Dear Amal, thanks for your follow-up and interesting input to the debate on definitions of the PI in different regions and from various cultural angles -- as we started in Hyderabad from two examples and approaches like Europe and India. As we discussed in the 2nd Hyderabad and smaller session, there may be different angles and levels for our further discussion like - the broader level (historical, regional, cultural and political) outside ICANN and - the ICANN-specific level related to its mandate, scope and policy. Any further comments and inputs to this debate are much appreciated. Thanks and kind regards, Wolf Amal Ramzi via PublicInterest wrote Fri, 25 Nov 2016 01:00:
Dear all,
I attended the two sessions ofpublic interest in ICANN 57 meeting and I found them interesting. At-LargePublic Interest WG session was like a brain storming as it brought up to my mind manyquestions and conflicted answers , maybe because it was my firstexposure to the topic of the public interest within ICANN’s remit besides the ongoingdiscussions about this concept within ICANN specially after the transition andthe new ICANN bylaw. As we’ve been encouraged by prof. Wolf Ludwig and Olivierto share our thoughts and ideas in this mailing lists, I just like to sharehere my comments and questions on some of the discussion points, and to sharesome of background on PI from my region.
- Public Interest from an Arab culture background:
To my knowledge, the publicinterest concept from an Arab culture background, which is rooted to someIslamic resources, is closer to public “good” more than “interest”. And itmeans achieving benefit for community and avoiding its harm, where avoidingharm is prioritized to achieving any benefit. This should be decided through tradeoffor balancing between a group of interests where the decision is not necessary tobe the interest of majority nor the interest of individuals, but it can be decidedregarded the kind, the scope, and the sustainability of the good that’ll beachieved by that decision in a long run. It’s also case by case decision and usuallydoesn’t depend on a bottom-up or multistakeholder approach. With the ideal concept of “common good”, itseems 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 talkingabout public “interests” is more reasonable and measurable than public "good”,and just required a good system or approach to have all interests’ or stakesholders well heard and considered i.e. bottom-up multistakeholders model withfairly 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 ofPublic Interest, usually it’s not defined , as many had said, specially in thecontext of country management or governance, or has an elastic and vaguedefinition or description that makes it fits with any decision ‘cause PI isdetermined for a particular case, in a particular community, in a certaincountry, and in a certain time. So, it has to be broad although this broadness ‘causesthe loss of the public interest in a liable way. But for ICANN, I think comingup with a definition is possible because of the clear and finite frame of ICANN mission and resourcesthat ICANN manages or accountable to. However, a very restricted definition won’twork. Public interest should be defined through a set of measurable criteria thatguarantees as much procedural approach as possible in referring to publicinterest for decision making but I believe that also some of the requiredcriteria aren’t possible to be exactly specified and so at the end , PI definitionor criteria will inevitably have a kind of broadness. The only way to guaranteethe best possible public interest consideration within ICANN’s remit is to enhancethe representation of the different interests in the multistakeholder model andto amend it if needed.
As for the definition suggestedby the strategy panel, “, I think it’s very broad as if it definesthe global internet-related public interest in general, and to my knowledge Idon’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 continuesto be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoythe benefits of a single and open Internet. “ where it’s mission is to: “coordinate, at theoverall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and inparticular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's uniqueidentifier 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 interestsscope, or internet scope? I think ICANN shouldn’tadopt this term ‘cause to my limited knowledge, ICANN is not responsible on andaccountable to the global public interest. Global Public Interest might be aresponsibility of a UN internet-related entity , which can reach aninternational agreement or law and enforce it even partially, but also in thiscase it’ll not serve the global public interest because at the end of the dayUN is making agreements only with governments and again in my opiniongovernments are not authorized fordefending public interest alone although they should “in ideal case”. In short,although theinternet is global but it’s difficult to talk about the globalpublic interest as long as there’s no global law or treaty that regulateinternet users’ interests.
- Governments, GAC, & public interestAlthoughgovernments and governmental bodies in each country have been always usingpublic interest concept as a justification or explanation of their decisions andpolicies, I think it shouldn’t be the same in ICANN, and GAC shouldn’t be thevoice 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 governanceand management issues is a “point of view”, and how it can be changed andinfluenced by many variants ,factors, and intervened interests , and it also confirms thatgovernments are not the good delegate to adopt public interest even if they arethe only authorized entities to do so in their countries, but in ICANN there’sno need to make them in that position too, specially that GAC voice may also serveimplicitly many stakeholders interests like when the governments are also the onlyISP in a country and controlling the DNS-business sector too. PI should be represented by themultistakeholders with enhancing the representation and the consideration ofindependent users and civil society and non-commercial community, so At-Largecommunity & NCSG have to have the louder voice on identifying PI criteriawithin ICANN.
To sum up, Ithink ICANN’s mission & structure is already based on the public interest ,andICANN responsibility activities supporting the PI by empowering the communitywith different views to be engaged in policy development. What is needed now ,besidescontinuing the engagement of different stakeholders from diverse backgroundsand origins, is a review or an evaluationand enhancement of the ICANN multistakeholder model or structure to improveICANN accountability towards the public interest through:
1- Having ameasureable criteria under PI term usedin level of ICANN board decision making , either by the board themselves withmonitoring from PI entity inside DPRD , or by and independent PI entity. And I think these criteria willintersect ,if not matching, the ICANNaccountability and transparency criteria.
2- Having a mechanismof making sure that in each PDP , there’re all voices from all interests by PIliaisons to make sure that any proposed policy or issue reaches the boardis already subjective to PI environment and criteria.
Sorry for my long email. Best Regards, Amal Al-saqqaf ICANN fellow ISOC-Yemen ALS, APRALO, At-LargeLinkedIn: 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-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 onExploring 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 – 15:20Setting the Scene, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, EURALO Chair 15:20 – 15:40Historical & Political Nuances of the Concept of the Global Public Interest: Examples from Europe & India, Wolf Ludwig, EURALO & Rajesh Chharia, ISPAI 15:40 – 16:10Reaching a Shared Understanding: The Concept of the Public Interest at ICANN and its Application, Jonathan Robinson, GNSO & Becky Burr, GNSO 16:10 – 16:20Explore How Public Interest Could be Operationalized as the Basis for Decision-making at ICANN, Thomas Schneider, GAC 16:20 –16:40Open Mic 16:40 – 16:45Next 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-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 istentatively 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 regions2. Reach a shared understanding of what the concept of public interest means in the context of ICANN3. Explore how public interest could be operationalized as the basis for decision-making at ICANN4. 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 - Wikispace: 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
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig Swiss IGF http://swiss-igf.ch EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig