[ALAC] Fwd: Re: Strategy Working Group on the subject of Public Interest

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 03:49:39 UTC 2014


Hi.

Note: I didn't see a document attached to the mail that Olivier sent - if
there was one, can that be forwarded please?

My concerns about the development of ICANN's Public Responsibility
Framework:

1. Scope

In my opinion, ICANN's public responsibility in the context of looking
after the global public interest is all encompassing (i.e., broad).  For
example, I consider the following to be part of ICANN's public
responsibility: transparency and accountability of ICANN; Security and
stability of the DNS; Inclusive participation of stakeholders in
policy-development, etc.

The challenge that the Strategy Panel faces is that there appears to be
forces at work that are trying to narrow the scope of ICANN's public
responsibility to things like capacity building.  Capacity building is
important to enhance participation, particularly for stakeholders from
developing countries, but it is not and should not be the sole scope of
ICANN's public responsibility.

We should expect more of ICANN in terms of its public responsibility as a
global steward of critical Internet resources.

2. Retrofitting

At the time of the Buenos Aires meeting, the strategy panel did not yet
have a framework to present and the work continues.  Without a proper high
level articulation of public responsibility, retrofitting by trying to pick
and choose which of ICANN's current activities ought to fall under a Public
Responsibility Framework is problematic because it can impose current
limitations onto the boundaries of the Framework.

3. Definition of Public Interest

Efforts at defining the public interest should be encouraged.  The At-Large
Multistakeholder Roundtable in Durban that touched on the public interest
revealed that there is difference of positioning among the stakeholder
groups.  Governments tend to favor a broad definition because they deal
with public policy matters whereas others like industry will prefer a more
narrow definition.  It would be good to see if a new attempt at defining
the term will achieve support and consensus.

In terms of the proposed definition, arguments can be made that ICANN is
not completely independent and use of some terminology is fuzzy - for
example, what does "healthy" mean in the context of the Internet?  The
panel can benefit from some input from the community regarding the
definition.

4. Reference to specific target groups

During the strategy panel's public session in Buenos Aires, the question
was asked whether reference should be made to target specific groups.

When this question is asked, the appropriate response should be "in what
context?"  Is it public responsibility in terms of inclusion of
stakeholders in policy development?  If it is in this context, then my view
is that the emphasis should be on a "policy of inclusion" and having
programs/activities in place that can address the participation needs of
stakeholders, particularly the ones that are disadvantaged.  The ATRT2 had
some specific recommendations on this that can be immediately adopted.  The
ICANN Academy can be further broadened and resourced.  In addition the
Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation is also working on means of
enhancing participation in policy-development.

If the question of 'should reference be made to specific target groups?' is
asked for a different context, the response could be different.  So it
would be important for the context to be identified, particularly if the
scope of public responsibility is not limited to capacity building.

5. Synergizing Strategy Panel Work

The question should be posed to ICANN on how the Strategy Panels are
reinforcing each other's work.  It would not do for silos to emerge on such
critical areas of work.  I can see overlap in the work.  I am certain that
others can as well.  It would be good to know how the overlap is dealt with
or whether it would be dealt with at all.  It would be a tremendous waste
of effort and resources if the overlap is ignored.

In conclusion:
The ALAC should consider whether or not it should provide an input to the
Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, particularly as the work
of the panel touches on the public interest, which is a core concern of the
ALAC.

Best regards,

Rinalia



More information about the ALAC mailing list