, and vice versa. Best regards (Ms) Camino Manjon-Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 - International relations Internet Governance Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/109) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447 E: Camino.Manjon@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Camino.Manjon@ec.europa.eu> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:05 PM To: Suzanne Radell Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 I am loathe to build a hard linkage between "public interest" and "human rights." I don't think it will benefit consideration of either one. Each of these issues raise complexities in the ICANN context. There is no clear definition of "public interest" in the ICANN context. There is also no clear definition of "human rights" in the ICANN context. While human rights are critically important and no one (well, hardly anyone) is against human rights, ICANN is not a human rights organization per se. Many of the things that ICANN does in the "public interest" have nothing to do with human rights (positively or negatively). There may also be human rights issues that are not directly related to whether ICANN is acting in the "public interest." I would instead suggest that work related to ICANN and the "global public interest" and ICANN and its relationship to human rights should proceed separately. There is room for significant debate on each of these topics, and tying them together will delay or sink both. That does not mean bringing up "human rights" in the discussion of "global public interest" is taboo -- far from it. This group may find interesting the following excerpts from the Report of Public Comments on the ICANN Draft 5-Year Plan (available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-five-year-...) COMMENT: The entire objective is based on the concept of “public interest” which has a different meaning in different places (countries and contexts). Therefore, agreeing on a definition – that should include clear boundaries – of “public interest” should be at the core of the entire objective ANSWER: Work was carried out by the Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework in consultation with the community through webinars and open sessions at ICANN meetings. We will build on this work moving forward and will work on agreeing on definition of “public interest” within the ICANN context with the community. COMMENT: S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a “steward of the public interest” as part of Strategic Objective 5: “Develop and Implement a Global Public Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN’s Mission”. The sole metric of S.G. 5.1 refers to a “common consensus based definition of public interest”. Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it? If not, how does ICANN propose to develop one? ANSWER: The definition was developed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility framework. The Panel defined the global public interest of the Internet as ensuring that the Internet “becomes, and continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe”. Recognizing that this is a broad concept that permeates all of ICANN’s work, the Panel determined that for practical and operational reasons “public responsibility” work should be streamlined through one department tasked with serving the community, broadening it, and facilitating participation through specific and measurable tracks. Building on the work of the Panel and community requests, the DPRD [Development and Public Responsibility Department] is an operational department focused on public responsibility work centered on the priorities and focus areas identified through the regional engagement strategies and through community engagement with the Panel. The DPRD functions in collaboration with regional VPs, other ICANN departments, external organizations, and through engagement with Governments, ccTLD admins, and GAC members in developing and underdeveloped countries who serve as key entry points to these regions so that we can assist in strengthening IG structures leading to eventual handover to SO/ACs and the wider community. In other words, it appears that ICANN will be using as a definition of “global public interest” a standard developed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, one of several panels appointed in 2013 by ICANN's leadership without community input and whose final report, issued about a year ago, seemingly sank without a trace (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en ). This raises an accountability issue in and of itself..... Greg On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>> wrote: Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative. The GAC reached agreement in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not yet arrived at a shared vision. In the absence of broad, community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human rights? Cheers, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167<tel:202-482-3167> FX: 202-482-1865<tel:202-482-1865> ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM To: Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Dear Avri, I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards, Olivier On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law. However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights. As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights. Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights. So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights." avri I On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, We should avoid to be engaged doing something that we know would no tangible results. I do not be infavour of replacing public interest With anything such as human rights and freedom Of expression, acknowledging That the latter two issues are very important But are quite difficult to limit public interests to These two issues Pls be prudent Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: I'm a bit confused Tijani. First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document. Best, Ed Sent from my iPad On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> wrote: Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion. The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605<tel:%2B%20216%2041%20649%20605> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114<tel:%2B%20216%2098%20330%20114> Fax: + 216 70 853 376<tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Yes, I made this suggestion. Thanks, Robin On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Dear Adam, I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom. Tijani -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. Best, Adam ________________________________ <~WRD000.jpg><http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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 -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

Carlos: Nobody's reducing anything. First off, the First Amendment is really irrelevant to this discussion, as wonderful as it is. It prevents *the federal government from making laws* abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly or respecting an establishment of religion. We are not talking about actions of the U.S. government here, and ICANN has never been considered a part of the U.S. government. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities. So the First Amendment really has nothing to do with this conversation, other than to confuse it. ICANN, as a private entity, has never been subject to the First Amendment, so nothing's changing in that regard. Furthermore, it's inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful to refer to this as a privatization. The "privatization" of the Internet, if such a thing can ever be said to have occurred, occurred decades ago. The stewardship of the US government, while broader than the IANA Functions that are at the core of that stewardship, never extended in any way to applying First Amendment protections or prohibitions to ICANN's action, much less making ICANN an arm of the state. Also, nothing's changing with regard to ICANN's obligation to perform in the public interest. ICANN's public interest obligations do make it different from private for-profit entities. Adopting a Corporate Social Responsibility program and policy would not in any way diminish or replace ICANN's public interest obligations. Rather, CSR policies would complement and act as a (non-exclusive) manifestation of ICANN's commitment to the public interest. A CSR program is not a "simple corporate social strategy." These can be fundamental changes in how a corporation operates and make decisions -- nothing simple about it. And your reference to it as a "strategy" makes it sound quite sinister. Strategy to do what? If it's any kind of strategy, it's a strategy to improve and codify ICANN's socially responsible policies and actions. Corporate Social Responsibility is a well-recognized and growing class of actions intended to improve the actions and policies of all types of entities -- the fact that it has "corporate" in the title doesn't make it dark and suspicious. If this group wants to devote itself to trying to define in detail what the "public interest" is for ICANN, that will pull us way off track. Although the principle is basic, the nuances once you try to parse it out will be anything but basic. This can be a goal for ICANN in the long run, and as Samantha Eisner indicated, this is an effort that is underway. Rather than pulling that task into this group, it would make more sense for those interested in that effort to plug into that effort, and to consider appropriate linkages between that effort and this one. I do agree with one of your conclusions -- we should leave things as they are under California law. Your other choice -- "talking about a move to a stronger (international) legal regime" -- is baffling in many ways. Stronger in what ways? And how would that would be relevant to ICANN's commitment to the public interest? What is an international regime? All organizations other than IGO's are located in a nation. And how would this effect every other ICANN issue? And how would such a conversation serve the overall needs and demands of this group, in any kind of reasonable timeframe? I think you've tried to introduce a sense of vague unease into this dialogue, but there's really nothing to back it up. That's unfortunate, since such vague misgivings tend to cloud rather than clarify, especially when they have no basis. You are trying to make it seem like grand First Amendment protections are being traded for some narrow, cynical corporate strategy. That's just not true. If you are not feeling well, it is probably due to a lack of information, or perhaps something you ate. I've tried to deal with the former. Can't help you with the latter. And finally, I'm not sure what being on the GNSO Council has to do with this -- especially as the nonvoting NomCom representative who does not represent any stakeholder group or constituency. Your contributions on the Council are much appreciated, but not relevant here, and it might give some people the impression you are speaking for for the GNSO Council, which is not the case. I could put a title under my name, too, but since I'm not speaking for that organization, it would be inappropriate to do so. I hope we can keep these discussions focused on fruitful, substantive efforts. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez < carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote:

This is very curious indeed. I’m not a lawyer, but

a) From the perspective of a US neighbour, b) who grew up to believe that the constitutional basis for freedom of speech, religion and assembly (1st amendment) was the highest legal level of human rights possible, and c) while we are talking about the transition of the stewardship from the US Government over the Internet to the private sector, d) to see such freedoms reduced to a simple corporate social strategy

*is quite a discomforting*.

I don’t feel good at all, due to the lack of a definition or at least joint framework of the public interest we expect from a “privatised” Internet in this discussion. If we cannot agree on such a basic principle that has been for a long time in the ICANN bylaws, we might as well a) leave things the way they are under California Law or b) start talking about a move to a stronger (international) legal regime.

Carlos Raul Gutierrez GNSO Council

On Feb 18, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Camino,

I think the suggestion of re-framing the Human Rights issue in a Corporate Social Responsibility framework is an excellent and pragmatic one. This is much more "native" to a corporate entity like ICANN, and there are a lot of well-developed materials, practices and policies for CSR. This makes CSR more "adoptable" in the short run than a human rights platform. HR may be broader than CSR, but we could see what issues remain after a CSR framework for ICANN is identified.

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, <Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu> wrote:

...

I am of the view that different members of the ICANN community understand quite differently the relationship "ICANN-HR-Public Interest".

The fact that ICANN is more attentive to human rights considerations does not entail an extension of its corporate mandate, but a proper and timely assessment of some of its activities and operations in light of the particular circumstances in which a given decision is made, a TLD is delegated, a Board resolution is passed, etc.. Some tend to see this more as a human rights impact assessment rather than an implementation of the human rights International instruments by the book.

Human Rights as such are binding only for state actors, however that does not enter into conflict with the fact that a more attentive approach by ICANN towards human rights and "ethical business" could help the organisation develop a more accountable and transparent way of doing business.

To complicate the landscape a bit further, one can factor in "public interest" considerations. I believe each nation, each jurisdiction, could come up with its own interpretation of what public interest means, but that must not enter into conflict with the fact that any definition of public interest could be perfectly enhanced by making reference to human rights international standards (something we all know about and for which one can easily find widely accepted references online/codified). Right now ICANNs notion of public interest is insufficiently clear to provide guidance to the policy development process and that does not play in favour of any stakeholder: it can be abused by parties wanting to place literally "everything" under the public interest, and it can be downplayed by parties only interested in the economic angle of the DNS.

Accountability requires measurable standards; Human rights could serve to delineate the notion of public interest but since the concept of public interest is so much broader than that, that the conversation could last ad infinitum.

In sum, while some parts of the community continue to discuss whether is adequate to include references to human rights in the Bylaws, or draw a link between human rights and public interest, which I find a valuable but lengthy discussion, there is some low hanging fruit in the ICANN strategy panel on Public Responsibility Framework which could easily be turned into a proper Corporate Social Responsibility strategy, based on measurable indicators. Google does it, Microsoft does it, Yahoo does it….

My question is, why are we still focusing on HR and public interest rather than giving a different spin to this heading and renaming to "CSR"? Isn't' it easier to deal with CSR concepts and frameworks in a corporate environment like ICANN?

Last not least, my purely personal view is that the fact that there is no GAC consensus in the realm of HR and ICANN is irrelevant for the community and for this group so as to continue discussions around proposals that touch upon ICANN and human rights. In fact, the discussions in this group could well enlighten or provide useful feedback to those discussions in the GAC or in the recently created CCWG-Human Rights in the future. I fail to see why the remit of one group one should prevent the work of the other, and vice versa.

Best regards

(Ms) Camino Manjon-Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 - International relations

Internet Governance

Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/109) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447

E: Camino.Manjon@ec.europa.eu

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:05 PM *To:* Suzanne Radell *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

I am loathe to build a hard linkage between "public interest" and "human rights." I don't think it will benefit consideration of either one. Each of these issues raise complexities in the ICANN context. There is no clear definition of "public interest" in the ICANN context. There is also no clear definition of "human rights" in the ICANN context. While human rights are critically important and no one (well, hardly anyone) is against human rights, ICANN is not a human rights organization per se. Many of the things that ICANN does in the "public interest" have nothing to do with human rights (positively or negatively). There may also be human rights issues that are not directly related to whether ICANN is acting in the "public interest."

I would instead suggest that work related to ICANN and the "global public interest" and ICANN and its relationship to human rights should proceed separately. There is room for significant debate on each of these topics, and tying them together will delay or sink both. That does not mean bringing up "human rights" in the discussion of "global public interest" is taboo -- far from it.

This group may find interesting the following excerpts from the Report of Public Comments on the ICANN Draft 5-Year Plan (available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-five-year-... )

COMMENT: The entire objective is based on the concept of “public interest” which has a different meaning in different places (countries and contexts). Therefore, agreeing on a definition – that should include clear boundaries – of “public interest” should be at the core of the entire objective

ANSWER: Work was carried out by the Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework in consultation with the community through webinars and open sessions at ICANN meetings. We will build on this work moving forward and will work on agreeing on definition of “public interest” within the ICANN context with the community.

COMMENT: S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a “steward of the public interest” as part of Strategic Objective 5: “Develop and Implement a Global Public Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN’s Mission”. The sole metric of S.G. 5.1 refers to a “common consensus based definition of public interest”. Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it? If not, how does ICANN propose to develop one?

ANSWER: The definition was developed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility framework. The Panel defined the global public interest of the Internet as ensuring that the Internet “becomes, and continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe”. Recognizing that this is a broad concept that permeates all of ICANN’s work, the Panel determined that for practical and operational reasons “public responsibility” work should be streamlined through one department tasked with serving the community, broadening it, and facilitating participation through specific and measurable tracks. Building on the work of the Panel and community requests, the DPRD [Development and Public Responsibility Department] is an operational department focused on public responsibility work centered on the priorities and focus areas identified through the regional engagement strategies and through community engagement with the Panel. The DPRD functions in collaboration with regional VPs, other ICANN departments, external organizations, and through engagement with Governments, ccTLD admins, and GAC members in developing and underdeveloped countries who serve as key entry points to these regions so that we can assist in strengthening IG structures leading to eventual handover to SO/ACs and the wider community.

In other words, it appears that ICANN will be using as a definition of “global public interest” a standard developed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, one of several panels appointed in 2013 by ICANN's leadership without community input and whose final report, issued about a year ago, seemingly sank without a trace (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en ).

This raises an accountability issue in and of itself.....

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov> wrote:

Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative. The GAC reached agreement in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not yet arrived at a shared vision. In the absence of broad, community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human rights? Cheers, Suz

*Suzanne Murray Radell *

* Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 <202-482-3167> FX: 202-482-1865 <202-482-1865>*

------------------------------

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM *To:* Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Dear Avri,

I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law.

However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights.

As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights.

Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights.

So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."

avri

I

On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear All,

We should avoid to be engaged doing

something that we know would no tangible

results.

I do not be infavour of replacing public interest

With anything such as human rights and

freedom Of expression, acknowledging

That the latter two issues are very important

But are quite difficult to limit public interests to

These two issues

Pls be prudent

Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

I'm a bit confused Tijani.

First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:

Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion.

The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Tijani BEN JEMAA*

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)

Phone: + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax: + 216 70 853 376

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*De :* Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <robin@ipjustice.org>] *Envoyé :* mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 *À :* Tijani BEN JEMAA *Cc :* 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Yes, I made this suggestion.

Thanks,

Robin

On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Dear Adam,

I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom.

Tijani

-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week.

Best,

Adam

------------------------------

<~WRD000.jpg> <http://www.avast.com/>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

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

------------------------------

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

_______________________________________________ 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

--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

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

-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

On 19/02/2015 04:36, Greg Shatan wrote:

If this group wants to devote itself to trying to define in detail what the "public interest" is for ICANN, that will pull us way off track. Although the principle is basic, the nuances once you try to parse it out will be anything but basic. This can be a goal for ICANN in the long run, and as Samantha Eisner indicated, this is an effort that is underway. Rather than pulling that task into this group, it would make more sense for those interested in that effort to plug into that effort, and to consider appropriate linkages between that effort and this one.

Having been in many, many working groups that considered defining what the "public interest" is for ICANN, I have to agree that this is not the best use of the WG's time. We all know when a decision is in the public interest - ie. it serves the public good, but defining it only serves to reduce its scope and make it an incomplete term. It's like defining "wet" in "water is wet". Kind regards, Olivier

The problem is that ICANN is a private corporation and it is engaging in public governance functions. The quasi public-private structure creates a challenge because if it were a traditional government, it would be required to respect human rights in the performance of public governance functions, and some argue that because it is a private corporation it has no obligation to respect rights (years ago ICANN's lawyers argued in the xxx case that, as a contractee to the US Govt, it was obligated to protect free expression). So the traditional framework breaks down because we've got a private corporation undertaking public governance functions, but without the traditional protections (respecting human rights) in the performance of those public functions. If this "hole" is not plugged, the multi-stakeholder model is inadequate for Internet governance. "Out-sourcing" public governance functions to private corporations is fine, so long as we don't lose the protections afforded by public governance institutions. If there is no duty to protect free expression and privacy by those organizations who set policies governing the Internet, we've taken a step-backward with multi-stakholderism, although it is not too late to fix. At its core, what I'm arguing here is that ICANN should respect free speech, privacy, and due process rights in its carrying out of its public governance functions, so when ICANN makes a policy, it doesn't derogate from the fundamental rights afforded to Internet users in traditional governance institutions. If ICANN wants to engage in public governance functions, it must accept public governance responsibilities. Best, Robin On Feb 18, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Carlos:

Nobody's reducing anything.

First off, the First Amendment is really irrelevant to this discussion, as wonderful as it is. It prevents the federal government from making laws abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly or respecting an establishment of religion. We are not talking about actions of the U.S. government here, and ICANN has never been considered a part of the U.S. government. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities. So the First Amendment really has nothing to do with this conversation, other than to confuse it.

ICANN, as a private entity, has never been subject to the First Amendment, so nothing's changing in that regard. Furthermore, it's inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful to refer to this as a privatization. The "privatization" of the Internet, if such a thing can ever be said to have occurred, occurred decades ago. The stewardship of the US government, while broader than the IANA Functions that are at the core of that stewardship, never extended in any way to applying First Amendment protections or prohibitions to ICANN's action, much less making ICANN an arm of the state.

Also, nothing's changing with regard to ICANN's obligation to perform in the public interest. ICANN's public interest obligations do make it different from private for-profit entities. Adopting a Corporate Social Responsibility program and policy would not in any way diminish or replace ICANN's public interest obligations. Rather, CSR policies would complement and act as a (non-exclusive) manifestation of ICANN's commitment to the public interest. A CSR program is not a "simple corporate social strategy." These can be fundamental changes in how a corporation operates and make decisions -- nothing simple about it. And your reference to it as a "strategy" makes it sound quite sinister. Strategy to do what? If it's any kind of strategy, it's a strategy to improve and codify ICANN's socially responsible policies and actions. Corporate Social Responsibility is a well-recognized and growing class of actions intended to improve the actions and policies of all types of entities -- the fact that it has "corporate" in the title doesn't make it dark and suspicious.

If this group wants to devote itself to trying to define in detail what the "public interest" is for ICANN, that will pull us way off track. Although the principle is basic, the nuances once you try to parse it out will be anything but basic. This can be a goal for ICANN in the long run, and as Samantha Eisner indicated, this is an effort that is underway. Rather than pulling that task into this group, it would make more sense for those interested in that effort to plug into that effort, and to consider appropriate linkages between that effort and this one.

I do agree with one of your conclusions -- we should leave things as they are under California law. Your other choice -- "talking about a move to a stronger (international) legal regime" -- is baffling in many ways. Stronger in what ways? And how would that would be relevant to ICANN's commitment to the public interest? What is an international regime? All organizations other than IGO's are located in a nation. And how would this effect every other ICANN issue? And how would such a conversation serve the overall needs and demands of this group, in any kind of reasonable timeframe?

I think you've tried to introduce a sense of vague unease into this dialogue, but there's really nothing to back it up. That's unfortunate, since such vague misgivings tend to cloud rather than clarify, especially when they have no basis. You are trying to make it seem like grand First Amendment protections are being traded for some narrow, cynical corporate strategy. That's just not true.

If you are not feeling well, it is probably due to a lack of information, or perhaps something you ate. I've tried to deal with the former. Can't help you with the latter.

And finally, I'm not sure what being on the GNSO Council has to do with this -- especially as the nonvoting NomCom representative who does not represent any stakeholder group or constituency. Your contributions on the Council are much appreciated, but not relevant here, and it might give some people the impression you are speaking for for the GNSO Council, which is not the case. I could put a title under my name, too, but since I'm not speaking for that organization, it would be inappropriate to do so.

I hope we can keep these discussions focused on fruitful, substantive efforts.

Best regards,

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote: This is very curious indeed. I’m not a lawyer, but

a) From the perspective of a US neighbour, b) who grew up to believe that the constitutional basis for freedom of speech, religion and assembly (1st amendment) was the highest legal level of human rights possible, and c) while we are talking about the transition of the stewardship from the US Government over the Internet to the private sector, d) to see such freedoms reduced to a simple corporate social strategy

is quite a discomforting.

I don’t feel good at all, due to the lack of a definition or at least joint framework of the public interest we expect from a “privatised” Internet in this discussion. If we cannot agree on such a basic principle that has been for a long time in the ICANN bylaws, we might as well a) leave things the way they are under California Law or b) start talking about a move to a stronger (international) legal regime.

Carlos Raul Gutierrez GNSO Council

...

On Feb 18, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Camino,

I think the suggestion of re-framing the Human Rights issue in a Corporate Social Responsibility framework is an excellent and pragmatic one. This is much more "native" to a corporate entity like ICANN, and there are a lot of well-developed materials, practices and policies for CSR. This makes CSR more "adoptable" in the short run than a human rights platform. HR may be broader than CSR, but we could see what issues remain after a CSR framework for ICANN is identified.

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, <Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu> wrote: I am of the view that different members of the ICANN community understand quite differently the relationship "ICANN-HR-Public Interest".

The fact that ICANN is more attentive to human rights considerations does not entail an extension of its corporate mandate, but a proper and timely assessment of some of its activities and operations in light of the particular circumstances in which a given decision is made, a TLD is delegated, a Board resolution is passed, etc.. Some tend to see this more as a human rights impact assessment rather than an implementation of the human rights International instruments by the book.

Human Rights as such are binding only for state actors, however that does not enter into conflict with the fact that a more attentive approach by ICANN towards human rights and "ethical business" could help the organisation develop a more accountable and transparent way of doing business.

To complicate the landscape a bit further, one can factor in "public interest" considerations. I believe each nation, each jurisdiction, could come up with its own interpretation of what public interest means, but that must not enter into conflict with the fact that any definition of public interest could be perfectly enhanced by making reference to human rights international standards (something we all know about and for which one can easily find widely accepted references online/codified). Right now ICANNs notion of public interest is insufficiently clear to provide guidance to the policy development process and that does not play in favour of any stakeholder: it can be abused by parties wanting to place literally "everything" under the public interest, and it can be downplayed by parties only interested in the economic angle of the DNS.

Accountability requires measurable standards; Human rights could serve to delineate the notion of public interest but since the concept of public interest is so much broader than that, that the conversation could last ad infinitum.

In sum, while some parts of the community continue to discuss whether is adequate to include references to human rights in the Bylaws, or draw a link between human rights and public interest, which I find a valuable but lengthy discussion, there is some low hanging fruit in the ICANN strategy panel on Public Responsibility Framework which could easily be turned into a proper Corporate Social Responsibility strategy, based on measurable indicators. Google does it, Microsoft does it, Yahoo does it….

My question is, why are we still focusing on HR and public interest rather than giving a different spin to this heading and renaming to "CSR"? Isn't' it easier to deal with CSR concepts and frameworks in a corporate environment like ICANN?

Last not least, my purely personal view is that the fact that there is no GAC consensus in the realm of HR and ICANN is irrelevant for the community and for this group so as to continue discussions around proposals that touch upon ICANN and human rights. In fact, the discussions in this group could well enlighten or provide useful feedback to those discussions in the GAC or in the recently created CCWG-Human Rights in the future. I fail to see why the remit of one group one should prevent the work of the other, and vice versa.

Best regards

(Ms) Camino Manjon-Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 - International relations

Internet Governance

Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/109) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447

E: Camino.Manjon@ec.europa.eu

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:05 PM To: Suzanne Radell Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org

Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

I am loathe to build a hard linkage between "public interest" and "human rights." I don't think it will benefit consideration of either one. Each of these issues raise complexities in the ICANN context. There is no clear definition of "public interest" in the ICANN context. There is also no clear definition of "human rights" in the ICANN context. While human rights are critically important and no one (well, hardly anyone) is against human rights, ICANN is not a human rights organization per se. Many of the things that ICANN does in the "public interest" have nothing to do with human rights (positively or negatively). There may also be human rights issues that are not directly related to whether ICANN is acting in the "public interest."

I would instead suggest that work related to ICANN and the "global public interest" and ICANN and its relationship to human rights should proceed separately. There is room for significant debate on each of these topics, and tying them together will delay or sink both. That does not mean bringing up "human rights" in the discussion of "global public interest" is taboo -- far from it.

This group may find interesting the following excerpts from the Report of Public Comments on the ICANN Draft 5-Year Plan (available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-five-year-...)

COMMENT: The entire objective is based on the concept of “public interest” which has a different meaning in different places (countries and contexts). Therefore, agreeing on a definition – that should include clear boundaries – of “public interest” should be at the core of the entire objective

ANSWER: Work was carried out by the Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework in consultation with the community through webinars and open sessions at ICANN meetings. We will build on this work moving forward and will work on agreeing on definition of “public interest” within the ICANN context with the community.

COMMENT: S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a “steward of the public interest” as part of Strategic Objective 5: “Develop and Implement a Global Public Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN’s Mission”. The sole metric of S.G. 5.1 refers to a “common consensus based definition of public interest”. Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it? If not, how does ICANN propose to develop one?

ANSWER: The definition was developed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility framework. The Panel defined the global public interest of the Internet as ensuring that the Internet “becomes, and continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe”. Recognizing that this is a broad concept that permeates all of ICANN’s work, the Panel determined that for practical and operational reasons “public responsibility” work should be streamlined through one department tasked with serving the community, broadening it, and facilitating participation through specific and measurable tracks. Building on the work of the Panel and community requests, the DPRD [Development and Public Responsibility Department] is an operational department focused on public responsibility work centered on the priorities and focus areas identified through the regional engagement strategies and through community engagement with the Panel. The DPRD functions in collaboration with regional VPs, other ICANN departments, external organizations, and through engagement with Governments, ccTLD admins, and GAC members in developing and underdeveloped countries who serve as key entry points to these regions so that we can assist in strengthening IG structures leading to eventual handover to SO/ACs and the wider community.

In other words, it appears that ICANN will be using as a definition of “global public interest” a standard developed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, one of several panels appointed in 2013 by ICANN's leadership without community input and whose final report, issued about a year ago, seemingly sank without a trace (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en ).

This raises an accountability issue in and of itself.....

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov> wrote:

Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative. The GAC reached agreement in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not yet arrived at a shared vision. In the absence of broad, community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human rights? Cheers, Suz

Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 FX: 202-482-1865

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM To: Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Dear Avri,

I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law.

However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights.

As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights.

Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights.

So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."

avri

I

On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear All,

We should avoid to be engaged doing

something that we know would no tangible

results.

I do not be infavour of replacing public interest

With anything such as human rights and

freedom Of expression, acknowledging

That the latter two issues are very important

But are quite difficult to limit public interests to

These two issues

Pls be prudent

Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

I'm a bit confused Tijani.

First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:

Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion.

The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone: + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax: + 216 70 853 376

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Yes, I made this suggestion.

Thanks,

Robin

On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Dear Adam,

I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom.

Tijani

-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week.

Best,

Adam

<~WRD000.jpg>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.

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

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

--

Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com

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

-- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Robin I feel you have very precisely identified the dilemma we are confronting here. How we resolve this is key for the future of this framework. Best Jorge Cancio Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Robin Gross Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2015 17:17 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 The problem is that ICANN is a private corporation and it is engaging in public governance functions. The quasi public-private structure creates a challenge because if it were a traditional government, it would be required to respect human rights in the performance of public governance functions, and some argue that because it is a private corporation it has no obligation to respect rights (years ago ICANN's lawyers argued in the xxx case that, as a contractee to the US Govt, it was obligated to protect free expression). So the traditional framework breaks down because we've got a private corporation undertaking public governance functions, but without the traditional protections (respecting human rights) in the performance of those public functions. If this "hole" is not plugged, the multi-stakeholder model is inadequate for Internet governance. "Out-sourcing" public governance functions to private corporations is fine, so long as we don't lose the protections afforded by public governance institutions. If there is no duty to protect free expression and privacy by those organizations who set policies governing the Internet, we've taken a step-backward with multi-stakholderism, although it is not too late to fix. At its core, what I'm arguing here is that ICANN should respect free speech, privacy, and due process rights in its carrying out of its public governance functions, so when ICANN makes a policy, it doesn't derogate from the fundamental rights afforded to Internet users in traditional governance institutions. If ICANN wants to engage in public governance functions, it must accept public governance responsibilities. Best, Robin On Feb 18, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Carlos: Nobody's reducing anything. First off, the First Amendment is really irrelevant to this discussion, as wonderful as it is. It prevents the federal government from making laws abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly or respecting an establishment of religion. We are not talking about actions of the U.S. government here, and ICANN has never been considered a part of the U.S. government. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities. So the First Amendment really has nothing to do with this conversation, other than to confuse it. ICANN, as a private entity, has never been subject to the First Amendment, so nothing's changing in that regard. Furthermore, it's inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful to refer to this as a privatization. The "privatization" of the Internet, if such a thing can ever be said to have occurred, occurred decades ago. The stewardship of the US government, while broader than the IANA Functions that are at the core of that stewardship, never extended in any way to applying First Amendment protections or prohibitions to ICANN's action, much less making ICANN an arm of the state. Also, nothing's changing with regard to ICANN's obligation to perform in the public interest. ICANN's public interest obligations do make it different from private for-profit entities. Adopting a Corporate Social Responsibility program and policy would not in any way diminish or replace ICANN's public interest obligations. Rather, CSR policies would complement and act as a (non-exclusive) manifestation of ICANN's commitment to the public interest. A CSR program is not a "simple corporate social strategy." These can be fundamental changes in how a corporation operates and make decisions -- nothing simple about it. And your reference to it as a "strategy" makes it sound quite sinister. Strategy to do what? If it's any kind of strategy, it's a strategy to improve and codify ICANN's socially responsible policies and actions. Corporate Social Responsibility is a well-recognized and growing class of actions intended to improve the actions and policies of all types of entities -- the fact that it has "corporate" in the title doesn't make it dark and suspicious. If this group wants to devote itself to trying to define in detail what the "public interest" is for ICANN, that will pull us way off track. Although the principle is basic, the nuances once you try to parse it out will be anything but basic. This can be a goal for ICANN in the long run, and as Samantha Eisner indicated, this is an effort that is underway. Rather than pulling that task into this group, it would make more sense for those interested in that effort to plug into that effort, and to consider appropriate linkages between that effort and this one. I do agree with one of your conclusions -- we should leave things as they are under California law. Your other choice -- "talking about a move to a stronger (international) legal regime" -- is baffling in many ways. Stronger in what ways? And how would that would be relevant to ICANN's commitment to the public interest? What is an international regime? All organizations other than IGO's are located in a nation. And how would this effect every other ICANN issue? And how would such a conversation serve the overall needs and demands of this group, in any kind of reasonable timeframe? I think you've tried to introduce a sense of vague unease into this dialogue, but there's really nothing to back it up. That's unfortunate, since such vague misgivings tend to cloud rather than clarify, especially when they have no basis. You are trying to make it seem like grand First Amendment protections are being traded for some narrow, cynical corporate strategy. That's just not true. If you are not feeling well, it is probably due to a lack of information, or perhaps something you ate. I've tried to deal with the former. Can't help you with the latter. And finally, I'm not sure what being on the GNSO Council has to do with this -- especially as the nonvoting NomCom representative who does not represent any stakeholder group or constituency. Your contributions on the Council are much appreciated, but not relevant here, and it might give some people the impression you are speaking for for the GNSO Council, which is not the case. I could put a title under my name, too, but since I'm not speaking for that organization, it would be inappropriate to do so. I hope we can keep these discussions focused on fruitful, substantive efforts. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <carlosraulg@gmail.com<mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com>> wrote: This is very curious indeed. I'm not a lawyer, but a) From the perspective of a US neighbour, b) who grew up to believe that the constitutional basis for freedom of speech, religion and assembly (1st amendment) was the highest legal level of human rights possible, and c) while we are talking about the transition of the stewardship from the US Government over the Internet to the private sector, d) to see such freedoms reduced to a simple corporate social strategy is quite a discomforting. I don't feel good at all, due to the lack of a definition or at least joint framework of the public interest we expect from a "privatised" Internet in this discussion. If we cannot agree on such a basic principle that has been for a long time in the ICANN bylaws, we might as well a) leave things the way they are under California Law or b) start talking about a move to a stronger (international) legal regime. Carlos Raul Gutierrez GNSO Council On Feb 18, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Camino, I think the suggestion of re-framing the Human Rights issue in a Corporate Social Responsibility framework is an excellent and pragmatic one. This is much more "native" to a corporate entity like ICANN, and there are a lot of well-developed materials, practices and policies for CSR. This makes CSR more "adoptable" in the short run than a human rights platform. HR may be broader than CSR, but we could see what issues remain after a CSR framework for ICANN is identified. Greg On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, <Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu>> wrote: I am of the view that different members of the ICANN community understand quite differently the relationship "ICANN-HR-Public Interest". The fact that ICANN is more attentive to human rights considerations does not entail an extension of its corporate mandate, but a proper and timely assessment of some of its activities and operations in light of the particular circumstances in which a given decision is made, a TLD is delegated, a Board resolution is passed, etc.. Some tend to see this more as a human rights impact assessment rather than an implementation of the human rights International instruments by the book. Human Rights as such are binding only for state actors, however that does not enter into conflict with the fact that a more attentive approach by ICANN towards human rights and "ethical business" could help the organisation develop a more accountable and transparent way of doing business. To complicate the landscape a bit further, one can factor in "public interest" considerations. I believe each nation, each jurisdiction, could come up with its own interpretation of what public interest means, but that must not enter into conflict with the fact that any definition of public interest could be perfectly enhanced by making reference to human rights international standards (something we all know about and for which one can easily find widely accepted references online/codified). Right now ICANNs notion of public interest is insufficiently clear to provide guidance to the policy development process and that does not play in favour of any stakeholder: it can be abused by parties wanting to place literally "everything" under the public interest, and it can be downplayed by parties only interested in the economic angle of the DNS. Accountability requires measurable standards; Human rights could serve to delineate the notion of public interest but since the concept of public interest is so much broader than that, that the conversation could last ad infinitum. In sum, while some parts of the community continue to discuss whether is adequate to include references to human rights in the Bylaws, or draw a link between human rights and public interest, which I find a valuable but lengthy discussion, there is some low hanging fruit in the ICANN strategy panel on Public Responsibility Framework which could easily be turned into a proper Corporate Social Responsibility strategy, based on measurable indicators. Google does it, Microsoft does it, Yahoo does it.... My question is, why are we still focusing on HR and public interest rather than giving a different spin to this heading and renaming to "CSR"? Isn't' it easier to deal with CSR concepts and frameworks in a corporate environment like ICANN? Last not least, my purely personal view is that the fact that there is no GAC consensus in the realm of HR and ICANN is irrelevant for the community and for this group so as to continue discussions around proposals that touch upon ICANN and human rights. In fact, the discussions in this group could well enlighten or provide useful feedback to those discussions in the GAC or in the recently created CCWG-Human Rights in the future. I fail to see why the remit of one group one should prevent the work of the other, and vice versa. Best regards (Ms) Camino Manjon-Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 - International relations Internet Governance Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/109) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447 E: Camino.Manjon@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Camino.Manjon@ec.europa.eu> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:05 PM To: Suzanne Radell Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 I am loathe to build a hard linkage between "public interest" and "human rights." I don't think it will benefit consideration of either one. Each of these issues raise complexities in the ICANN context. There is no clear definition of "public interest" in the ICANN context. There is also no clear definition of "human rights" in the ICANN context. While human rights are critically important and no one (well, hardly anyone) is against human rights, ICANN is not a human rights organization per se. Many of the things that ICANN does in the "public interest" have nothing to do with human rights (positively or negatively). There may also be human rights issues that are not directly related to whether ICANN is acting in the "public interest." I would instead suggest that work related to ICANN and the "global public interest" and ICANN and its relationship to human rights should proceed separately. There is room for significant debate on each of these topics, and tying them together will delay or sink both. That does not mean bringing up "human rights" in the discussion of "global public interest" is taboo -- far from it. This group may find interesting the following excerpts from the Report of Public Comments on the ICANN Draft 5-Year Plan (available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-five-year-...) COMMENT: The entire objective is based on the concept of "public interest" which has a different meaning in different places (countries and contexts). Therefore, agreeing on a definition - that should include clear boundaries - of "public interest" should be at the core of the entire objective ANSWER: Work was carried out by the Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework in consultation with the community through webinars and open sessions at ICANN meetings. We will build on this work moving forward and will work on agreeing on definition of "public interest" within the ICANN context with the community. COMMENT: S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a "steward of the public interest" as part of Strategic Objective 5: "Develop and Implement a Global Public Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN's Mission". The sole metric of S.G. 5.1 refers to a "common consensus based definition of public interest". Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it? If not, how does ICANN propose to develop one? ANSWER: The definition was developed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility framework. The Panel defined the global public interest of the Internet as ensuring that the Internet "becomes, and continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe". Recognizing that this is a broad concept that permeates all of ICANN's work, the Panel determined that for practical and operational reasons "public responsibility" work should be streamlined through one department tasked with serving the community, broadening it, and facilitating participation through specific and measurable tracks. Building on the work of the Panel and community requests, the DPRD [Development and Public Responsibility Department] is an operational department focused on public responsibility work centered on the priorities and focus areas identified through the regional engagement strategies and through community engagement with the Panel. The DPRD functions in collaboration with regional VPs, other ICANN departments, external organizations, and through engagement with Governments, ccTLD admins, and GAC members in developing and underdeveloped countries who serve as key entry points to these regions so that we can assist in strengthening IG structures leading to eventual handover to SO/ACs and the wider community. In other words, it appears that ICANN will be using as a definition of "global public interest" a standard developed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, one of several panels appointed in 2013 by ICANN's leadership without community input and whose final report, issued about a year ago, seemingly sank without a trace (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en ). This raises an accountability issue in and of itself..... Greg On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>> wrote: Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative. The GAC reached agreement in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not yet arrived at a shared vision. In the absence of broad, community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human rights? Cheers, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167<tel:202-482-3167> FX: 202-482-1865<tel:202-482-1865> ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM To: Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Dear Avri, I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards, Olivier On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law. However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights. As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights. Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights. So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights." avri I On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, We should avoid to be engaged doing something that we know would no tangible results. I do not be infavour of replacing public interest With anything such as human rights and freedom Of expression, acknowledging That the latter two issues are very important But are quite difficult to limit public interests to These two issues Pls be prudent Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: I'm a bit confused Tijani. First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document. Best, Ed Sent from my iPad On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> wrote: Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion. The "public interest" or the "benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders" had a large support as part of the "CCWG Accountability - Problem definition" document (purposes of ICANN's accountability, d.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605<tel:%2B%20216%2041%20649%20605> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114<tel:%2B%20216%2098%20330%20114> Fax: + 216 70 853 376<tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Yes, I made this suggestion. Thanks, Robin On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Dear Adam, I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don't remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom. Tijani -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. Best, Adam ________________________________ <~WRD000.jpg><http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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 -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ 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

Hi All, I agree with the CSR option as supported by many others as I believe it's outside remit of ICANN to decide on 'public interest' or 'human rights' issues. And if for any reason we need to stick to 'Public Interest', in my opinion it should be replaced by 'Larger Public Interest' as there could be many, and sometimes conflicting public interests- and so larger public interest needs to prevail. Having this amendment, I would still not support Avri's idea of using 'Larger Public Interest consistent with Human Rights' because it places human rights above larger public interest. In numerous constitutions and legislations across the world, issues such as larger public interest, national security etc. scores over human rights in case of a conflict. Regards, Rahul Sharma On 19 February 2015 at 23:27, <Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu> wrote:

I completely agree with *Robin* below, but would like to reiterate that such views are CSR strategies are not opposite but complementary. The use of CSR has to do precisely with how to make the commitment to respect human rights operational. Reference to HR in the bylaws linked to ICANN's mandate is perfectly fine, but in order to take the commitment further I am of the view that it is necessary to implement CSR strategies. *Carlos*, I am sure that Greg and I did not mean to reduce freedoms to a mere CSR framework.

In Frankfurt I made a small intervention about the *United Nation's Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights* (UNGPs), adopted by unanimity by the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) on 16 June 2011, and which are the most comprehensive and globally recognised standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights linked to business activity. The EU has played a leading role in the promotion of the UNGPs, recognising them as “the authoritative policy framework” in the field of business and human rights.

The UNGPs are a set of 31 guiding principles, structured according to three distinct but interrelated pillars:

(1) The state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including businesses, through appropriate policies, regulation and adjudication;

(2) The corporate responsibility to respect human rights, in essence meaning to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others; and

(3) The need for greater access by victims to effective remedy, judicial and non-judicial.

The UNGPs are the first universally accepted global framework to address and reduce corporate-related human rights harm. For decades before, the international community failed to achieve consensus on such a widely recognised framework. The UNGPs were developed during six years of extensive consultations with stakeholder groups, including governments, NGOs and business. This work was led by Harvard Professor John Ruggie, who served as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business and Human Rights from 2005-2011.

As such, the UNGPs are not legally binding. Nor did they introduce new international law on Business and Human Rights. As Professor Ruggie stated in his report to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), their “normative contribution lies in elaborating the implications of existing standards and practices for states and businesses; integrating them within a single, logically coherent and comprehensive template; and identifying where the current regime falls short and how it could be improved.”

As I also noted in Frankfurt, today the UNGPs enjoy *wide recognition* and support from the business and civil society communities. In June 2014 the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution (HRC 26/22) by consensus, renewing the mandate of the Working Group on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Enterprises, with a view to continuing the promotion and implementation of the UNGPs world-wide.

Some of the UNGPs' core provisions are now incorporated into key international documents, including the new human rights chapter in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, ISO 26000, the new Sustainability Policy of the International Finance Corporation, the EIB’s Environment and Social Handbook and the European Commission’s policy on Corporate Social Responsibility...

*If is not by means of a CSR framework based on these sort of UNGP standards, how is otherwise ICANN expected to measurably respect and protect human rights? *

In my humble opinion, the duty to respect International law somewhat already in the AoI and in the Bylaws and indeed it deserves to be further precised of enhanced (with references to International HR standards, for instance, as we have proposed in different fora) but without practical means to implement it, the "hole" is still there, even though we may have managed to fit in the right words in the right governing documents.

Best

Camino

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of * Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 6:31 PM *To:* robin@ipjustice.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Dear Robin

I feel you have very precisely identified the dilemma we are confronting here. How we resolve this is key for the future of this framework.

Best

Jorge Cancio

*Von:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Robin Gross *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2015 17:17 *An:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

The problem is that ICANN is a private corporation and it is engaging in public governance functions. The quasi public-private structure creates a challenge because if it were a traditional government, it would be required to respect human rights in the performance of public governance functions, and some argue that because it is a private corporation it has no obligation to respect rights (years ago ICANN's lawyers argued in the xxx case that, as a contractee to the US Govt, it was obligated to protect free expression).

So the traditional framework breaks down because we've got a private corporation undertaking public governance functions, but without the traditional protections (respecting human rights) in the performance of those public functions.

If this "hole" is not plugged, the multi-stakeholder model is inadequate for Internet governance. "Out-sourcing" public governance functions to private corporations is fine, so long as we don't lose the protections afforded by public governance institutions. If there is no duty to protect free expression and privacy by those organizations who set policies governing the Internet, we've taken a step-backward with multi-stakholderism, although it is not too late to fix.

At its core, what I'm arguing here is that ICANN should respect free speech, privacy, and due process rights in its carrying out of its public governance functions, so when ICANN makes a policy, it doesn't derogate from the fundamental rights afforded to Internet users in traditional governance institutions. If ICANN wants to engage in public governance functions, it must accept public governance responsibilities.

Best,

Robin

On Feb 18, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Carlos:

Nobody's reducing anything.

First off, the First Amendment is really irrelevant to this discussion, as wonderful as it is. It prevents *the federal government from making laws* abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly or respecting an establishment of religion. We are not talking about actions of the U.S. government here, and ICANN has never been considered a part of the U.S. government. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities. So the First Amendment really has nothing to do with this conversation, other than to confuse it.

ICANN, as a private entity, has never been subject to the First Amendment, so nothing's changing in that regard. Furthermore, it's inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful to refer to this as a privatization. The "privatization" of the Internet, if such a thing can ever be said to have occurred, occurred decades ago. The stewardship of the US government, while broader than the IANA Functions that are at the core of that stewardship, never extended in any way to applying First Amendment protections or prohibitions to ICANN's action, much less making ICANN an arm of the state.

Also, nothing's changing with regard to ICANN's obligation to perform in the public interest. ICANN's public interest obligations do make it different from private for-profit entities. Adopting a Corporate Social Responsibility program and policy would not in any way diminish or replace ICANN's public interest obligations. Rather, CSR policies would complement and act as a (non-exclusive) manifestation of ICANN's commitment to the public interest. A CSR program is not a "simple corporate social strategy." These can be fundamental changes in how a corporation operates and make decisions -- nothing simple about it. And your reference to it as a "strategy" makes it sound quite sinister. Strategy to do what? If it's any kind of strategy, it's a strategy to improve and codify ICANN's socially responsible policies and actions. Corporate Social Responsibility is a well-recognized and growing class of actions intended to improve the actions and policies of all types of entities -- the fact that it has "corporate" in the title doesn't make it dark and suspicious.

If this group wants to devote itself to trying to define in detail what the "public interest" is for ICANN, that will pull us way off track. Although the principle is basic, the nuances once you try to parse it out will be anything but basic. This can be a goal for ICANN in the long run, and as Samantha Eisner indicated, this is an effort that is underway. Rather than pulling that task into this group, it would make more sense for those interested in that effort to plug into that effort, and to consider appropriate linkages between that effort and this one.

I do agree with one of your conclusions -- we should leave things as they are under California law. Your other choice -- "talking about a move to a stronger (international) legal regime" -- is baffling in many ways. Stronger in what ways? And how would that would be relevant to ICANN's commitment to the public interest? What is an international regime? All organizations other than IGO's are located in a nation. And how would this effect every other ICANN issue? And how would such a conversation serve the overall needs and demands of this group, in any kind of reasonable timeframe?

I think you've tried to introduce a sense of vague unease into this dialogue, but there's really nothing to back it up. That's unfortunate, since such vague misgivings tend to cloud rather than clarify, especially when they have no basis. You are trying to make it seem like grand First Amendment protections are being traded for some narrow, cynical corporate strategy. That's just not true.

If you are not feeling well, it is probably due to a lack of information, or perhaps something you ate. I've tried to deal with the former. Can't help you with the latter.

And finally, I'm not sure what being on the GNSO Council has to do with this -- especially as the nonvoting NomCom representative who does not represent any stakeholder group or constituency. Your contributions on the Council are much appreciated, but not relevant here, and it might give some people the impression you are speaking for for the GNSO Council, which is not the case. I could put a title under my name, too, but since I'm not speaking for that organization, it would be inappropriate to do so.

I hope we can keep these discussions focused on fruitful, substantive efforts.

Best regards,

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez < carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote:

This is very curious indeed. I’m not a lawyer, but

a) From the perspective of a US neighbour,

b) who grew up to believe that the constitutional basis for freedom of speech, religion and assembly (1st amendment) was the highest legal level of human rights possible, and

c) while we are talking about the transition of the stewardship from the US Government over the Internet to the private sector,

d) to see such freedoms reduced to a simple corporate social strategy

*is quite a discomforting*.

I don’t feel good at all, due to the lack of a definition or at least joint framework of the public interest we expect from a “privatised” Internet in this discussion. If we cannot agree on such a basic principle that has been for a long time in the ICANN bylaws, we might as well a) leave things the way they are under California Law or b) start talking about a move to a stronger (international) legal regime.

Carlos Raul Gutierrez

GNSO Council

On Feb 18, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Camino,

I think the suggestion of re-framing the Human Rights issue in a Corporate Social Responsibility framework is an excellent and pragmatic one. This is much more "native" to a corporate entity like ICANN, and there are a lot of well-developed materials, practices and policies for CSR. This makes CSR more "adoptable" in the short run than a human rights platform. HR may be broader than CSR, but we could see what issues remain after a CSR framework for ICANN is identified.

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, <Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu> wrote:

I am of the view that different members of the ICANN community understand quite differently the relationship "ICANN-HR-Public Interest".

The fact that ICANN is more attentive to human rights considerations does not entail an extension of its corporate mandate, but a proper and timely assessment of some of its activities and operations in light of the particular circumstances in which a given decision is made, a TLD is delegated, a Board resolution is passed, etc.. Some tend to see this more as a human rights impact assessment rather than an implementation of the human rights International instruments by the book.

Human Rights as such are binding only for state actors, however that does not enter into conflict with the fact that a more attentive approach by ICANN towards human rights and "ethical business" could help the organisation develop a more accountable and transparent way of doing business.

To complicate the landscape a bit further, one can factor in "public interest" considerations. I believe each nation, each jurisdiction, could come up with its own interpretation of what public interest means, but that must not enter into conflict with the fact that any definition of public interest could be perfectly enhanced by making reference to human rights international standards (something we all know about and for which one can easily find widely accepted references online/codified). Right now ICANNs notion of public interest is insufficiently clear to provide guidance to the policy development process and that does not play in favour of any stakeholder: it can be abused by parties wanting to place literally "everything" under the public interest, and it can be downplayed by parties only interested in the economic angle of the DNS.

Accountability requires measurable standards; Human rights could serve to delineate the notion of public interest but since the concept of public interest is so much broader than that, that the conversation could last ad infinitum.

In sum, while some parts of the community continue to discuss whether is adequate to include references to human rights in the Bylaws, or draw a link between human rights and public interest, which I find a valuable but lengthy discussion, there is some low hanging fruit in the ICANN strategy panel on Public Responsibility Framework which could easily be turned into a proper Corporate Social Responsibility strategy, based on measurable indicators. Google does it, Microsoft does it, Yahoo does it….

My question is, why are we still focusing on HR and public interest rather than giving a different spin to this heading and renaming to "CSR"? Isn't' it easier to deal with CSR concepts and frameworks in a corporate environment like ICANN?

Last not least, my purely personal view is that the fact that there is no GAC consensus in the realm of HR and ICANN is irrelevant for the community and for this group so as to continue discussions around proposals that touch upon ICANN and human rights. In fact, the discussions in this group could well enlighten or provide useful feedback to those discussions in the GAC or in the recently created CCWG-Human Rights in the future. I fail to see why the remit of one group one should prevent the work of the other, and vice versa.

Best regards

(Ms) Camino Manjon-Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 - International relations

Internet Governance

Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/109) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447

E: Camino.Manjon@ec.europa.eu

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:05 PM *To:* Suzanne Radell *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

I am loathe to build a hard linkage between "public interest" and "human rights." I don't think it will benefit consideration of either one. Each of these issues raise complexities in the ICANN context. There is no clear definition of "public interest" in the ICANN context. There is also no clear definition of "human rights" in the ICANN context. While human rights are critically important and no one (well, hardly anyone) is against human rights, ICANN is not a human rights organization per se. Many of the things that ICANN does in the "public interest" have nothing to do with human rights (positively or negatively). There may also be human rights issues that are not directly related to whether ICANN is acting in the "public interest."

I would instead suggest that work related to ICANN and the "global public interest" and ICANN and its relationship to human rights should proceed separately. There is room for significant debate on each of these topics, and tying them together will delay or sink both. That does not mean bringing up "human rights" in the discussion of "global public interest" is taboo -- far from it.

This group may find interesting the following excerpts from the Report of Public Comments on the ICANN Draft 5-Year Plan (available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-five-year-... )

COMMENT: The entire objective is based on the concept of “public interest” which has a different meaning in different places (countries and contexts). Therefore, agreeing on a definition – that should include clear boundaries – of “public interest” should be at the core of the entire objective

ANSWER: Work was carried out by the Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework in consultation with the community through webinars and open sessions at ICANN meetings. We will build on this work moving forward and will work on agreeing on definition of “public interest” within the ICANN context with the community.

COMMENT: S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a “steward of the public interest” as part of Strategic Objective 5: “Develop and Implement a Global Public Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN’s Mission”. The sole metric of S.G. 5.1 refers to a “common consensus based definition of public interest”. Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it? If not, how does ICANN propose to develop one?

ANSWER: The definition was developed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility framework. The Panel defined the global public interest of the Internet as ensuring that the Internet “becomes, and continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe”. Recognizing that this is a broad concept that permeates all of ICANN’s work, the Panel determined that for practical and operational reasons “public responsibility” work should be streamlined through one department tasked with serving the community, broadening it, and facilitating participation through specific and measurable tracks. Building on the work of the Panel and community requests, the DPRD [Development and Public Responsibility Department] is an operational department focused on public responsibility work centered on the priorities and focus areas identified through the regional engagement strategies and through community engagement with the Panel. The DPRD functions in collaboration with regional VPs, other ICANN departments, external organizations, and through engagement with Governments, ccTLD admins, and GAC members in developing and underdeveloped countries who serve as key entry points to these regions so that we can assist in strengthening IG structures leading to eventual handover to SO/ACs and the wider community.

In other words, it appears that ICANN will be using as a definition of “global public interest” a standard developed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, one of several panels appointed in 2013 by ICANN's leadership without community input and whose final report, issued about a year ago, seemingly sank without a trace (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en ).

This raises an accountability issue in and of itself.....

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov> wrote:

Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative. The GAC reached agreement in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not yet arrived at a shared vision. In the absence of broad, community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human rights? Cheers, Suz

*Suzanne Murray Radell *

* Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 <202-482-3167> FX: 202-482-1865 <202-482-1865>*

------------------------------

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM *To:* Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Dear Avri,

I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law.

However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights.

As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights.

Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights.

So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."

avri

I

On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear All,

We should avoid to be engaged doing

something that we know would no tangible

results.

I do not be infavour of replacing public interest

With anything such as human rights and

freedom Of expression, acknowledging

That the latter two issues are very important

But are quite difficult to limit public interests to

These two issues

Pls be prudent

Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

I'm a bit confused Tijani.

First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:

Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion.

The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Tijani BEN JEMAA*

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)

Phone: + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax: + 216 70 853 376

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*De :* Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <robin@ipjustice.org>] *Envoyé :* mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 *À :* Tijani BEN JEMAA *Cc :* 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Yes, I made this suggestion.

Thanks,

Robin

On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Dear Adam,

I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom.

Tijani

-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week.

Best,

Adam

------------------------------

<~WRD000.jpg> <http://www.avast.com/>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

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

------------------------------

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

_______________________________________________ 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

--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

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

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

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

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

_______________________________________________ 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

Yes- I noted this a month or so earlier I think. The Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework suggested a definition - but it is not an ICANN Board position, and has never been adopted by ICANN. As Samantha has pointed out the ICANN strategic plan identifies that we need to work as a community to reach a consensus definition of public interest. My personal view is that it is hard to actually define - but we can certainly provide examples of what is in the public interest. It is a bit like defining "good behaviour" - it is best done via examples. Regards, Bruce From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Eisner Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2015 7:14 AM To: Greg Shatan; Suzanne Radell Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 To clarify, the Strategic Plan for Fys 2016-2020 still calls for, at 5.1 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/strategic-plan-2016-2020-10oct14...), specifically calls for work within the community on reaching a consensus definition of "public interest".  Though the strategy panel's work may serve as an input to that, there is not a hardened definition that ICANN has committed to use.  As the strat plan identifies, a clear and common understanding of what is meant by public interest is essential, and that requires definitional work across the community. I understand why the response to that question as cited below could lead to different understanding, but I can assure you that the cited definition is not formally adopted by ICANN.  In furtherance of creating a definition, ICANN has included the definitional work in its draft FY2016-2020 Operating Plan that was posted for comment (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020...), which identify the need for broad engagement towards a definition.  That work is expected to begin no later than the beginning of the FY16, though could begin earlier if needed. Best,  Sam

For reference, for what concerns the Public Interest discussion (public policy objectives), the attached GAC operating principles "Dedicated to preserving the central coordinating functions of the global Internet for the public good" note in Section 3 that: "3. ICANN’s decision making should take into account public policy objectives including, among other things: - Secure, reliable and affordable functioning of the internet, including uninterrupted service and universal connectivity; - the robust development of the Internet, in the interest of the public good for government, private, educational and commercial purposes, world-wide; - Transparency and non-discriminatory practices in ICANN's role in the allocation of Internet names and addresses; - Effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity and conditions for fair competition which will bring benefits to all categories of users including, greater choice, lower prices and better services; - Fair information practices, including respect for personal privacy and issues of consumer concern; and - Freedom of expression" Regards Camino -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 12:44 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Dear Bruce, Tks for your view, We should neither define nor describe what is public interest and what is human rights. Leave it to other entities to do so. No example is required Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 19 Feb 2015, at 10:07, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

Yes- I noted this a month or so earlier I think.

The Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework suggested a definition - but it is not an ICANN Board position, and has never been adopted by ICANN.

As Samantha has pointed out the ICANN strategic plan identifies that we need to work as a community to reach a consensus definition of public interest.

My personal view is that it is hard to actually define - but we can certainly provide examples of what is in the public interest.

It is a bit like defining "good behaviour" - it is best done via examples.

Regards, Bruce

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Eisner Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2015 7:14 AM To: Greg Shatan; Suzanne Radell Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

To clarify, the Strategic Plan for Fys 2016-2020 still calls for, at 5.1 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/strategic-plan-2016-2020-10oct14...), specifically calls for work within the community on reaching a consensus definition of "public interest". Though the strategy panel's work may serve as an input to that, there is not a hardened definition that ICANN has committed to use. As the strat plan identifies, a clear and common understanding of what is meant by public interest is essential, and that requires definitional work across the community.

I understand why the response to that question as cited below could lead to different understanding, but I can assure you that the cited definition is not formally adopted by ICANN. In furtherance of creating a definition, ICANN has included the definitional work in its draft FY2016-2020 Operating Plan that was posted for comment (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020...), which identify the need for broad engagement towards a definition. That work is expected to begin no later than the beginning of the FY16, though could begin earlier if needed.

Best,

Sam _______________________________________________ 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

Greg, I couldn’t agree more Cheers, Roelof From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: woensdag 18 februari 2015 20:05 To: Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 I am loathe to build a hard linkage between "public interest" and "human rights." I don't think it will benefit consideration of either one. Each of these issues raise complexities in the ICANN context. There is no clear definition of "public interest" in the ICANN context. There is also no clear definition of "human rights" in the ICANN context. While human rights are critically important and no one (well, hardly anyone) is against human rights, ICANN is not a human rights organization per se. Many of the things that ICANN does in the "public interest" have nothing to do with human rights (positively or negatively). There may also be human rights issues that are not directly related to whether ICANN is acting in the "public interest." I would instead suggest that work related to ICANN and the "global public interest" and ICANN and its relationship to human rights should proceed separately. There is room for significant debate on each of these topics, and tying them together will delay or sink both. That does not mean bringing up "human rights" in the discussion of "global public interest" is taboo -- far from it. This group may find interesting the following excerpts from the Report of Public Comments on the ICANN Draft 5-Year Plan (available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-five-year-...) COMMENT: The entire objective is based on the concept of “public interest” which has a different meaning in different places (countries and contexts). Therefore, agreeing on a definition – that should include clear boundaries – of “public interest” should be at the core of the entire objective ANSWER: Work was carried out by the Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework in consultation with the community through webinars and open sessions at ICANN meetings. We will build on this work moving forward and will work on agreeing on definition of “public interest” within the ICANN context with the community. COMMENT: S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a “steward of the public interest” as part of Strategic Objective 5: “Develop and Implement a Global Public Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN’s Mission”. The sole metric of S.G. 5.1 refers to a “common consensus based definition of public interest”. Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it? If not, how does ICANN propose to develop one? ANSWER: The definition was developed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility framework. The Panel defined the global public interest of the Internet as ensuring that the Internet “becomes, and continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe”. Recognizing that this is a broad concept that permeates all of ICANN’s work, the Panel determined that for practical and operational reasons “public responsibility” work should be streamlined through one department tasked with serving the community, broadening it, and facilitating participation through specific and measurable tracks. Building on the work of the Panel and community requests, the DPRD [Development and Public Responsibility Department] is an operational department focused on public responsibility work centered on the priorities and focus areas identified through the regional engagement strategies and through community engagement with the Panel. The DPRD functions in collaboration with regional VPs, other ICANN departments, external organizations, and through engagement with Governments, ccTLD admins, and GAC members in developing and underdeveloped countries who serve as key entry points to these regions so that we can assist in strengthening IG structures leading to eventual handover to SO/ACs and the wider community. In other words, it appears that ICANN will be using as a definition of “global public interest” a standard developed by the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, one of several panels appointed in 2013 by ICANN's leadership without community input and whose final report, issued about a year ago, seemingly sank without a trace (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en ). This raises an accountability issue in and of itself..... Greg On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>> wrote: Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative. The GAC reached agreement in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not yet arrived at a shared vision. In the absence of broad, community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human rights? Cheers, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167<tel:202-482-3167> FX: 202-482-1865<tel:202-482-1865> ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM To: Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Dear Avri, I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards, Olivier On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law. However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights. As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights. Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights. So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights." avri I On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, We should avoid to be engaged doing something that we know would no tangible results. I do not be infavour of replacing public interest With anything such as human rights and freedom Of expression, acknowledging That the latter two issues are very important But are quite difficult to limit public interests to These two issues Pls be prudent Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: I'm a bit confused Tijani. First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document. Best, Ed Sent from my iPad On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> wrote: Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion. The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605<tel:%2B%20216%2041%20649%20605> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114<tel:%2B%20216%2098%20330%20114> Fax: + 216 70 853 376<tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Envoyé : mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 À : Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc : 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Yes, I made this suggestion. Thanks, Robin On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Dear Adam, I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom. Tijani -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week. Best, Adam ________________________________ <~WRD000.jpg><http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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 -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

Hi, Thanks for reminding me of that. But that idea only goes so far as to allow us to talk about our human rights related concerns within ICANN's scope issues. It is not quite the same as having expert human rights advice on those relevant issues. But it is a start for which I am grateful. avri On 18-Feb-15 11:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

Dear Avri,

I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps. http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote:

...

Hi,

Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined as adhering to all applicable international law.

However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest, it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence to human rights.

As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not infringe upon human rights.

Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience, and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC, there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated through expert advice on human rights.

So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human rights."

avri

I

On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear All, We should avoid to be engaged doing something that we know would no tangible results. I do not be infavour of replacing public interest With anything such as human rights and freedom Of expression, acknowledging That the latter two issues are very important But are quite difficult to limit public interests to These two issues Pls be prudent Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:

...

I'm a bit confused Tijani.

First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for including it in the summary document.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> wrote:

...

Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion.

The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of ICANN’s accountability, d.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Tijani BEN JEMAA*

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)

Phone: + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax: + 216 70 853 376

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*De :*Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] *Envoyé :* mardi 17 février 2015 18:40 *À :* Tijani BEN JEMAA *Cc :* 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community' *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Yes, I made this suggestion.

Thanks,

Robin

On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Dear Adam,

I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and internet freedom.

Tijani

-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5

Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors last week.

Best,

Adam

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<~WRD000.jpg> <http://www.avast.com/>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

_______________________________________________ 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.

_______________________________________________ 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

---

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

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html