Hi. Note: I didn't see a document attached to the mail that Olivier sent - if there was one, can that be forwarded please? My concerns about the development of ICANN's Public Responsibility Framework: 1. Scope In my opinion, ICANN's public responsibility in the context of looking after the global public interest is all encompassing (i.e., broad). For example, I consider the following to be part of ICANN's public responsibility: transparency and accountability of ICANN; Security and stability of the DNS; Inclusive participation of stakeholders in policy-development, etc. The challenge that the Strategy Panel faces is that there appears to be forces at work that are trying to narrow the scope of ICANN's public responsibility to things like capacity building. Capacity building is important to enhance participation, particularly for stakeholders from developing countries, but it is not and should not be the sole scope of ICANN's public responsibility. We should expect more of ICANN in terms of its public responsibility as a global steward of critical Internet resources. 2. Retrofitting At the time of the Buenos Aires meeting, the strategy panel did not yet have a framework to present and the work continues. Without a proper high level articulation of public responsibility, retrofitting by trying to pick and choose which of ICANN's current activities ought to fall under a Public Responsibility Framework is problematic because it can impose current limitations onto the boundaries of the Framework. 3. Definition of Public Interest Efforts at defining the public interest should be encouraged. The At-Large Multistakeholder Roundtable in Durban that touched on the public interest revealed that there is difference of positioning among the stakeholder groups. Governments tend to favor a broad definition because they deal with public policy matters whereas others like industry will prefer a more narrow definition. It would be good to see if a new attempt at defining the term will achieve support and consensus. In terms of the proposed definition, arguments can be made that ICANN is not completely independent and use of some terminology is fuzzy - for example, what does "healthy" mean in the context of the Internet? The panel can benefit from some input from the community regarding the definition. 4. Reference to specific target groups During the strategy panel's public session in Buenos Aires, the question was asked whether reference should be made to target specific groups. When this question is asked, the appropriate response should be "in what context?" Is it public responsibility in terms of inclusion of stakeholders in policy development? If it is in this context, then my view is that the emphasis should be on a "policy of inclusion" and having programs/activities in place that can address the participation needs of stakeholders, particularly the ones that are disadvantaged. The ATRT2 had some specific recommendations on this that can be immediately adopted. The ICANN Academy can be further broadened and resourced. In addition the Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation is also working on means of enhancing participation in policy-development. If the question of 'should reference be made to specific target groups?' is asked for a different context, the response could be different. So it would be important for the context to be identified, particularly if the scope of public responsibility is not limited to capacity building. 5. Synergizing Strategy Panel Work The question should be posed to ICANN on how the Strategy Panels are reinforcing each other's work. It would not do for silos to emerge on such critical areas of work. I can see overlap in the work. I am certain that others can as well. It would be good to know how the overlap is dealt with or whether it would be dealt with at all. It would be a tremendous waste of effort and resources if the overlap is ignored. In conclusion: The ALAC should consider whether or not it should provide an input to the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, particularly as the work of the panel touches on the public interest, which is a core concern of the ALAC. Best regards, Rinalia