<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>JPA</title>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:820384422;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-979444556 -1870498114 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:30.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:30.0pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
color:windowtext;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>My comments below<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:30.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></font></span></span></font><![endif]>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<font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:12.0pt'><font size=3 color=navy
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>MM: It has
been suggested that “private” be replaced by “multistakeholder.”
In the context of early ICANN, “private” back then meant “nongovernmental,”
but now it is often interpreted by certain groups as “business” or “commercial
sector-led.”</span></font><br>
<br>
2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition
the coordination <font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>of DNS responsibilities,
previously performed by the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
<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<font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:0in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:5.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>MM: These
comments don’t really address the rather radical question posed: is the
model the right one? What are possible alternatives? If it is the right one, is
ICANN ready to execute it without <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region
w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place> oversight? However you answer
this, we must make it clear that ICANN is a governance or economic-regulatory body,
not a business or an industry association, and appropriate standards should apply.
</span></font><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?<font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:5.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>ICANN
still lacks adequate accountability. Its bottom up processes can be ignored,
bypassed or dictated top-down by its Board, or manipulated by its policy staff.
Its Independent Review Process is inadequate. Its relationship to international
law ambiguous. The rights of people to challenge its actions on the basis of
established law unclear. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:5.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <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?<font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:0in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:5.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Most of
the agenda of the mid-term review was set by the IP lobby. </span></font><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 <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">TAKE PLACE</st1:address></st1:Street>.<font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:5.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>MM: I am
beginning to question this.</span></font><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 <st1:address w:st="on">A WAY AS</st1:address> 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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>