<!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">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Ian<br>
<br>
Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier
I think it is important for us to give our best in stitching one
together. However, the present draft does not take into account the
issues I raised in my email of Friday the 29th.<br>
<br>
In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate -
and how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides
are not just whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The
two sides are about ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/
system or whether is structurally requires an external oversight/
accountability mechanism. This is the real division. <br>
<br>
As I said in my quoted email<br>
<br>
"</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">For many of us an
external accountability/
oversight mechanism other than US gov-centred one is an absolute
non-negotiable. "<br>
<br>
And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "</font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">this should be accompanied by
clear
commitment by all parties to begin a process of due
internationalization of oversight of ICANN, and submit to the outcomes
of the same."<br>
<br>
I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I
think also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to
be a clear outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have
a caucus statement that does not take this into account.<br>
<br>
In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as '</font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="5"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">an independent ICANN'. (The discussions on
the other thread highlights issues with industry led governance systems
which is what US government sees as independent ICANN)</span></font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
</font><br>
Ian Peter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C649604C.2880%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<title>JPA - final draft for comments</title>
<font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">Here is a new draft incorporating comments
received (as best I can). As time is running out, I would suggest that
comments suggest revised wording wherever possible.<br>
<br>
Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific
oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We
have to realise we have different opinions here and see how we can move
forward to say something useful.<br>
<br>
We have a few days for comments – mid week we will need to present the
final draft for a consensus call.<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 coalition can be found at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.igcaucus.org">www.igcaucus.org</a>.<br>
<br>
In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of
global co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet
stability and security. <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?)</b></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
<br>
IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them
embedded in the constitution of an independent ICANN. We would propose
to replace "private sector management" with the multistakeholder
principle which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information
Society and the Internet Governance Forum process which the US
Government has supported, and which is an important facet, we believe,
of effective internet governance arrangements. We also speak more
about principles in answer to your Q7 below.<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 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. This should 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 these facts
in mind. <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>
IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a
widespread concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually
a barrier to effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As
such, it is seen as hindering the levels of global co-operation
necessary to ensure the security and stability of the Internet. Global
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. Therefore, all of us believe the JPA
should be ended as soon as is practical.<br>
<br>
Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN
develops. On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term
extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that
ICANN does take on board necessary changes. We believe that, if this
extension is pursued, the JPA should in future be reviewed (and
extended if necessary) annually.<br>
<br>
However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
that certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to be
embedded in ICANN’s operation – either as conditions for immediate
cessation or conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.<br>
<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>
Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s
operation.<br>
We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to
perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability
mechanism, various principles which follow. <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. 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="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
</span></font><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Symbol">·
</font><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="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
</span></font><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Symbol">·
</font><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="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
</span></font><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Symbol">·
</font><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="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
</span></font><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Symbol">·
</font><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="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
</span></font><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Symbol">·
</font><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><font size="4"><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font></font><font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
</span></font><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Symbol">·
</font><font face="Times New Roman">decision making driven by the
public interest<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="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
<br>
<br>
We also believe that ICANN should<br>
<br>
<br>
1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to
commercial and non-commercial stakeholders in the GNSO, without any
delays or conditions;<br>
<br>
2) implement an appeals mechanism that, unlike its current Independent
Review Process, is binding on its Board<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font></font>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>