So my interpretation would be that organizations who engage in lobbying
activities (such as the examples given by Daniel) would not be ruled out
as a matter of principle, but should commit and ensure that any funds they
would receive from the ICANN Auction Proceeds would not be used in
lobbying or political funding activities.

Would that be correct ?

Best,
Mathieu

-----Message d'origine-----
De : ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Daniel
Dardailler
Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2017 18:54
À : ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
Objet : [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Wrt (not) lobbying

Hello all

In the legal slides, lobbying is pointed out as a forbidden activity for
ICANN and is loosely defined as "attempts to influence legislation".

I'd like to understand exactly what that means.

For instance, both IETF and W3C have been active in various European
official fora (parliament, commission, national governments) to change the
old EU legislation wrt public procurement so that procurers be allowed to
reference our standards directly (e.g. IPV6 or HTML).
This is clearly about legislation, and it's more than an attempt, since we
eventually succeeded (look for the EU Multistakeholder Platform for
details).

Is this sort of policy oriented work to make the Internet and the Web
technologies more "official", and therefore better deployed, without
fragmentation, considered lobbying ?

Let's take another example. Suppose that some governments want to pass a
brain-damaged legislation related to IP routing. Shouldn't ICANN be
allowed to inform the public authority about the risks of doing just that
? If ICANN doesn't do it, who will ?

This is not a rhetorical case, every year or so, I get alerted by some
advocacy groups that "deep linking" is about to become illegal somewhere
on the planet (a deep link is just a link to a page "inside" another site,
bypassing their "home" page) in order to protect some publisher business.
Such an approach would undermine a fundamental piece of the Web
architecture: freedom to link anywhere, and if we, the technical
community, don't explain that point to policy makers, who will ?

There are dozens of public policy topics that are directly related to the
Internet and the Web. They are all technical in nature of course and they
only exist because of the net, because of us. As it happens, these topics
are not very "hot" in the technical community, mostly because of their
"policy/legal" flavor (not geek enough), so it's already difficult to find
resources to represent our point-of-view.

My point is: at this point in time in Internet history, with lots of
legislators trying to control the net without much of a clue of how things
work, I think it would be a strategic mistake from the Internet technical
community to self-censored itself in these debates.























_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds