<span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">Hello Ian,</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">After going through your draft and the comments on your draft so far, I feel that ICANN deserves some positive references which are missing in the draft. Is there anything said anywhere in the draft to indicate that ICANN has handled its functions well so far, is handling its responsibilities well, and will do so in future? That is what needs to be emphasized in the IGC response to the JPA review questions. The JPA review questions might be specific but the answers to the specific questions need to reflect how the IGC feels about ICANN and its capacity to be independent. The present draft and the comments to be incorporated do not point to such a positive statement.</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">
<br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">The draft tends to focus on what is wrong with ICANN rather than on what is wrong with JPA. Different members of the caucus have differing opinions ( and in some cases different agendas ) on what ICANN should or should not do. The focus on some finer points, such as one on GNSO, add to the confusing opinion that ICANN is not good enough ? </span><br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">
<br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">some more comments inline.</span><br><br>On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Ian Peter <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Here is a new draft incorporating comments received (as best I can). As time<br>> is running out, I would suggest that comments suggest revised wording<br>> wherever possible.<br>><br>> Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific<br>
> oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We have to<br>> realise we have different opinions here and see how we can move forward to<br>> say something useful.<br>><br>> We have a few days for comments – mid week we will need to present the final<br>
> draft for a consensus call.<br>><br>> Ian Peter<br>><br>><br>> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and<br>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s<br>
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the<br>> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a<br>> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil<br>
> society contributions in Internet governance processes. We have several<br>> hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about<br>> our coalition can be found at <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org">www.igcaucus.org</a>.<br>
> <br>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS<br>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out<br>> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a<br>
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory<br>> Information Society”. We also recognise the need for high levels of global<br>> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and<br>
> security.<br>><br>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and<br>> respectfully submit as follows.<br>> <br>> Your Question 1 (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e.<br>
> stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and<br>> representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector<br>> management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so,<br>
> have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's<br>> existing processes and structures?)<br>><br>> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them<br>> embedded in the constitution of an independent ICANN. We would propose to<br>
> replace "private sector management" with the multistakeholder principle<br>> which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the<br>> Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported,<br>
> and which is an important facet, we believe, of effective internet<br>> governance arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to<br>> your Q7 below.<br><br><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">The question is whether ICANN has integrated within its existing processes and structures, the four core principles (i.e.stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and representation) as articulated in the DNS White Paper been. Is the caucus saying Yes, or No? It seems to imply No, ICANN hasn't done that yet. No, ICANN hasn't made a beginning on these principles yet. Is that what you mean? There is no answer under this question except "we would like to see them embedded" which implies that the principles are not embedded yet. The rest of the response is shifted to question no 7, where the IGC lists 'principles ... need to be embedded" and ICANN 'should' do this, should do that...</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">
<br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">Hasn't ICANN embedded these principles already? Isn't ICANN practicing bottom-up coordination already? Why don't we say so? There are always some imperfections, but if the overall tone of the response is discontent, then the implied response is taken as "we need the JPA, now and at all times". Is this what the IGC would like the JPA review to infer?</span><br>
<br>> <br>> Your Question 2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the<br>> coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.<br>> Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as<br>
> to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making.<br><br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">JPA uses the words "private sector" and "industry leadership" again and again.Transition to Network Solutions? Or transition to the telecom industry? Even these words need to be replaced with "mutli-stakeholder management? mutli-stakholder governance? multi-stakholder administration? mutli-stakholder oversight?</span> <br>
<br>> Is this still<br>> the most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate<br>> international participation in the coordination and management of the DNS,<br>> bearing in mind the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS?<br>
> If yes, are the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN<br>> sufficient to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If<br>> not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure<br>
> the stability and security of the Internet DNS?)<br>> <br>> IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid evolution. This<br>> poses difficulties in determining any model as the appropriate one in the<br>
> longer term, and indeed we think the imposition of a permanent model at this<br>> point of time would be counter productive. <br><br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">Evasive. The IGC does not have anything to suggest?</span><br>
<br>>Rather, we think the<br>> establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the<br>> appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a<br>> global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry<br>
> (domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root<br>> servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and<br>> accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in<br>
> mind. <br>><br>> Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is<br>> an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the<br>> technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner that<br>
> ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS. Has<br>> sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place by<br>> September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria should be<br>
> used to make that determination?)<br>><br>> IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread<br>> concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to<br>> effective global co-operation in Internet governance. <br>
<br><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">The response here is not direct enough. May be say that JPA is contrary to multi-stakholder principle. It is not right that it should continue, but at the same time, to ensure a smooth transition, suggest ways by which a NEW ARRANGEMENT is put in place such as a "oversight transfer agreement" with mechanisms to ensure a smooth post-transition ICANN. </span><br>
<br>>As such, it is seen as<br>> hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security<br>> and stability of the Internet. Global co-operation will be enhanced by a<br>> transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all stakeholders feel that<br>
> they have equitable arrangements for participation. Therefore, all of us<br>> 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<br>
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops.<br>> On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA<br>> might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board<br>
> necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA<br>> should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.<br><br><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">So, the IGC believes that the JPA should be extended for many, many years with annual reviews?</span><br>
<br>><br>> However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that<br>> certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to be embedded<br>> in ICANN’s operation – either as conditions for immediate cessation or<br>
> conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.<br>> <br>> <br>> Your question 7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there<br>> sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and<br>
> stability of the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all<br>> stakeholder interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are<br>> they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of<br>
> stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what<br>> additional safeguards should be put in place?<br>><br>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain<br>
> 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<br>> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism,<br>
> various principles which follow.<br>> <br>> The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot<br>> easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which<br>> need to be permanently embedded are:<br>
> <br>> · bottom up co-ordination<br>><br>><br>> · balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society<br>> interests and Internet users<br>><br>><br>> · ensuring the stability of the Internet<br>
><br>><br>> · transparency<br>><br>><br>> · appropriate accountability mechanisms<br>><br>><br>> · continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model<br>> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent<br>
><br>><br>> · 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<br>
> and non-commercial stakeholders in the GNSO, without any delays or<br>> conditions;<br>><br>> 2) implement an appeals mechanism that, unlike its current Independent<br>> Review Process, is binding on its Board<br>
><br>> 3) formally recognize the internationally accepted principle of freedom of<br>> expression in its Mission and Articles, and establish a norm that its<br>> policies for administration of identifiers should not be used to violate<br>
> those principles.<br><br><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">Why these specific points? Why GNSO as a constituency singled out here and a point made? There are several constituencies within ICANN and several tasks to be carried out. Is the IGC Caucus seeking US Government help in handling some specific agenda items?</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">
<br style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);">Sivasubramanian Muthusamy</span><br>India<br><br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>><br>><br><br>