The comments by Avri and Wolfgang do a good job of sketching
out the perspectives that are being discussed in NCSG with regard to
Human
Rights (HR) and Public Interest (PI). Avri is of course correct that
any
approach to PI needs to be consistent and compliant with HR. At the
global
level there is always an ongoing dialogue around what constitutes
Human Rights
(for example now in the Internet ecosphere) and how they apply to
organizations
–Civil Society Actors and Human Rights Defenders- as well as
individuals. There
is also always a more complicated debate around Public Interest
since each
definition of Public Interest allocates private rights in different
ways, as is
seen in ICANN discussions involving PI.
While the constituencies of ICANN engage, within themselves
and with others, in a global dialogue around HR and PI, both to help
understand
and shape the meanings, there is a more limited task with regard to
ICANN itself.
ICANN is a multistakeholder Civil Society Actor whose "short form"
mission and
vision are the security and stability of the DNS. ICANN is neither a
Human
Rights Defender nor a Public Interest advocate.
From a Civil Society Actor/Human Rights Defender
perspective, the question is how consistent and compliant is ICANN
policy and
practice with respect to Human Rights standards, and what can be
done to
strengthen ICANN’s position there, possibly as a leader in their
application
within the Internet ecosystem. This can be approached in a variety
of ways,
some of which have been discussed with NCSG.
While one cannot define Public Interest in the absence of
Human Rights, it is important to remember that beyond how human
rights
constrain definitions of Public Interest, there is no single
definition of
Public Interest. Human Rights principles dictate that Public
Interest cannot
put the interests of one gender, orientation, or race above another,
but those
principles offer limited guidance when it comes to the interests of
citizens
versus refugees, or differential community Internet access.
This is where ICANN’s multistakeholder structure can stand
out, engage in internal dialogue, draw on Civil Society notions of
Public
Interest, draw on divergent views on how markets and policies serve
the Public
Interest, and on notions of Civic and Corporate Social
Responsibility, all of
which have at their core deep seated notions of social justice which
themselves
are linked to Human Rights. The task is not to step back and help
definition each
of these core terms but to assess ICANN policy and practice with
respect to
inclusive notions of the Public Interest. The common goal is to
examine and
improve ICANN’s policies and practices.