Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional
The two components of the message that stuck out to me: - The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more stakeholders than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more deeply involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than lip-service paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be gamed. - "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for its lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many stages. It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the word "delay" is now officially an obscenity. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
*The GAC communiqué from Brussels, and Evan's interesting remarks, prompt me to make these comments:* * * *- Inequality between the GAC and other ACs or SOs is a reality, whether or not we consider this is justified. Sovereign states can apply national law, and are (usually) bound by international law. ICANN's other stakeholders have a vague moral right to represent segments of the community, the only reference being the ICANN By-laws, which have no international standing, and are legally binding only in the USA.* * * *- This discrepancy is further accentuated by the AoC. We cannot escape this fact. So the question is: apart from the GAC, can other stakeholders achieve a better balance, and how can they do that? I think there's only one way, which is to have cross-constituency agreement on major issues, which so far has proven difficult.* * * *- One area where the ALAC could take a leadership role and strive to gain other stakeholders to its cause, is the general area of "the public interest". Example: in the DAG, some elements may be defensible from an industry point of view, but possibly detrimental to the public interest (privacy, consumer protection, human and civic rights). If we detect a dividing line between, say, the GAC and other stakeholders, for instance regarding fundamental human rights (e.g. religious persuasions, atheism or other philosophical positions, sexual preference, etc), then we should strive to define a broad platform and present it to other stakeholders, seeking their support. Ideally, this could then become a "ICANN minus GAC" position, which would carry more weight than some ALAC-only statement.* * * *Regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* On 4 March 2011 22:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
The two components of the message that stuck out to me:
- The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more stakeholders than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more deeply involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than lip-service paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be gamed.
- "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for its lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many stages. It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the word "delay" is now officially an obscenity.
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac
The GAC communiqué from Brussels is an eye-opening document. ICANN is not an IGO or an international treaty organization and has no Member States. What it has or claims to have is the stakeholder groups. It is interesting that the sovereign countries in GAC believes that they should have veto right or more right than any other Stakeholder groups. Can they provide any legal basis in the international law? A number of countries' joint declaration could not constitute such legal basis and is only bound to all the countries involved. A country's sovereignty cannot go beyond the boundary to govern ICANN. Neither can a group country "pool" their sovereignty to reach the same goal. But if ICANN is viewed as a civil subject registered in California, one country where ICANN resides does have the sovereignty against it. The old or classic international law theory can hardly explain the legitimacy (if any) of ICANN or ICANN-likes. We need new "international" or global law to fit the new global NGOs like ICANN. Hong
* * *- Inequality between the GAC and other ACs or SOs is a reality, whether or not we consider this is justified. Sovereign states can apply national law, and are (usually) bound by international law. ICANN's other stakeholders have a vague moral right to represent segments of the community, the only reference being the ICANN By-laws, which have no international standing, and are legally binding only in the USA.* * * *- This discrepancy is further accentuated by the AoC. We cannot escape this fact. So the question is: apart from the GAC, can other stakeholders achieve a better balance, and how can they do that? I think there's only one way, which is to have cross-constituency agreement on major issues, which so far has proven difficult.* * * *- One area where the ALAC could take a leadership role and strive to gain other stakeholders to its cause, is the general area of "the public interest". Example: in the DAG, some elements may be defensible from an industry point of view, but possibly detrimental to the public interest (privacy, consumer protection, human and civic rights). If we detect a dividing line between, say, the GAC and other stakeholders, for instance regarding fundamental human rights (e.g. religious persuasions, atheism or other philosophical positions, sexual preference, etc), then we should strive to define a broad platform and present it to other stakeholders, seeking their support. Ideally, this could then become a "ICANN minus GAC" position, which would carry more weight than some ALAC-only statement.* * * *Regards,* *Jean-Jacques.*
On 4 March 2011 22:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
The two components of the message that stuck out to me:
- The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more stakeholders than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more deeply involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than lip-service paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be gamed.
- "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for its lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many stages. It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the word "delay" is now officially an obscenity.
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
*Dear Hong,* * * *I agree with your analysis. * * * *But the purpose of my e-mail was precisely to underline that sovereign states, whether or not they have the legal basis to do so, DO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BLOCK PROCESS, OR TO RENDER A DECISION INAPPLICABLE in a given country. You are (rightly, I believe) defending the case of equal RIGHTS among all ACs and SOs, whereas I was simply stating that we cannot afford to neglect REALITY, which is often quite different. * * * *Hence my proposal that ALAC, on each of the crucial priorities related to "the public interest", draft a position which could then be proposed to other stakeholders in ICANN. In that way, other parts of ICANN could hope to weigh more in the scales, and their joint position contribute to the checks and balances, in addition to the now enhanced dialogue between the Board and the GAC.* * * *Regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * On 5 March 2011 10:48, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
The GAC communiqué from Brussels is an eye-opening document.
ICANN is not an IGO or an international treaty organization and has no Member States. What it has or claims to have is the stakeholder groups.
It is interesting that the sovereign countries in GAC believes that they should have veto right or more right than any other Stakeholder groups. Can they provide any legal basis in the international law? A number of countries' joint declaration could not constitute such legal basis and is only bound to all the countries involved. A country's sovereignty cannot go beyond the boundary to govern ICANN. Neither can a group country "pool" their sovereignty to reach the same goal. But if ICANN is viewed as a civil subject registered in California, one country where ICANN resides does have the sovereignty against it.
The old or classic international law theory can hardly explain the legitimacy (if any) of ICANN or ICANN-likes. We need new "international" or global law to fit the new global NGOs like ICANN.
Hong
* * *- Inequality between the GAC and other ACs or SOs is a reality, whether or not we consider this is justified. Sovereign states can apply national law, and are (usually) bound by international law. ICANN's other stakeholders have a vague moral right to represent segments of the community, the only reference being the ICANN By-laws, which have no international standing, and are legally binding only in the USA.* * * *- This discrepancy is further accentuated by the AoC. We cannot escape this fact. So the question is: apart from the GAC, can other stakeholders achieve a better balance, and how can they do that? I think there's only one way, which is to have cross-constituency agreement on major issues, which so far has proven difficult.* * * *- One area where the ALAC could take a leadership role and strive to gain other stakeholders to its cause, is the general area of "the public interest". Example: in the DAG, some elements may be defensible from an industry point of view, but possibly detrimental to the public interest (privacy, consumer protection, human and civic rights). If we detect a dividing line between, say, the GAC and other stakeholders, for instance regarding fundamental human rights (e.g. religious persuasions, atheism or other philosophical positions, sexual preference, etc), then we should strive to define a broad platform and present it to other stakeholders, seeking their support. Ideally, this could then become a "ICANN minus GAC" position, which would carry more weight than some ALAC-only statement.* * * *Regards,* *Jean-Jacques.*
On 4 March 2011 22:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
The two components of the message that stuck out to me:
- The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more stakeholders than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more deeply involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than lip-service paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be gamed.
- "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for its lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many stages. It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the word "delay" is now officially an obscenity.
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
You are right Jean Jacques. The only problem I see is the difficulty to get support from other SO/AC.
From my modest experience, some of those constituencies are very very conservative. We now are gaining consideration and respect, but from the Board and the GAC only. Perhaps, we are also gaining hostility from some other SO/AC.
But Im optimistic, and think we should try and try again, never give up. Also, the performance of our Board Director will likely strengthen our position in the ICANN community. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de JJS Envoyé : samedi 5 mars 2011 01:57 À : Evan Leibovitch Cc : ALAC Working List Objet : Re: [ALAC] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional *The GAC communiqué from Brussels, and Evan's interesting remarks, prompt me to make these comments:* * * *- Inequality between the GAC and other ACs or SOs is a reality, whether or not we consider this is justified. Sovereign states can apply national law, and are (usually) bound by international law. ICANN's other stakeholders have a vague moral right to represent segments of the community, the only reference being the ICANN By-laws, which have no international standing, and are legally binding only in the USA.* * * *- This discrepancy is further accentuated by the AoC. We cannot escape this fact. So the question is: apart from the GAC, can other stakeholders achieve a better balance, and how can they do that? I think there's only one way, which is to have cross-constituency agreement on major issues, which so far has proven difficult.* * * *- One area where the ALAC could take a leadership role and strive to gain other stakeholders to its cause, is the general area of "the public interest". Example: in the DAG, some elements may be defensible from an industry point of view, but possibly detrimental to the public interest (privacy, consumer protection, human and civic rights). If we detect a dividing line between, say, the GAC and other stakeholders, for instance regarding fundamental human rights (e.g. religious persuasions, atheism or other philosophical positions, sexual preference, etc), then we should strive to define a broad platform and present it to other stakeholders, seeking their support. Ideally, this could then become a "ICANN minus GAC" position, which would carry more weight than some ALAC-only statement.* * * *Regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* On 4 March 2011 22:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
The two components of the message that stuck out to me:
- The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more
stakeholders
than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more deeply
involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than lip-service
paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its
near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be
gamed.
- "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving
these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last
sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for its
lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy
development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many
stages.
It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the
word "delay" is now officially an obscenity.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac
*Dear Tijani,* * * *thank you for your wise remarks. * * * *Yes, support from other stakeholders is not and cannot be a foregone conclusion for ALAC. And you're right to point out that for ALAC to gain "consideration and perhaps respect", many elements will prove important (you mention the role of a new Board director).* * * *I firmly believe that now is the time for the ALAC to concentrate on a few priorities (I've suggested that these should be centered on "the public interest"), to formulate general policy orientations, to present these to other ACs and SOs, and thus to strive for joint positions which, by adding value to the multi-stakeholder process, would most certainly add credibility to the ALAC itself. I take your point that positions are sometimes wide apart among ACs and SOs, but that is a challenge the ALAC must take up.* * * *Regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * On 5 March 2011 20:20, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org> wrote:
You are right Jean Jacques.
The only problem I see is the difficulty to get support from other SO/AC. From my modest experience, some of those constituencies are very very conservative. We now are gaining consideration and respect, but from the Board and the GAC only. Perhaps, we are also gaining hostility from some other SO/AC.
But I’m optimistic, and think we should try and try again, never give up. Also, the performance of our Board Director will likely strengthen our position in the ICANN community.
------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA*
Executive Director
*M*editerranean *F*ederation of* I*nternet *A*ssociations
*Phone : *+ 216 70 825 231
*Mobile : *+ 216 98 330 114
*Fax :* + 216 70 825 231
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de JJS Envoyé : samedi 5 mars 2011 01:57 À : Evan Leibovitch Cc : ALAC Working List Objet : Re: [ALAC] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional
*The GAC communiqué from Brussels, and Evan's interesting remarks, prompt me
to make these comments:*
*
*
*- Inequality between the GAC and other ACs or SOs is a reality, whether or
not we consider this is justified. Sovereign states can apply national law,
and are (usually) bound by international law. ICANN's other stakeholders
have a vague moral right to represent segments of the community, the only
reference being the ICANN By-laws, which have no international standing, and
are legally binding only in the USA.*
*
*
*- This discrepancy is further accentuated by the AoC. We cannot escape this
fact. So the question is: apart from the GAC, can other stakeholders achieve
a better balance, and how can they do that? I think there's only one way,
which is to have cross-constituency agreement on major issues, which so far
has proven difficult.*
*
*
*- One area where the ALAC could take a leadership role and strive to gain
other stakeholders to its cause, is the general area of "the public
interest". Example: in the DAG, some elements may be defensible from an
industry point of view, but possibly detrimental to the public interest
(privacy, consumer protection, human and civic rights). If we detect a
dividing line between, say, the GAC and other stakeholders, for instance
regarding fundamental human rights (e.g. religious persuasions, atheism or
other philosophical positions, sexual preference, etc), then we should
strive to define a broad platform and present it to other stakeholders,
seeking their support. Ideally, this could then become a "ICANN minus GAC"
position, which would carry more weight than some ALAC-only statement.*
*
*
*Regards,*
*Jean-Jacques.*
On 4 March 2011 22:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
The two components of the message that stuck out to me:
- The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more
stakeholders
than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more deeply
involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than lip-service
paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its
near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be
gamed.
- "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving
these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last
sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for its
lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy
development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many
stages.
It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the
word "delay" is now officially an obscenity.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________
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: http://st.icann.org/alac
Hi from the liaison peanut gallery, On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:20 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
You are right Jean Jacques.
The only problem I see is the difficulty to get support from other SO/AC.
From my modest experience, some of those constituencies are very very conservative. We now are gaining consideration and respect, but from the Board and the GAC only. Perhaps, we are also gaining hostility from some other SO/AC.
FWIW NCUC has the same concerns and has voiced them to GAC et al in various ways. Indeed, we'll be talking about them at our pre-conference here in SF on Friday. So if ALAC were to decide to advance this approach, I would guess you'd have at least one partner in crime. Maybe a topic for discussion together next week? Best Bill
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hong Xue -
JJS -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
William Drake