[ALAC] Bad Actor Admission

Sat Mar 2 16:53:20 UTC 2019

Agreed

Sent from my Pixel 3XL

John Laprise, Ph.D.

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 6:30 AM Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:

> The system is without doubt imperfect, but it’s a correct baby step in the
> right direction. The idea that a private “individual” (whether natural or
> juridical) could somehow be on equal footing as a “state” on any
> international context (let alone a policy forum) wasn’t only unthinkable
> until the 20th Century, it is clearly anathema to the international order
> that rose from the Peace of Westphalia. And this is a good thing: the
> state-sovereignty and supremacy based model of international governance has
> been, IMHO, a scourge for humanity, as humanity been unable to tame the
> Hobbesian state of nature that reigns there with any social-contract that
> can truly  tame that Leviathan.
>
>  I think the idea of the “individual Internet-end user” as having standing
> and voice in an international/supranational policy context is one of the
> great innovations and contributions of multistakeholderism, and as such,
> one that must be a founding principle of any ICANN 3.0.  This, IMHO, is
> related to the rise of the individual person as a subject of public
> international law, an unthinkable idea less than century ago (generally
>  derived from post-WWII Universal Human Rights treaties and institutions)
> and part of the necessary weakening of the State-centered model.
>
> The mutistakeholder model, ICANN,  or Internet Governance won’t solve that
> problem of unbound state arbitrariness and caprice, let alone illegal use
> of force, of course.  And these concepts and institutions are not designed
> nor meant to either.  But what they do is start changing the culture and
> practice of state-supremacy.  It’s seems clear, for example, that in
> ICANN’s super tiny DNS remit, states are in no way the superior beings or
> overlords, and that’s a good thing. I would even venture to say, that there
> is mounting state practice and custom piling up that suggests that states
> are acquiescing to this reality (I wonder if with time, if uninterrupted,
> maybe this could give rise to a binding international norm?)
>
> In any case, what I think IG and multistakeholderism are doing Is
> transforming the  language, the change culture, to eventually change what
> Foucault called the “episteme”: the a priori paradigms that shape and
> ground our knowledge and discourse in our epoch.
>
> IG occurs within the constant  -sometimes rhythmic, sometimes
> cringe-inducing - dance between multiple players, the diversity of interest
> groups, individuals, states and countless parties deeply interested in the
> operation of and access to the Internet. This is a good thing.
>
> Because it’s a good thing is why there are always important forces
> objecting to the nongovernmental and privatized aspects of Internet
> governance, arguing and pushing towards what their episteme commands: that
> the only logical and legitimate place for these types of functions must be
> in states and their exclusive dance clubs, be the United Nations (UN), or
> one of its specialized agencies, such as the International
> Telecommunications Union (ITU).
>
> But we believe that the multistakehokderism is the necessary ritual to
> keep all forces engaged to maintain a non-fragmented Internet, as free as
> possible from purely regional or national considerations (whether public or
> private), but also duly respecting these. ICANN is perhaps the best IG
> dancehall yet (and hopefully the experiment will work and a new, even
> better club can be built in the future, with even better and more diverse
> music to dance to.)
>
> Any future dance club must be fullly aware and cognizant of all these
> complexities and tensions to strengthen the current model. ALAC or
> ALAC-like structures that exist to give non-state-bound Individuals a seat
> at the policy table must be safeguarded and strengthened as centerpieces of
> multistakeholderism. We need a dancehall with more space for us. We need to
> keep building that.  It’s on the right side of history and I think it’s the
> right thing to do for humanity as a whole.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:35 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
>
>> It's not ideal but any environment in which there are commercial
>> interests are impacted disproportionately by those interests, even
>> multilateral fora. Being a part of a community gives us opportunities to be
>> crafty and find common ground.
>>
>> Jonathan Zuck
>> Executive Director
>> Innovators Network Foundation
>> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2019 7:36:52 PM
>> *To:* Jonathan Zuck
>> *Cc:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; John Laprise; ALAC Working List; Alan
>> Greenberg
>> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Bad Actor Admission
>>
>> I can tell you we know about working the margins. When OCL, Evan and I
>> were ALAC officers, regular informal conversations occurred with members of
>> the Ry/Rr constituency thru Michele, James and Robb. Those I consider quite
>> fruitful.
>>
>> Regrettably, those guys, IMHO while mainstream, did not represent the
>> majority view in the contracted party house. Michele, for example, is a
>> hard case in argumentation. I got to engage with him extensively in the
>> EWG. But you could always expect a fair hearing from him.
>>
>> -Carlton
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, 5:39 pm Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Having been on both sides of this, though representing small business,
>>> it's a good convo to have. I've always tried to think of it using the
>>> principles of non violence. Even governments are dominated by big interests
>>> so it's up to us to build fluid alliances and look for points of leverage.
>>> There's NO model where we're equal.
>>>
>>> Jonathan Zuck
>>> Executive Director
>>> Innovators Network Foundation
>>> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* ALAC <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of John
>>> Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2019 4:13:22 PM
>>> *To:* LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez AmbÃa
>>> *Cc:* ALAC Working List; Alan Greenberg
>>> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Bad Actor Admission
>>>
>>> The more the merrier!
>>>
>>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>>
>>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 12:55 PM León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
>>> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Happy to join you in that conversation if you don’t mind. I’ll buy you
>>>> guys a beer!
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> León
>>>>
>>>> El 1 mar 2019, a las 12:14, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>> If there is a concern among staff, it must be raised through the CEO to
>>>> the Board. If he/she can convince the Board, the Board has the power to
>>>> act. If not, then it does not warrant action (in the minds of those who ARE
>>>> legally held responsible for the ICANN).
>>>>
>>>> Should someone have seen GDPR coming and acted? And when it did become
>>>> obvious, act faster, you bet.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of people saw GDPR coming and said so. Why we didn't act is an
>>>> interesting discussion. Ask me in Kobe.
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> At 01/03/2019 12:55 PM, John Laprise wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So one of the complaints I saw online is that ICANN org legal which
>>>> presumably saw the GDPR train coming down the track had limited options
>>>> beyond waving a flag despite it's material impact. ICANN org spends a lot
>>>> of resources to stay abreast of international law but can only do something
>>>> at the last minute. (Epdp)
>>>>
>>>> The more I think about it, the more giving ICANN org (pres?) the right
>>>> to ask the community to initiate a PDP has a kind of symmetry with the
>>>> powers of the enhanced community. Essentially, if the community and the
>>>> board fail to address an operational, material threat, ICANN org can hold
>>>> the board and the community to account.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>>>
>>>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 11:45 AM John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Not just staff...I was thinking ICANN org leadership...needs authority
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>>>
>>>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 9:02 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca >
>>>> wrote:
>>>> John, do you really mean "ICANN org", ie staff, to make that decision?
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>>>>
>>>> On March 1, 2019 9:00:50 AM EST, John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi and thanks Olivier,
>>>>
>>>> My apologies for not being clear. I was suggesting a possible bylaws
>>>> change where in ICANN org can ask the community to initiate policy
>>>> development when it sees an urgent/important need that the community has
>>>> not noticed.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>>>
>>>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 7:07 AM Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Dear John,
>>>>
>>>> please be so kind to find my response below:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/03/2019 13:31, John Laprise wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well said Evan and I share your concerns. If memory serves, so does the
>>>> Board as MSM threats is a strategic planning issue. Musing upon waking I
>>>> was wondering whether it would help if we could implement a mechanism
>>>> whereby ICANN org could ask the empowered community to implement a pdp?
>>>> This might've avoided the current epdp issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The ICANN Board and the Empowered Community cannot implement or launch
>>>> PDPs relating to gTLDs. The "PDP" as such is a defined term for "Policy
>>>> Development Process" and in the context of the Generic Names, only the GNSO
>>>> can launch a PDP. In the context of Country Codes Names, when it relates to
>>>> global policy, the ccNSO can launch a PDP.
>>>> The Board can ask the GNSO to launch a PDP on a gTLD related issue, but
>>>> the GNSO can refuse.
>>>>
>>>> The Board can also ask the ICANN communities, SOs/ACs to launch a Cross
>>>> Community Working Group (CCWG). However, there are doubts expressed in the
>>>> GNSO that CCWGs should *not* be the basis for policy making for gTLDs as
>>>> all policy making for gTLDs should go through a PDP.
>>>>
>>>> It's a power game and the bottom line is who has the control of policy
>>>> processes on gTLDs.
>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>
>>>> Olivier
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>
>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ALAC mailing list
>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>
>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20190302/ec16a095/attachment.html>