<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>JPA response - second draft for comments</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3527" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Ian</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I try to make specific amendments to your language below,
taking into account some of the comments, but mainly based on my own opinion,
which others can accept or reject as appropriate. The biggest changes are in the
last section, which I try to make much more specific. ICANN can throw any
general principle it likes into its bylaws and it will be completely
meaningless. We need to propose much more specific changes. </FONT></SPAN></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Milton Mueller<BR>Professor, Syracuse University School of
Information Studies<BR>XS4All Professor, Delft University of
Technology<BR>------------------------------<BR>Internet Governance
Project:<BR><A
href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</A><BR></FONT></P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
size=5><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><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. <SPAN
class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> We </FONT></SPAN>would <SPAN
class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> propose
to replace "private sector management" with </FONT></SPAN>the
multistakeholder principle which has evolved from the <SPAN
class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> World
Summit on the Information Society and the </FONT></SPAN>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></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.<SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
class=719322214-29052009> </SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Any action on the JPA must explicitly
recognize that ICANN is a global governance institution with regulatory
authority over an industry (domain name registration) and over critical
resources (IP addresses, root servers and addresses). The standards of due
process, rights, and accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with
its these facts in mind. </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
class=719322214-29052009> </SPAN><BR>IGC believes that the security and
stability of the Internet DNS can only be ensured by multistakeholder<SPAN
class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>, </FONT></SPAN> 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.<SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> Currently, we are not convinced that ICANN as an organization is
subject to sufficient external accountability. Any changes in its current
status must be designed to remedy this shortfall.<FONT face="Times New Roman"
color=#000000
size=3> </FONT></FONT></SPAN> <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
ICANN’s <SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>treatment of civil society participation and its notable bias toward
business interests</FONT></SPAN>, IGC does not believe that the JPA mechanism
is appropriate to deal with these issues. IGC <SPAN
class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>does
not </FONT></SPAN>believe that sufficient progress has been made in these
areas<FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=719322214-29052009> ; however, it still prefers to end the JPA and
concentrate on an international process to remedy those
problems. </SPAN><SPAN
class=719322214-29052009> I </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>n our answer
to question 7 below, we 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 <SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> that ICANN must: </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> 1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a
way that gives parity to commercial and noncommercial stakeholders in the
GNSO, without any delays or conditions;</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> 2) implement a real appeals mechanism
that, unlike its current Independent Review Process, is binding on its
Board</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN class=719322214-29052009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> 3) formally recognize the
internationally accepted principle of freedom of expression in its Mission and
Articles, and establish a norm that its policies for administration of
identifiers should not be used to violate those
principles.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
class=719322214-29052009></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>