Agreed Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 6:30 AM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
The system is without doubt imperfect, but it’s a correct baby step in the right direction. The idea that a private “individual” (whether natural or juridical) could somehow be on equal footing as a “state” on any international context (let alone a policy forum) wasn’t only unthinkable until the 20th Century, it is clearly anathema to the international order that rose from the Peace of Westphalia. And this is a good thing: the state-sovereignty and supremacy based model of international governance has been, IMHO, a scourge for humanity, as humanity been unable to tame the Hobbesian state of nature that reigns there with any social-contract that can truly tame that Leviathan.
I think the idea of the “individual Internet-end user” as having standing and voice in an international/supranational policy context is one of the great innovations and contributions of multistakeholderism, and as such, one that must be a founding principle of any ICANN 3.0. This, IMHO, is related to the rise of the individual person as a subject of public international law, an unthinkable idea less than century ago (generally derived from post-WWII Universal Human Rights treaties and institutions) and part of the necessary weakening of the State-centered model.
The mutistakeholder model, ICANN, or Internet Governance won’t solve that problem of unbound state arbitrariness and caprice, let alone illegal use of force, of course. And these concepts and institutions are not designed nor meant to either. But what they do is start changing the culture and practice of state-supremacy. It’s seems clear, for example, that in ICANN’s super tiny DNS remit, states are in no way the superior beings or overlords, and that’s a good thing. I would even venture to say, that there is mounting state practice and custom piling up that suggests that states are acquiescing to this reality (I wonder if with time, if uninterrupted, maybe this could give rise to a binding international norm?)
In any case, what I think IG and multistakeholderism are doing Is transforming the language, the change culture, to eventually change what Foucault called the “episteme”: the a priori paradigms that shape and ground our knowledge and discourse in our epoch.
IG occurs within the constant -sometimes rhythmic, sometimes cringe-inducing - dance between multiple players, the diversity of interest groups, individuals, states and countless parties deeply interested in the operation of and access to the Internet. This is a good thing.
Because it’s a good thing is why there are always important forces objecting to the nongovernmental and privatized aspects of Internet governance, arguing and pushing towards what their episteme commands: that the only logical and legitimate place for these types of functions must be in states and their exclusive dance clubs, be the United Nations (UN), or one of its specialized agencies, such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
But we believe that the multistakehokderism is the necessary ritual to keep all forces engaged to maintain a non-fragmented Internet, as free as possible from purely regional or national considerations (whether public or private), but also duly respecting these. ICANN is perhaps the best IG dancehall yet (and hopefully the experiment will work and a new, even better club can be built in the future, with even better and more diverse music to dance to.)
Any future dance club must be fullly aware and cognizant of all these complexities and tensions to strengthen the current model. ALAC or ALAC-like structures that exist to give non-state-bound Individuals a seat at the policy table must be safeguarded and strengthened as centerpieces of multistakeholderism. We need a dancehall with more space for us. We need to keep building that. It’s on the right side of history and I think it’s the right thing to do for humanity as a whole.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:35 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
It's not ideal but any environment in which there are commercial interests are impacted disproportionately by those interests, even multilateral fora. Being a part of a community gives us opportunities to be crafty and find common ground.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2019 7:36:52 PM *To:* Jonathan Zuck *Cc:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; John Laprise; ALAC Working List; Alan Greenberg *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Bad Actor Admission
I can tell you we know about working the margins. When OCL, Evan and I were ALAC officers, regular informal conversations occurred with members of the Ry/Rr constituency thru Michele, James and Robb. Those I consider quite fruitful.
Regrettably, those guys, IMHO while mainstream, did not represent the majority view in the contracted party house. Michele, for example, is a hard case in argumentation. I got to engage with him extensively in the EWG. But you could always expect a fair hearing from him.
-Carlton
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, 5:39 pm Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Having been on both sides of this, though representing small business, it's a good convo to have. I've always tried to think of it using the principles of non violence. Even governments are dominated by big interests so it's up to us to build fluid alliances and look for points of leverage. There's NO model where we're equal.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2019 4:13:22 PM *To:* León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa *Cc:* ALAC Working List; Alan Greenberg *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Bad Actor Admission
The more the merrier!
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 12:55 PM León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Happy to join you in that conversation if you don’t mind. I’ll buy you guys a beer!
Best regards,
León
El 1 mar 2019, a las 12:14, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
If there is a concern among staff, it must be raised through the CEO to the Board. If he/she can convince the Board, the Board has the power to act. If not, then it does not warrant action (in the minds of those who ARE legally held responsible for the ICANN).
Should someone have seen GDPR coming and acted? And when it did become obvious, act faster, you bet.
Lots of people saw GDPR coming and said so. Why we didn't act is an interesting discussion. Ask me in Kobe.
Alan
At 01/03/2019 12:55 PM, John Laprise wrote:
So one of the complaints I saw online is that ICANN org legal which presumably saw the GDPR train coming down the track had limited options beyond waving a flag despite it's material impact. ICANN org spends a lot of resources to stay abreast of international law but can only do something at the last minute. (Epdp)
The more I think about it, the more giving ICANN org (pres?) the right to ask the community to initiate a PDP has a kind of symmetry with the powers of the enhanced community. Essentially, if the community and the board fail to address an operational, material threat, ICANN org can hold the board and the community to account.
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 11:45 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Not just staff...I was thinking ICANN org leadership...needs authority
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 9:02 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: John, do you really mean "ICANN org", ie staff, to make that decision?
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On March 1, 2019 9:00:50 AM EST, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Hi and thanks Olivier,
My apologies for not being clear. I was suggesting a possible bylaws change where in ICANN org can ask the community to initiate policy development when it sees an urgent/important need that the community has not noticed.
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 7:07 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear John,
please be so kind to find my response below:
On 01/03/2019 13:31, John Laprise wrote:
Well said Evan and I share your concerns. If memory serves, so does the Board as MSM threats is a strategic planning issue. Musing upon waking I was wondering whether it would help if we could implement a mechanism whereby ICANN org could ask the empowered community to implement a pdp? This might've avoided the current epdp issue.
The ICANN Board and the Empowered Community cannot implement or launch PDPs relating to gTLDs. The "PDP" as such is a defined term for "Policy Development Process" and in the context of the Generic Names, only the GNSO can launch a PDP. In the context of Country Codes Names, when it relates to global policy, the ccNSO can launch a PDP. The Board can ask the GNSO to launch a PDP on a gTLD related issue, but the GNSO can refuse.
The Board can also ask the ICANN communities, SOs/ACs to launch a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG). However, there are doubts expressed in the GNSO that CCWGs should *not* be the basis for policy making for gTLDs as all policy making for gTLDs should go through a PDP.
It's a power game and the bottom line is who has the control of policy processes on gTLDs. Kindest regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)