Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
Thinking out loud. So is there any mileage in having an icann A & icann B. "A" board = public interest & contract co. "B" board private non profit implementing Board A 's ..policy frameworks....etc...etc.. Board B answerable to board A? RD Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,IamnotsureigetthedistinctionaboutICANNbeingprivateorganisation,doesitmeanthereisalsoproblemwithallRIRthataresetupasanot-for-profitorganisationlikeICANN.Ithinkthefactorsyouindicateaselementsofmultistakeholderismareadequatelycoveredwithinthepublicinterestphrase.Whatmattersmostforanon-legalindividuallikemeisthatialwayshavetheopportunitytoparticipateinthepolicydevelopmentprocessthatwoulddeterminehowigetservedbyICANN.Solongasigetthat,myrightsarecoveredandmultistakeholderismwillbefelttobeinaction.Regards OnThu,Feb19,2015at5:16PM,RobinGrossrobin@ipjustice.orgwrote:TheproblemisthatICANNisaprivatecorporationanditisengaginginpublicgovernancefunctions. Thequasipublic-privatestructurecreatesachallengebecauseifitwereatraditionalgovernment,itwouldberequiredtorespecthumanrightsintheperformanceofpublicgovernancefunctions,andsomearguethatbecauseitisaprivatecorporationithasnoobligationtorespectrights(yearsagoICANNslawyersarguedinthexxxcasethat,asacontracteetotheUSGovt,itwasobligatedtoprotectfreeexpression). Sothetraditionalframeworkbreaksdownbecausewevegotaprivatecorporationundertakingpublicgovernancefunctions,butwithoutthetraditionalprotections(respectinghumanrights)intheperformanceofthosepublicfunctions. Ifthisholeisnotplugged,themulti-stakeholdermodelisinadequateforInternetgovernance. Out-sourcingpublicgovernancefunctionstoprivatecorporationsisfine,solongaswedontlosetheprotectionsaffordedbypublicgovernanceinstitutions. IfthereisnodutytoprotectfreeexpressionandprivacybythoseorganizationswhosetpoliciesgoverningtheInternet,wevetakenastep-backwardwithmulti-stakholderism,althoughitisnottoolatetofix. Atitscore,whatImarguinghereisthatICANNshouldrespectfreespeech,privacy,anddueprocessrightsinitscarryingoutofitspublicgovernancefunctions,sowhenICANNmakesapolicy,itdoesntderogatefromthefundamentalrightsaffordedtoInternetusersintraditionalgovernanceinstitutions. IfICANNwantstoengageinpublicgovernancefunctions,itmustacceptpublicgovernanceresponsibilities.Best,RobinOnFeb18,2015,at4:36PM,GregShatanwrote:Carlos:Nobodysreducinganything.Firstoff,theFirstAmendmentisreallyirrelevanttothisdiscussion,aswonderfulasitis. Itpreventsthefederal governmentfrommakinglawsabridgingfreedomofspeech,freedomofthepress,freedomofassemblyorrespectinganestablishmentofreligion. WearenottalkingaboutactionsoftheU.S.governmenthere,andICANNhasneverbeenconsideredapartoftheU.S.government. TheFirstAmendmentdoesnotapplytoprivateentities. SotheFirstAmendmentreallyhasnothingtodowiththisconversation,otherthantoconfuseit.ICANN,asaprivateentity,hasneverbeensubjecttotheFirstAmendment,sonothingschanginginthatregard. Furthermore,itsinaccurate,misleadingandunhelpfultorefertothisasaprivatization. TheprivatizationoftheInternet,ifsuchathingcaneverbesaidtohaveoccurred,occurreddecadesago. ThestewardshipoftheUSgovernment,whilebroaderthantheIANAFunctionsthatareatthecoreofthatstewardship,neverextendedinanywaytoapplyingFirstAmendmentprotectionsorprohibitionstoICANNsaction,muchlessmakingICANNanarmofthestate.Also,nothingschangingwithregardtoICANNsobligationtoperforminthepublicinterest. ICANNspublicinterestobligationsdomakeitdifferentfromprivatefor-profitentities. AdoptingaCorporateSocialResponsibilityprogramandpolicywouldnotinanywaydiminishorreplaceICANNspublicinterestobligations. Rather,CSRpolicieswouldcomplementandactasa(non-exclusive)manifestationofICANNscommitmenttothepublicinterest. A
I would put ICANN under the FCC and the FTC oversight after all isnt/hasnt it been the UN agenda to mush ICANN into the UN ITU agenda... or so it appears Sincerely Carrie Devorah On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mr R.T. Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
Thinking out loud. So is there any mileage in having an icann A & icann B. "A" board = public interest & contract co. "B" board private non profit implementing Board A 's ..policy frameworks....etc...etc.. Board B answerable to board A? RD
Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I am not sure i get the distinction about ICANN being private organisation, does it mean there is also problem with all RIR that are setup as a not-for-profit organisation like ICANN. I think the factors you indicate as elements of multistakeholderism are adequately covered within the "public interest" phrase.
What matters most for a non-legal individual like me is that i always have the opportunity to participate in the policy development process that would determine how i get served by ICANN. So long as i get that, my rights are covered and multistakeholderism will be felt to be in action.
Regards
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
And in such a case we would have another US-based enforcement method for a US-based non-for profit. I'm not questions the effectiveness of the FCC and FTC in doing their good work, but the fact that we are meant to look into global solutions/internationally based solutions. Your suggestion certainly complies with the fact that ICANN needs to abide by local laws, but also certainly deviates from the ever-present "The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions […]" I see you are not comfortable with UN-based solutions (I'm far from proposing we move IG issues to the UN, just in case) but I thought the exercise was to think global. Camino From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carrie Devorah Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:41 PM To: Mr R.T. Daniel Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5 I would put ICANN under the FCC and the FTC oversight after all isnt/hasnt it been the UN agenda to mush ICANN into the UN ITU agenda... or so it appears Sincerely Carrie Devorah On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mr R.T. Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> wrote: Thinking out loud. So is there any mileage in having an icann A & icann B. "A" board = public interest & contract co. "B" board private non profit implementing Board A 's ..policy frameworks....etc...etc.. Board B answerable to board A? RD Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, I am not sure i get the distinction about ICANN being private organisation, does it mean there is also problem with all RIR that are setup as a not-for-profit organisation like ICANN. I think the factors you indicate as elements of multistakeholderism are adequately covered within the "public interest" phrase. What matters most for a non-legal individual like me is that i always have the opportunity to participate in the policy development process that would determine how i get served by ICANN. So long as i get that, my rights are covered and multistakeholderism will be felt to be in action. Regards On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
Hi, I have never understood the appeal of such a model. To me it seems like twice as much Board to worry about in an environment of never really knowing where the ultimate responsibility lay. avri On 19-Feb-15 13:00, Mr R.T. Daniel wrote:
Thinking out loud. So is there any mileage in having an icann A & icann B. "A" board = public interest & contract co. "B" board private non profit implementing Board A 's ..policy frameworks....etc...etc.. Board B answerable to board A? RD
I agree with Avri. Further, Board B seems to become some kind of mutant hybrid of Board and management, which should be different roles. While we can always explore it fully (within some sense of time constraints), I would not see much mileage in doing so. Greg On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I have never understood the appeal of such a model. To me it seems like twice as much Board to worry about in an environment of never really knowing where the ultimate responsibility lay.
avri
On 19-Feb-15 13:00, Mr R.T. Daniel wrote:
Thinking out loud. So is there any mileage in having an icann A & icann B. "A" board = public interest & contract co. "B" board private non profit implementing Board A 's ..policy frameworks....etc...etc.. Board B answerable to board A? RD
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The early on documents I located CLEARLY defend trademarks from domains using the Trademark. How and when did that founding model to protect Trademarks get kicked to the curb? It should be reinstated. Sincerely Carrie Devorah www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Avri. Further, Board B seems to become some kind of mutant hybrid of Board and management, which should be different roles.
While we can always explore it fully (within some sense of time constraints), I would not see much mileage in doing so.
Greg
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I have never understood the appeal of such a model. To me it seems like twice as much Board to worry about in an environment of never really knowing where the ultimate responsibility lay.
avri
On 19-Feb-15 13:00, Mr R.T. Daniel wrote:
Thinking out loud. So is there any mileage in having an icann A & icann B. "A" board = public interest & contract co. "B" board private non profit implementing Board A 's ..policy frameworks....etc...etc.. Board B answerable to board A? RD
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Camino.MANJON＠ec.europa.eu -
Carrie Devorah -
Greg Shatan -
Mr R.T. Daniel