<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>JPA response - second draft for comments</TITLE></HEAD><BODY>Dear Ian <br/><br/>I like the way you've developed the position esp the principles in answer to Q7 and the way you have woven the Wsis principles in to the text.<br/><br/> I think the submission would be strengthened by taking a shot at Qs 3, 4 and 5 - some reflection on how Icann has managed these issues as part of the JPA. Perhaps those IGC members who have monitored these developments more closely could help here.<br/> <br/>Willie<p>Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile</p><p><hr size=2 width=100% align=center tabindex=-1><b>From</b>: Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com><br><b>Date</b>: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:28:40 +1000<br><b>To</b>: governance@lists.cpsr.org<governance@lists.cpsr.org><br><b>Subject</b>: [governance] JPA response - second draft for comments<br></font></p><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>Here is a second draft for consideration and comments (especially comments which propose improvements and additions to the wording). I also ask that we realise that there are areas where we cannot agree here – with our short time frame to finalise this, there is little point in proposing wordings which you know will not be supported widely. Everyone is of course encouraged to make individual submissions to reflect the diverse range of viewpoints we hold when we get into the specifics here.<BR><BR> Anyway what follows is my best attempt to come up with something that might be acceptable. Please lets work to improve this, I know it will be better for the inputs members can make.<BR><BR> Ian Peter<BR><BR><BR> 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 organisation can be found at www.igcaucus.org<BR> <BR> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and respectfully submit as follows<BR> <BR></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13pt'><B>Your Question 1 (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e. stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's existing processes and structures?)<BR></B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'> <BR> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them embedded in the constitution of an independent ICANN. To these we would add the multistakeholder principle which has evolved from these in the UN’s Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance arrangements.<BR> <BR> <BR></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13pt'><B>Your Question 2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S. Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate international participation in the coordination and management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and security of the Internet DNS?)<BR> <BR></B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>IGC notes that the Internet is still in early stages of development, and is still in the process of rapid evolution. This poses difficulties in determining any model as the appropriate one in the longer term, and indeed we think the imposition of a permanent model at this point of time would be counter productive. Rather, we think the establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed.<BR><BR> We note that within ICANN at this point of time a range of possible solutions are under consideration by a diverse range of stakeholders. There is a genuine widespread concern among stakeholders that this model should be multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent. We believe such a model should and will continually evolve out of the multistakeholder participation in an independent ICANN.<BR><BR> IGC believes that the security and stability of the Internet DNS can only be ensured by multistakeholder international and transnational co-operation. Without this, there will be no stability and security. That 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.<BR> <BR> <BR></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13pt'><B>Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria should be used to make that determination?)<BR></B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'> <BR> While holding some significant concerns about some aspects of ICANN’s operation, IGC does not believe that the JPA mechanism is appropriate to deal with these issues. IGC therefore believes that sufficient progress has been made in these areas for this transition to take place. However, in our answer to question 7 below, we do clarify that our support for a transition on September 30 2009 is subject to certain conditions and safeguards that should be agreed to as conditions of the cessation of JPA.<BR> <BR></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13pt'><B>Your question 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what additional safeguards should be put in place?<BR></B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'> <BR> We have several concerns which we believe must be met as part of this transition on September 30 2009. We believe these should be covered by an agreement between ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. These principles will remain a legacy of the effective stewardship US applied to ICANN in its early evolutionary stages, but which stewardship would become an unnecessary tether to ICANN’s effective development if it were to continue.<BR> <BR> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. They need to be flexible enough to accommodate the changes which will occur in the Internet environment. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:<BR> <BR></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><FONT FACE="Symbol">· </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">bottom up co-ordination<BR></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Symbol"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>· </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users<BR></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Symbol"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>· </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">ensuring the stability of the Internet<BR></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Symbol"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>· </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">transparency<BR></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Symbol"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>· </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">appropriate accountability mechanisms<BR></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Symbol"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>· </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent<BR></FONT></SPAN></FONT></BODY></HTML>