Many thanks Ergys, this is very helpful. How can we give visibility to the document that our WG on geo names produced? best Olga 2016-11-17 10:10 GMT-03:00 Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj@icann.org>:

Dear Olga,

To my knowledge, the At-Large Working Group on the Public Interest is currently open to At-Large Structures' representatives and individuals only.

At present, the main forum for community-wide discussions on this topic is this mailing list. Until and unless this changes, everyone is strongly encouraged to share their views and actively participate using this medium.

One of the calls to action by Olivier Crepin-Leblond, who moderated the high-interest topic session in Hyderabad, was for the community to begin discussions on creating a loose structure, i.e. a committee, that can help facilitate the conversation across the different groups within the ICANN community.

I hope this is helpful.

Best, Ergys

On Nov 16, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ergys,

many thanks, unfortunately I could not join the session as I must attend another one.

Can you please tell me what is:

Public Interest Group: At-Large Advisory Committee

Is it there a specific group within ICANN?

If this is the case some GAC members may be interested to Join it.

Best Olga

2016-11-15 14:19 GMT-03:00 Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj@icann.org>:

...

Dear all,

For those of you who may have missed the session, the recordings and scribe can be found here: https://icann572016.sche d.org/event/8cyd/exploring-the-public-interest-within- icanns-remit[icann572016.sched.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_e...>

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[icann572016.sched.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_e...>

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[bit.ly] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_1zEdR1D&d=DgMFaQ&...> - ICANN55 high interest session materials: http://bit.ly/2b3ym 1R[bit.ly] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_2b3ym1R&d=DgMFaQ&...> - Wikispace: http://bit.ly/icannPI[bit.ly] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_icannPI&d=DgMFaQ&...> - 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

Thanks for answering this question, Ergys. Two things: 1. on the At-Large Working Group on the Public Interest, this is a working group that's primarily for representatives of A-Large Structures (ALSes) from the 5 Regional At-Large Organisations (RALOs). That said, unless specified, At-Large working groups are open to everyone. Thus I would suggest you ask the working group's Chair Wolf Ludwig ( wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net ) , CC'ing At-Large staff ( staff@atlarge.icann.org ) to join that working group, if you want to take part in that working group's work. 2. On the "call for action", I note that Becky Burr mentioned that if processes and checks and balances are followed in all aspects of our operations, than we could say that this was in the public interest (I am paraphrasing and would happily be corrected) - so there was no need for a Cross Community Working Groups. Indeed --- I do not think that we need such a formal structure, but certainly some kind of a common space, birds of a feather or whatever space you can call to discuss these issues ICANN-wide is, in my opinion, needed. The current Public Interest mailing list is one such space. Perhaps do we need some kind of an animator to get the discussion moving forward rather than a discussion that might end up moving in circles? Kindest regards, Olivier On 17/11/2016 13:10, Ergys Ramaj wrote:

Dear Olga,

To my knowledge, the At-Large Working Group on the Public Interest is currently open to At-Large Structures' representatives and individuals only.

At present, the main forum for community-wide discussions on this topic is this mailing list. Until and unless this changes, everyone is strongly encouraged to share their views and actively participate using this medium.

One of the calls to action by Olivier Crepin-Leblond, who moderated the high-interest topic session in Hyderabad, was for the community to begin discussions on creating a loose structure, i.e. a committee, that can help facilitate the conversation across the different groups within the ICANN community.

I hope this is helpful.

Best, Ergys

On Nov 16, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

Dear Ergys,

many thanks, unfortunately I could not join the session as I must attend another one.

Can you please tell me what is:

Public Interest Group: At-Large Advisory Committee

Is it there a specific group within ICANN?

If this is the case some GAC members may be interested to Join it.

Best Olga

2016-11-15 14:19 GMT-03:00 Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj@icann.org <mailto:ergys.ramaj@icann.org>>:

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[icann572016.sched.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_e...>

Best, Ergys

From: Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj@icann.org <mailto:ergys.ramaj@icann.org>> Date: Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 5:05 AM To: "publicinterest@icann.org <mailto:publicinterest@icann.org>" <publicinterest@icann.org <mailto: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[icann572016.sched.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_e...>

Best, Ergys

From: Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj@icann.org <mailto:ergys.ramaj@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:25 AM To: "publicinterest@icann.org <mailto:publicinterest@icann.org>" <publicinterest@icann.org <mailto: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[bit.ly] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_1zEdR1D&d=DgMFaQ&...> * ICANN55 high interest session materials: http://bit.ly/2b3ym1R[bit.ly] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_2b3ym1R&d=DgMFaQ&...> * Wikispace: http://bit.ly/icannPI[bit.ly] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_icannPI&d=DgMFaQ&...> * Mailing list: publicinterest@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:PublicInterest@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/publicinterest <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/publicinterest>

_______________________________________________ PublicInterest mailing list PublicInterest@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/publicinterest

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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 and the At Large Pubic Interest Working Group session is archived at page 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>amalalsaqqaf <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

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

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 - 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

_______________________________________________ Public-Interest-WG mailing list Public-Interest-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/public-interest-wg

-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

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/amalalsaqqafTwitter: @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 and the   At Large Pubic Interest Working Group session is archived at page 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 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 interestAs 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/am alalsaqqaf 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  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- within-icanns-remit  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 ______________________________ _________________ Public-Interest-WG mailing list Public-Interest-WG@atlarge- lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/public-interest-wg -- Sivasubramanian M

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>

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