Dear Amal Ramzi, No apology needed here, your message as a write up of your own opinion is quite analytical and expressive. It fact it was somewhat balanced too. In parts, you have summarized views expressed in the panel as in the GAC paragraph, while most of the contents under various sub headings were your views. Also, the last section of your message began with "To sum it up". I was uncomfortable with what you had said in the section "Global Pubic Interest Vs Public Interest" wherein you said "I think ICANN shouldn’t adopt this term [global] ‘cause to my limited knowledge, ICANN is not responsible on and accountable to the global public interest." However strongly I feel against this opinion, your overall message actually deserves the kind of encouragement that Wolf's message expresses. My response was actually a reaction to parts of what I read, and this not usual of this mailing list. It ought to have been dispassionate and I should have addressed the points I disagreed with. Thank you. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Amal Ramzi <amalramzi88@yahoo.com> wrote:
And apologies again for any misunderstanding .. my message is not a summary of any session or anyone's speech or comment or intervention. My message only expresses my own opinion.
Thank you ,
Amal Al-saqqaf
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/amalalsaqqaf>amalalsaqqaf <https://www.linkedin.com/in/amalalsaqqaf> Twitter: @Amal_Alsaqqaf
On Friday, November 25, 2016 6:42 PM, Amal Ramzi <amalramzi88@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Sivasubramanian,
I'm not sure if I understood your email right, but to clarify that what I shared is my own comments and questions that they I had after attending those sessions, and what you named "conclusions" , I didn't mean them to look like conclusions but they're my own opinion about what the next steps and discussion might be discussed regarding public interest in ICANN.
Maybe I didn't have to send my message as a reply to Ergys' first message titled "Materials from Public Interest Session". Sorry for that by mistake I sent my message under the discussion of the materials from public interest sessions while I meant to send it to the general mailing list of the public interest. If my message still doesn't relate to the general discussion of public interest in ICANN, then I'm sorry for my misunderstanding .
Best, Amal Al-saqqaf
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/amalalsaqqaf>amalalsaqqaf <https://www.linkedin.com/in/amalalsaqqaf> Twitter: @Amal_Alsaqqaf
On Friday, November 25, 2016 12:15 PM, Sivasubramanian M < isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Amal Ramzi,
Neither the session "Exploring Pubic Interest" nor the first meeting of the At-Large public interest group revolved entirely around the opinions that you have shared, nor reached the conclusions as inferred from your summary.
The transcript of the main session is at page http://schd.ws/hosted_files/ icann572016/91/I57%20HYD_ Sun06Nov2016-Exploring% 20Public%20Interest-en.pdf <http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/91/I57%20HYD_Sun06Nov2016-Exploring%...>
and the
At Large Pubic Interest Working Group session is archived at page https://participate. icann.org/p5wbsvi1lnd/ <https://participate.icann.org/p5wbsvi1lnd/>
Thank you. Sivasubramanian M
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Amal Ramzi via Public-Interest-WG < public-interest-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
I attended the two sessions of public interest in ICANN 57 meeting and I found them interesting. At-Large Public Interest WG session was like a brain storming as it brought up to my mind many questions and conflicted answers , maybe because it was my first exposure to the topic of the public interest within ICANN’s remit besides the ongoing discussions about this concept within ICANN specially after the transition and the new ICANN bylaw. As we’ve been encouraged by prof. Wolf Ludwig and Olivier to share our thoughts and ideas in this mailing lists, I just like to share here my comments and questions on some of the discussion points, and to share some of background on PI from my region.
- *Public Interest from an Arab culture background:* To my knowledge, the public interest concept from an Arab culture background, which is rooted to some Islamic resources, is closer to public “good” more than “interest”. And it means achieving benefit for community and avoiding its harm, where avoiding harm is prioritized to achieving any benefit. This should be decided through tradeoff or balancing between a group of interests where the decision is not necessary to be the interest of majority nor the interest of individuals, but it can be decided regarded the kind, the scope, and the sustainability of the good that’ll be achieved by that decision in a long run. It’s also case by case decision and usually doesn’t depend on a bottom-up or multistakeholder approach. With the ideal concept of “common good”, it seems that it’s needed to be identified and judged by someone fair, wise, farsighted, inclusive , & unbiased, and these characteristics isn’t available in human beings . So, in our case talking about public “interests” is more reasonable and measurable than public "good”, and just required a good system or approach to have all interests’ or stakes holders well heard and considered i.e. bottom-up multistakeholders model with fairly balanced representation and fairly balanced weight of voices- by using “fairly” I don’t mean “equally” for now .
- *Broad definition vs. restricted or tight one.* Regarding the definition of Public Interest, usually it’s not defined , as many had said, specially in the context of country management or governance, or has an elastic and vague definition or description that makes it fits with any decision ‘cause PI is determined for a particular case, in a particular community, in a certain country, and in a certain time. So, it has to be broad although this broadness ‘causes the loss of the public interest in a liable way. But for ICANN, I think coming up with a definition is possible because of the clear and finite frame of ICANN mission and resources that ICANN manages or accountable to. However, a very restricted definition won’t work. Public interest should be defined through a set of measurable criteria that guarantees as much procedural approach as possible in referring to public interest for decision making but I believe that also some of the required criteria aren’t possible to be exactly specified and so at the end , PI definition or criteria will inevitably have a kind of broadness. The only way to guarantee the best possible public interest consideration within ICANN’s remit is to enhance the representation of the different interests in the multistakeholder model and to amend it if needed. As for the definition suggested by the strategy panel, “, I think it’s very broad as if it defines the global internet-related public interest in general, and to my knowledge I don’t think that it falls under ICANN remit. A question to the strategy panel: does ICANN able or accountable to “*Ensure that the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet.* “ where it’s mission is to: “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. “
- *Global public interest vs. public interest* As for the “global public interest”, what is meant by “global”? is it in terms of geographical scope? Or interests scope, or internet scope? I think ICANN shouldn’t adopt this term ‘cause to my limited knowledge, ICANN is not responsible on and accountable to the global public interest. Global Public Interest might be a responsibility of a UN internet-related entity , which can reach an international agreement or law and enforce it even partially, but also in this case it’ll not serve the global public interest because at the end of the day UN is making agreements only with governments and again in my opinion governments are not authorized for defending public interest alone although they should “in ideal case”. In short, although theinternet is global but it’s difficult to talk about the global public interest as long as there’s no global law or treaty that regulate internet users’ interests.
- *Governments, GAC, & public interest* Although governments and governmental bodies in each country have been always using public interest concept as a justification or explanation of their decisions and policies, I think it shouldn’t be the same in ICANN, and GAC shouldn’t be the voice of the public interest. Thomas Schneider’s example at the session of “exploring-the-public- interest-within-ICANN’s-remit” was a good example that illustrates how PI in politics or country governance and management issues is a “point of view”, and how it can be changed and influenced by many variants ,factors, and intervened interests , and it also confirms that governments are not the good delegate to adopt public interest even if they are the only authorized entities to do so in their countries, but in ICANN there’s no need to make them in that position too, specially that GAC voice may also serve implicitly many stakeholders interests like when the governments are also the only ISP in a country and controlling the DNS-business sector too. PI should be represented by the multistakeholders with enhancing the representation and the consideration of independent users and civil society and non-commercial community, so At-Large community & NCSG have to have the louder voice on identifying PI criteria within ICANN.
To sum up, I think ICANN’s mission & structure is already based on the public interest ,and ICANN responsibility activities supporting the PI by empowering the community with different views to be engaged in policy development. What is needed now ,besides continuing the engagement of different stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and origins, is a review or an evaluation and enhancement of the ICANN multistakeholder model or structure to improve ICANN accountability towards the public interest through: 1- Having a measureable criteria under PI term used in level of ICANN board decision making , either by the board themselves with monitoring from PI entity inside DPRD , or by and independent PI entity. And I think these criteria will intersect ,if not matching, the ICANN accountability and transparency criteria. 2- Having a mechanism of making sure that in each PDP , there’re all voices from all interests by PI liaisons to make sure that any proposed policy or issue reaches the board is already subjective to PI environment and criteria.
Sorry for my long email.
Best Regards,
Amal Al-saqqaf ICANN fellow ISOC-Yemen ALS, APRALO, At-Large LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/amalalsaqqaf>am alalsaqqaf <https://www.linkedin.com/in/amalalsaqqaf> Twitter: @Amal_Alsaqqaf
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 7:19 PM, Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
For those of you who may have missed the session, the recordings and scribe can be found here: https://icann572016. sched.org/event/8cyd/ exploring-the-public-interest- within-icanns-remit <https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cyd/exploring-the-public-interest-withi...>
Best, Ergys
From: Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj@icann.org> Date: Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 5:05 AM To: "publicinterest@icann.org" <publicinterest@icann.org> Subject: Re: Public Interest Confirmed as High-Interest Topic Session for ICANN57
Dear all,
This is to confirm that the High-Interest Topic session on *Exploring the Public Interest Within ICANN’s Remit* will take place tomorrow, Sunday, 6 November 2016 from 15:15 – 16:45 in Hall 3 (Main).
*Agenda Details*
*15:15 – 15:20* *Setting the Scene*, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, EURALO Chair
*15:20 – 15:40* *Historical & Political Nuances of the Concept of the Global Public Interest: Examples from Europe & India*, Wolf Ludwig, EURALO & Rajesh Chharia, ISPAI
*15:40 – 16:10* *Reaching a Shared Understanding: The Concept of the Public Interest at ICANN and its Application*, Jonathan Robinson, GNSO & Becky Burr, GNSO
*16:10 – 16:20* *Explore How Public Interest Could be Operationalized as the Basis for Decision-making at ICANN*, Thomas Schneider, GAC
*16:20 –16:40* *Open Mic *
*16:40 – 16:45* *Next Steps*, Olivier Crepin-Leblond
We welcome everyone’s participation and look forward to a constructive discussion.
For more information, please see: https://icann572016. sched.org/event/8cyd/ exploring-the-public-interest- within-icanns-remit <https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cyd/exploring-the-public-interest-withi...>
Best, Ergys
From: Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj@icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:25 AM To: "publicinterest@icann.org" <publicinterest@icann.org> Subject: Public Interest Confirmed as High-Interest Topic Session for ICANN57
Dear all,
This is to inform you that Public Interest is now confirmed as one of the High-Interest Topic sessions for ICANN57.
Attached is the draft block schedule, which is subject to change as sessions are likely to be shuffled further in order to avoid conflicts.
The public interest session will be 90 minutes long, and is *tentatively* scheduled to take place on Sunday, 6 November, from 15:15 - 16:45.
Additional information on the session can be found below, with more to come in the coming days and weeks.
Best, Ergys 9. Public Interest Group: At-Large Advisory Committee *Session Leader(s):* Sally Costerton
*Background/ Importance:* Understanding the concept of the public interest within ICANN’s remit been a topic of discussion for many years. In 2013-2014, the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework explored this topic and, in consultations with the community, proposed the following definition for the global public interest in relation to the Internet: "ensuring that the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance ecosystem." While this definition has been well received, there is a desire to revisit. A high interest session took place at ICANN55, which helped build on previous discussions, but did not lead to concrete recommendations for next steps. Following ICANN55, the At-Large Advisory Committee created a Working Group to further explore the concept of the public interest. As the organization readies for significant changes in its governance structure in light of the impending IANA functions stewardship transition, it is important to carry the conversation forward.
*Session Goals/Expected Outcomes:* 1. Further understand the historical and political nuances of the ‘global public interest’ in various contexts and regions 2. Reach a shared understanding of what the concept of public interest means in the context of ICANN 3. Explore how public interest could be operationalized as the basis for decision-making at ICANN 4. Determine next steps
*Relevant Documentation:*
- Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework report: http://bit.ly/1zEdR1D - ICANN55 high interest session materials: http://bit.ly/ 2b3ym1R <http://bit.ly/2b3ym1R> - Wikispace: http://bit.ly/ icannPI <http://bit.ly/icannPI> - Mailing list: publicinterest@icann.org
*Session Format:* A panel comprised of members of the ICANN community will lead and moderate the discussion.
______________________________ _________________ PublicInterest mailing list PublicInterest@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/publicinterest <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/publicinterest>
______________________________ _________________ Public-Interest-WG mailing list Public-Interest-WG@atlarge- lists.icann.org <Public-Interest-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/public-interest-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/public-interest-wg>
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>