<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Ian <br>
<br>
In APC we are exploring whether to make a submission on the JPA expiry
on the following lines:<br>
<br>
Q1: change the principle 'private' to 'multi-stakeholder' and propose
WSIS principles
<br>
Q2 say the ICANN model is flawed as it allows for arbitrary
interventions by the GAC to override its decision-making processess as
in the .xxx case, does not in its decision-making processes comply
with the standards of an economic regulator, confuses public policy
regulation with commercial activities, lacks proper accountability
whether internal or external, lacks full international legitimacy.
ICANN can be internationalised as an economic regulator for the DNS and
the JPA allowed to expire after the following steps:<br>
- abolish the GAC and have governments either participate as a
stakeholder directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO etc just
as other stakeholders do
or specify the role of governments in managing critical internet
resources through an international treaty<br>
- separate the ICANN global governance regime from national governance
e.g. ccTLDs which should be handled at national level with suggested
guidelines on how to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle,WSIS
principles etc)
<br>
- an international treaty to govern the management of critical internet
resources should be entered into between governments in consultation
with the private sector and civil society (that would set the
principles and broad parameters for ICANN as an independent
international economic regulator but not interfere in its operations)
<br>
Qs3,4 & 5: recognise that ICANN has made progress on meeting some
of these steps but they are not sufficient in themselves as the overall
problems outlined in Q2 have not been met and can't be met within the
current governance arrangments for ICANN.<br>
Q6: say therefore that the USG cannot let the JPA expire until
theconditions outlined under Q2 have been met.
<br>
<br>
This conclusion is somewhat surprising for us to reach as we have
argued against the unilateral control of ICANN by one government. We
have also been hesitant about arguing for an international treaty but
feel the sooner we face up to this as a reality the better. We are
worried about a black swan blindsiding the system of managing critical
internet resources to the detriment of the internet as a whole and lack
confidence in letting ICANN go without there being a legitimate
accountability mechanism in place. <br>
<br>
Willie<br>
<br>
<br>
Ian Peter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C63D4E74.23D5%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<title>JPA</title>
<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></blockquote>
</body>
</html>