<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Ian,<div><br></div><div>Returning to this thread after a holiday weekend, the text seems much improved and more reflective of the range of views that have been expressed, so kudos. A couple comments:</div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br> </span><span style="font-size:13pt"><b>Your Question 1 </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. </span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Bylaws, not constitution</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">We would propose to replace "private sector management" with the multistakeholder principle </span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To be more precise, "with multistakeholder management, in keeping with..."</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society.....<br></span><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br> <br> </span><span style="font-size:13pt"><b>Your question 6. </b></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><br> <br></span></font></font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; ">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. </span></blockquote><div><br></div>This seems a rather broad and bold claim. What cooperation exactly does the JPA preclude? Does it prevent governments from working in GAC, posturing in ITU, fumbling about in the EU...? If we're going to slap NTIA it might be helpful to explain or at least give one example, otherwise it might be read as a bit gratuitous.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; ">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.</span></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> 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. </span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Personally, I'd prefer a second sentence like, "Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.</span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'd cut this sentence, the JPA of course would be reviewed, per current practice. </div><div><br></div><div>[BTW, re: Parminder's message this morning----"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"---I at least would not say "oversight," which inevitably will be viewed as an authority/command relationship that privileges governments, since that's how the term has been used in WSIS and ITU. I don't suspect that the others mentioned favor that either.]<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"><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.</span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I think it would be more reflective of the diverse views expressed on the list to delete "short term." We cannot know whether a functional accountability framework could actually be concluded by Sept. 2010.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br> <br> </span><span style="font-size:13pt"><b>Your question 7. </b></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><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:</span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>ICANN can claim, not without justification, that it embodies the listed principles now and has made progress in this regard since WSIS (see e.g. the materials at <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/transparency/">www.icann.org/en/transparency/</a>, <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/psc/">www.icann.org/en/psc/</a>, <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/">www.icann.org/en/reviews/</a>, <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/">www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/</a>....The issue is that it is not implementing them and related principles one could imagine with sufficient consistency and depth. Presumably we are looking for some sort of mechanism for ongoing monitoring and evaluation and airing of grievances beyond what is already possible within ICANN's structures. The JPA provides possibilities in this regard, even if they've not been used much to date by CS collectively (although IGP and a few other individual orgs have worked to fill the gaps), and that's what we'd be losing. Is there something we could at least allude to by way of replacement?</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="5"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <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></span></font></font></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Quite helpful additions.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></div></body></html>