Fwd: Re: Strategy Working Group on the subject of Public Interest
Dear all, please be so kind to find my follow-up on the item concerning Sally Costerton's work to define the public interest. The work is now being examined by the Public Responsibility panel. (see below) Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Strategy Working Group on the subject of Public Interest Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:46:29 -0800 From: Nora Abusitta <nora.abusitta@icann.org> To: Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org> Olivier and Sally, The definition of public interest and ICANN's public responsibility is being tackled by the panel on public responsibility framework. We are developing this definition and are open to any suggestions and advice. Thus far, the panel's work has focused on existing programs that ICANN is currently engaged in, that can qualify under public responsibility. I am pasting below the segment in our working document that touches on the definition. I would appreciate your input. Please note this document is still a work in progress. " Questions related to definitions: Public Responsibility- · Should this cover, or be limited to the thematic areas discussed in this document? · Are there areas that should also be included? · Should ICANN outline these areas in its definition of public responsibility? Public Interest- · One contributor in Buenos Aires raised the issue of defining the public interest, stressing that, without a definition, the term can be interpreted differently across regions. To this end, should ICANN explicitly define the Public Interest? · Should a definition make specific reference to target groups? If so, should these groups be targeted specifically, or should they be incorporated into all decision-making processes? Potential Definition: As an independent, global organization, ICANN is charged with responsibility for an increasingly important shared global resource: The Internet. As guardians of a public space and public resource, ICANN recognizes its responsibility to protect the global public interest at the core of all its work. ICANN defines the global public interest in relation to the Internet as ensuring the Internet becomes, and continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe. This vision is central to ICANN¹s public responsibility framework." Nora Abusitta VP, Public responsibility programs ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Direct: (310) 4635808 Nora.abusitta@icann.org On 1/10/14 3:41 PM, "Sally Costerton" <sally.costerton@icann.org> wrote:
Olivier I think this is part of the remit of the Public Responsibility panel which Nora is leading. Nora please could you respond to Olivier's question? Thanks. Sally
Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:47, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Sally,
I am kindly following-up on a matter on behalf of the ALAC concerning the Strategy Working Group that was intended study a potential definition of the Public Interest.
It appears that this initiative was actually announced by you prior to the formation of the Strategic Working Groups, then appears to have been somehow dropped, but reappeared as part of the work of a Strategic Working Group.
As you know, the concept of "Public Interest" is of prime importance to the At-Large Community. Would you please be so kind to clarify how the matter is being treated, whether you are in charge of the work relating to the Public Interest, whether this is now taken up as a bigger issue and how could the At-Large Community contribute to the dialogue on this issue?
Kind regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Thus far, the panel's work has focused on existing programs that ICANN is currently engaged in, that can qualify under public responsibility. I am pasting below the segment in our working document that touches on the definition.
So, is it just me interpreting this to mean the thinking here suggests definitions must be 'shoehorned' into an existing [operational] framework? Seems like the very definition of navel gazing...... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
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
participants (3)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim