<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] RE: JPA</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Thanks Milton a few points below<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 25/05/09 1:11 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>My comments below<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="2" WIDTH="100%"></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>1.</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>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>
<FONT COLOR="#000080">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.”<BR>
<BR>
IP: Agreed, lets include that change<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the coordination <BR>
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>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
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 US 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. <BR>
<BR>
IP: which point I think is made in the answer to 1 above – bottom up co-ordination, multistakeholder etc. But we can clarify here as well. I don’t think we need to examine alternative models in this particular response – the real question here is should JPA continue or not. And indeed your comments below come to the heart of this. ICANN is imperfect – but a decade of JPAs haven't solved that nor will another decade of JPAs. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'> <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>
MM: </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>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. <BR>
<BR>
IP: Do we really want to include text to this effect?<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'> <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>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
Most of the agenda of the mid-term review was set by the IP lobby. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'> <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>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>MM: I am beginning to question this.<BR>
<BR>
IP: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><FONT COLOR="#00007F">But a decade of JPAs havent solved that nor will another decade of JPAs. Milton, have you suggested text here? As there will be no consensus here to continue the JPA, can we agree the JPA should cease? Or is there a specific measure we want to propose that expresses concerns in a way that makes it clear the JPA should not continue? Or should we remain silent? This is the real crux of this process...<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><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>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
<BR>
For all list information and functions, see:<BR>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>