[governance] JPA - final draft for comments
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Wed Jun 3 07:09:36 EDT 2009
Hi, I suggested to skip the first paragraph and I supported the change
that Bill suggested for the following para. However, I don't want to
block consensus. Should I be the only one who dislikes the wording of
the first para, please feel free to ignore my comment.
jeanette
Ian Peter wrote:
> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
>
> Eg...
>
> Jeanette -
>
>
> “from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.”
>
> Milton -
>
> “I’m in DC right now, and you couldn’t do a worse job of misreading the
> atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN
> accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and the
> future of the IANA contract, not JPA.”
>
>
>
> So I don’t think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
> statement
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question
> 6 in the draft statement which was
>
> " IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a
> widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is
> actually a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet
> governance. As such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global
> co-operation necessary to ensure the security and stability of the
> Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a transition
> beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that they
> have equitable arrangements for participation. Therefore, all of
> us believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.
>
> Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be
> resolved as ICANN develops. On the other hand, some of us believe
> that a short term extension of the JPA might be the most effective
> means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes. We
> believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in future
> be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually."
>
> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be
> cut and the following sentence be added in the end.
>
> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but
> be replaced as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder
> framework for accountability, the development of which should
> commence in early 2010."
>
> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC
> statement.
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
> William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
>
>
> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think
> they require gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic
> principles that already apply to varying degrees. The prior
> text, if amended to take on board some tweaks that were
> suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
> various views expressed.
>
>
>
>
> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only
> path forward is a much reduced response which concentrates
> on principles. So at this stage what I would propose for a
> consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows. I would be
> happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging
> draft covering additional points, but I have come to the
> conclusion that anything we are likely to agree on at this
> stage would only take emphasis away from the main points we
> want to make.
>
> I have dropped all references to models and the varying
> arguments as to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do
> suggest that people make individual submissions to cover
> their concerns in this area. For IGC as a whole, I think we
> have to aim for something much simpler.
>
> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think
> of this approach, and of course any suggested improvements
> in wording.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of
> civil society and non governmental organisations and
> individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance
> Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World
> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to
> provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for
> representation of civil society contributions in Internet
> governance processes. We have several hundred members, with
> a wide spread of geographic representation; more about our
> coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org
> <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA
> with ICANN, and respectfully submit as follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of
> the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet
> governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles,
> is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive,
> development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information
> Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of
> global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure
> Internet stability and security.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
> that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded
> in ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by
> an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution,
> by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various
> principles which follow. The principles need to be embedded
> in such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to
> exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which need to
> be permanently embedded are:
>
> · bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> · balanced multi stakeholder representation, including
> civil society interests and Internet users
>
>
> · ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> · transparency
>
>
> · appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> · continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate
> governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder,
> democratic, and transparent
>
>
> · decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> “multistakeholder management”, in line with the
> multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the World
> Summit on the Information Society and the Internet
> Governance Forum process which the US Government has
> supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of
> effective internet governance arrangements.
>
> We think the establishment of firm principles to guide the
> evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed. This
> should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a global
> governance institution with regulatory authority over an
> industry (domain name registration) and over critical
> resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The
> standards of due process, rights, and accountability that
> apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in mind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>
> William J. Drake
>
> Senior Associate
>
> Centre for International Governance
>
> Graduate Institute of International and
>
> Development Studies
>
> Geneva, Switzerland
>
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>
>
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list