Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1407766814.1985.1710838622715@community1.lax.icann.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_1984_200829718.1710838622714" ------=_Part_1984_200829718.1710838622714 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Following Community requests, this Confluence space has been created to = house useful background materials and discussions on the topic of understan= ding the term =E2=80=9Cpublic interest=E2=80=9D within ICANN=E2=80=99s remi= t.
Discussions on the topic of the =E2=80=9Cpublic interest within ICANN=E2= =80=99s remit=E2=80=9D and potential definitions of this term have been ong= oing for years. In 2013-2014, the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, led by Ni= i Quaynor, explored this topic. Based on community input at sessions and we= binars, the Panel defined the global public interest in relation to the Int= ernet as follows:
Some have recommended the report produced by the Strategy Panel on Publi= c Responsibility. However, at individual and ICANN meetings, and at ICANN 5= 2 in particular, it became evident there is a need and a desire to revisit = this topic.
Given that there is currently little bandwidth for additional projects, = and given the intense focus on other ongoing dialogues, this space has been= established as a resource for all to populate with background documents th= at will be useful for guiding this conversation forward.
In order to facilitate Community discussion on this topic, at a time whe= n the Community is ready to do so, staff have facilitated some desk researc= h on how the term =E2=80=9Cpublic interest=E2=80=9D is understood and appli= ed from an operational standpoint in ICANN=E2=80=99s internal processes and= documentation.
This will require global, multistakeholder, bottom-up discussion and ICA= NN wants to ensure, when the time is right, that there are enough resources= and background research available. We all will need to understand the oper= ational, legal, and fiscal parameters and limitations to any potential defi= nition(s); providing additional resources to help inform this conversation = is greatly encouraged.
If you would like to join the discussion t= aking place on this topic, the following mailing list= has been created as a forum for initial conversations: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/publicinterest=
To be kept up-to-date and to particip= ate in discussions, please follow the mailing list: publicinterest .
N.B. Addition of other relevant resources is strongly encouraged.
Resources current as of 15 November 2016:
Background Reading on Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibilit= y Framework
Staff Supported Resources
Recent Dialogues and Sessions on this Topic
Drake begins by explaining that the s= tandard by which various interested groups are saying Internet should be go= verned by is unclear, =E2=80=9Cparticularly with respect to the underlying = critical Internet resources, name, numbers, security issues, interoperable,= and so on.=E2=80=9D As the roundtable discussion begins, Jeanette Hofmann = offers an academic overview of current research surrounding public interest= issues. Hoffman argues that the term =E2=80=9Cpublic interest=E2=80=9D ref= ers to regulation. According to her research, in order for public interest = not to privilege specific interests at the expense of others, due process a= nd active social demand are the two conditions that must be met.
Olga Cavalli emphasizes the connectio= n between public interest issues promoting open and equal social access to = essential elements for a community including, but not limited to social jus= tice, education, connectivity, Internet access, healthcare, historic preser= vation, religion and water. Thomas Schneider mentions that in German the wo= rd gimindvol or =E2=80=98commonwealth=E2=80=99 is intricately related to th= e concept of common, or public, interest and is a fluid term because what i= s common interest in one moment in time rarely endures, thus defying defini= tion. Anriette Esterhuysen raises the issues that entitlement to defend pub= lic interest is contested amongst States and nongovernmental actors. Marili= a Maciel notes that the NETmundial multistakeholder statement represents a = useful convergence of existing ideas pertaining to public interest and has = the legitimacy of being generated in a bottom-up, multistakeholder, transpa= rent manner. Drake refocuses the discussion on which elements of the differ= ent concepts of public interest are relevant in the realm of critical Inter= net resources. Lawrence Strickling draws attention to the fact that with re= ference to regulation, scarcity and lack of competition are not current cha= llenges, but that does not signify that openness should be overlooked. Wolf= gang Kleinwachter quotes US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis grappling = with a similar issue in 1905, insisting that lawyers have an =E2=80=9Coblig= ation to use power for the protection of people.=E2=80=9D Esterhusen raises= the dilemma of whether permission-less innovation and public interest prot= ection are mutually exclusive to which Hofmann responds that supply-and-dem= and defies permission-less innovation =E2=80=93 those who make the demand h= ave to have an interest in order to require the supply. Drake explains that= consumer protection is also inherent in this concept.
The discussion segues into addressing= the challenges of arriving at a finite definition. Rinalia Abdul Rahim ack= nowledges the risks of failure, inclusion and implementation. George Sadows= ky argues that defining public interest as an aspirational goal is in keepi= ng with working towards something we do not anticipate attaining; the work = in a multistakeholder environment is the relevant part. Thomas Schneider co= ncurs, asserting that an iterative process wherein the circumstances evolve= requires an infinite rather than finite definition. Drake offers that defi= ning the terms cannot be an aggregative process. Strickland adds that what = the public interest is and how an organization operates within that definit= ion of the public interest are two separate issues. Drake concludes that it= is more dangerous not to attempt the definition than to attempt and fail a= nd welcomes continued discussion.
Participants: William Drake, William Drak= e, University of Zurich / Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN; Rin= alia Abdul Rahim, Compass Rose Sdn Bhd, Malaysia; Jari Arkko, IETF Cha= ir, Finland; Olga Cavalli, Government of Argentina; Vint Cerf, Google, USA;= Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications, Sou= th Africa; Amb. Benedicto Fonseca Filho, Ministry of External Rel= ations, Brazil; Jeanette Hofmann, The Humboldt Institute for Inte= rnet and Society, Germany; Tarek Kamel, ICANN, Switzerland; Wolfgang K= leinwachter, European Summer School on Internet Governance, Germany; M= ar=C3=ADlia Maciel, Rio de Janeiro Law School, Getulio Vargas Foundati= on, Brazil; Nii Quaynor, University of Cape-Coast, Ghana; George = Sadowsky, ICANN Board of Directors, USA; Asst. Sec. Lawrence Stricklin= g, Department of Commerce, USA; Thomas Schneider, Federal Of= fice of Communication, Switzerland; Remote Moderator: Gr= ace Githaiga, Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet); Rapporteur: Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands
Extracts from Wolf Ludwig=E2=80=99s worki= ng paper discussed below can be accessed online here.
Oliver Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond sets up th= e discussion by drawing attention to the need for a consensus regarding the= term =E2=80=9Cpublic interest=E2=80=9D as it is prevalent in official ICAN= N documents. Wolf Ludwig presents a paper on the term =E2=80=9Cpublic inter= est=E2=80=9D from a political and historical context rather than a legal on= e. Tracing references to =E2=80=9Cpublic interest=E2=80=9D from Aristotle t= hrough the Spanish Constitution of 1976, Ludwig concludes that the term can= be used as a guiding principle. Bill Drake follows with references to =E2= =80=9Cpublic interest=E2=80=9D from ICANN, the NETmundial Initiative (NMI),= the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the World Summit on t= he Information Society (WSIS). The term, according to Drake has been conten= tious since the Radio Communications Act in 1927, without a singular defini= tion. Issues of price management, market concentration, consumer protection= , balancing individual and aggregate interests, scarcity of resources and c= ontent are all debatable concepts related to regulation of the =E2=80=9Cpub= lic interest.=E2=80=9D Lauren Allison addresses the attempts to define the = concept in ICANN=E2=80=99s 2013-2014 strategy panel on the public responsib= ility framework which was tasked at analyzing both how ICANN approaches the= term =E2=80=9Cpublic interest=E2=80=9D and also how ICANN approaches publi= c responsibility work. This panel proposed a definition that has not yet be= en formally adopted. The discussion that follows raises issues of regional = perspective, accessibility, legal ramifications, human rights and privacy.<= /em>
Participants: Wolf Ludwig, Comunica Switz= erland; Oliver Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond, outgoing Vice-Chair of At-Large; Lauren= Allison, DPRD ICANN; Bill Drake, EURALO
From the report= :
The workshop on the Global Public Int= erest of the Internet, moderated by Pierre Dandjinou, Vice President of Sta= keholder Engagement at ICANN, was very well attended. Panelists included Ni= i Quaynor from the University of Cape Coast, Ghana and Chair of the ICANN S= trategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework, Nevine Tewfik from th= e Egyptian Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Rinalia Ab= dul Rahim the Managing Director of Compass Rose Sdn Bhd and ICANN Board Mem= ber, and Titi Akinsanmi, Public Policy and Governments Relations Manager at= Google.
Panelists shared their experience=
s in regards to the global public interest of the Internet. Nii Quaynor dis=
cussed the ICANN Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework, whi=
ch lay the foundation for the Development and Public Responsibility Departm=
ent (DPRD) at ICANN. The DPRD=E2=80=99s strategic framework is currently or=
iented towards outreach and capacity building, to address gaps in participa=
tion in policymaking, as well as to inform and encourage the next generatio=
n to participate in the Internet governance process. Nevine Tewfik also sha=
red her experience in Egypt working to create the Information, Communicatio=
n, and Technology (ICT) Trust Fund, a mechanism and platform that allows su=
ggestions for projects to be proposed, and to facilitate collaboration betw=
een government and different organizations.
Titi Akin=
sanmi discussed and highlighted three key issues to keep in mind when looki=
ng at the public interest of the Internet: transparency, simplicity for par=
ticipants, and avoiding replication of existing projects. Rinalia Abdul Rah=
im also drew from her experiences, stating that firstly, the =E2=80=9Cpubli=
c interest=E2=80=9D is a challenge to define, as it should take into accoun=
t the consultation of all affected stakeholders. She also spoke about how o=
rganizations in the Internet governance ecosystem can forge better partners=
hips to address the global public interest agenda by sharing goals, recogni=
zing roles and mandates of partners, effective communication and knowledge =
sharing, and shared measures of success between partners.
Participants: Pierre Dandjinou, VP Stakeh= older Engagement in Africa, ICANN; Nii Quaynor, University of Cape Coast, G= hana; Nevine Tweflik, Minister of Communication and Information Technology,= Egypt; Bob Hinden, The Internet Society; Ra=C3=BAl Zambrano, UN Developmen= t Programme
Related Academic Resources
Work in Progress: please email dprd@icann.org to submit oth= er resources that may be of use in generating discussion.
Online Material- Blog Posts, Opinion Pieces, and Articles
Work in Progress: please email dprd@icann.org to subm= it other resources that may be of use in generating discussion.
Early call to attention (2011) raisi=
ng the significant question of how to avoid self-interested decision-making=
if "public interest" is vaguely defined. DelBianco proposes a starting poi=
nt for defining =E2=80=9Cpublic interest=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 ICANN must ensu=
re the Availability and Integrity of registration and res=
olution services whereby =E2=80=9CAvailability" means that name and registr=
ations must be available in any language and script and DNS resolutions mus=
t be available 24/7 year-round, and =E2=80=9CIntegrity=E2=80=9D denotes pre=
venting falsification or redirection of DNS resolutions and internet users =
and law enforcement require integrity of registrant data in WHOIS:
Other Resources
About Public Interest - Perspectives from the IGF, WSIS+10 and ICANN St= rategic Plan.pdf. Draft document prepared by Olga Cavalli, = PhD, Eng. Chair GAC Working Group on Protection of Geographic Names in new = gTLDs, GAC Vicechair. 8 February 2016.