<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>JPA</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><BR>
There have been suggestions on the list we should comment on the JPA – which I think would be a good idea. Below is DOC’s call for comments with some suggested IGC responses in CAPS. We have until June 8 so we probably need to get something decided fairly quickly if we are to respond.<BR>
<BR>
Any suggestions or thoughts? One thing I am suggesting below is that ICANN needs to embed various principles in its operation. These are in by-laws but that would appear to be easy to change. Those closer to ICANN might be able to suggest an appropriate mechanism for this. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Ian Peter<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
REQUEST FOR COMMENT:<BR>
<BR>
Given the upcoming expiration of the current JPA between the <BR>
Department of Commerce and ICANN, NTIA seeks comments regarding the <BR>
progress of the transition of the technical coordination and management <BR>
of the Internet DNS to the private sector, as well as the model of <BR>
private sector leadership and bottom-up policy development which ICANN <BR>
represents.<BR>
The questions below are intended to assist in identifying the <BR>
issues and should not be construed as a limitation on comments that may <BR>
be submitted. Comments that contain references, studies, research, and <BR>
other empirical data that are not widely published should include <BR>
copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments.<BR>
1. The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e., <BR>
stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and <BR>
representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector <BR>
management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If <BR>
so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's <BR>
existing processes and structures?<BR>
<BR>
IGC BELIEVES THESE PRINCIPLES ARE IMPORTANT AND WOULD LIKELY TO SEE THEM PERMENANTLY EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTIUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ICANN<BR>
<BR>
2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the <BR>
coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S. <BR>
Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector <BR>
so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is <BR>
this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and <BR>
facilitate international participation in the coordination and <BR>
management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the <BR>
security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and <BR>
structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry <BR>
leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most <BR>
appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and <BR>
security of the Internet DNS?<BR>
<BR>
IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE ENSURED BY INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION. THAT CO-OPERATION WILL BE ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION<BR>
<BR>
3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA <BR>
contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific <BR>
milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these <BR>
milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be <BR>
taken to successfully address them?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a <BR>
series of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA. <BR>
Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities <BR>
set out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN <BR>
Board Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.\12\ Those <BR>
responsibilities included activities in the following categories: <BR>
security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server <BR>
security and relationships, TLD management, multi-stakeholder model, <BR>
role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and <BR>
corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet <BR>
each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If <BR>
not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served <BR>
in these areas?<BR>
<BR>
5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review. <BR>
That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to <BR>
increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability, <BR>
accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, <BR>
stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced <BR>
competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns <BR>
expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been <BR>
successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the <BR>
community served in these areas?<BR>
<BR>
6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an <BR>
agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the <BR>
technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner <BR>
that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. <BR>
Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place <BR>
by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria <BR>
should be used to make that determination?<BR>
<BR>
IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS FOR THIS TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE.<BR>
<BR>
7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient <BR>
safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of <BR>
the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder <BR>
interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are <BR>
these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of <BR>
stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what <BR>
additional safeguards should be put in place?<BR>
<BR>
THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE CONTAINED IN ICANNS BY LAWS. THEY NEED TO BE EMBEDDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THEY CANNOT EASILY BE CHANGED TO EXCLUDE ANY STAKEHOLDER GROUP.<BR>
<BR>
8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are <BR>
to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's <BR>
policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the <BR>
agreement. What should be included in this report?<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>