<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments</title>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Agree with Parminder here about JPA
extension. Don’t say that. I’m in DC right now, and you couldn’t do a worse job
of misreading the atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue
is ICANN accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and the
future of the IANA contract, not JPA. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
color=black face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:windowtext;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
color:windowtext'> Parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, June 01, 2009 4:22
AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Ian
Peter</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">governance@lists.cpsr.org</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] JPA -
final draft for comments</span></font><font color=black><span style='color:
windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
<st1:PersonName w:st="on">Ian Peter</st1:PersonName> wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Hi Parminder,<br>
<br>
As my email before this draft explained, we are not united on any governance
model which is why I did not include one. I for one do not believe that
external oversight is the only model, or necessarily the best one.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Ian<br>
<br>
As you say we do not agree on any governance model - but that includes a
free-float ICANN, free from all external oversight/ accountability. That itself
is a governance model, that we do not agree on. And the present draft commends
this governance model. A free ICANN cannot somehow be presented as a 'natural'
default model - that itself is a choice. <br>
<br>
What we may agree on, as an IGC statement, is that JPA should end. Beyond
it there are two views - a free ICANN, and a new international accountability/ oversight
mechanism. That is the principal dichotomy - and not whether JPA ending now, or
a short extension as presented in the draft. <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Multistakeholder governance we all
accept, not US Govt centred we all accept, but we do not all accept
externalising this. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>and others do not accept internalising it. <br>
<br>
I am not being an obstructionist. I am only showing that there is one
governance model which is clearly being endorsed here, over which there is no
consensus, in fact there are strong voices against. <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><br>
If you can find some words that express that in the draft, I will be happy to
include them. But I do not believe there is any consensus here for external
oversight as the only acceptable model or that that can be portrayed as the
position of IGC.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>I write this during the lunch time of a meeting, and
will try to come up with text proposals a little later. I thought my above
comments may help keeping the discussion going. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 color=black
face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><br>
Ian<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder" <a
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
wrote:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt'>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>
"For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other than
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>
gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "<br>
<br>
And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "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 '</span></font>an
independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues with
industry led governance systems which is what <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> government sees as independent
ICANN)<br>
<font size=2><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
</span></font><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri'><br>
<st1:PersonName w:st="on">Ian Peter</st1:PersonName> wrote: </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 color=black
face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>JPA - final
draft for comments </span></font>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>
<st1:PersonName w:st="on">Ian Peter</st1:PersonName> <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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org">www.igcaucus.org</a>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org" moz-do-not-send=true><http://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 <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:City> 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>
<b><font size=4><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-weight:bold'>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?)</span></font></b> <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>
<b><font size=4><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Your
Question 2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
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>
</span></font></b>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>
<b><font size=4><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-weight:bold'>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>
<br>
</span></font></b>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>
<b><font size=4><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-weight:bold'>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>
<br>
</span></font></b>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>
<font face=Symbol><span style='font-family:Symbol'>· </span></font> bottom
up co-ordination<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face=Symbol><span style='font-family:Symbol'>· </span></font> balanced
multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and
Internet users<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face=Symbol><span style='font-family:Symbol'>· </span></font> ensuring
the stability of the Internet<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face=Symbol><span style='font-family:Symbol'>· </span></font> transparency<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face=Symbol><span style='font-family:Symbol'>· </span></font> appropriate
accountability mechanisms<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face=Symbol><span style='font-family:Symbol'>· </span></font> continuing
evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is
multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face=Symbol><span style='font-family:Symbol'>· </span></font> decision
making driven by the public interest<br>
<br>
<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 <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Mission</st1:place></st1:City>
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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>