<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Milton,<div><br><div><div>On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">You betcha. A couple slices at least. Review panels doth not <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a clean break make.<br></blockquote><br>Having read the AoC agreement now, and the original bet, I disagree. <br>I think I win. Clean break. Ding dong, the JPA is dead, and certainly "changed". <br>Thanks to Adam for digging up the original bet. <br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>I thought it was a debate/bet on decoupling from US control, but guess you ultimately turned it into "change something related to the JPA." Thus stated I obviously have to concede on your point, but it is less obvious that I have to concede on mine given the remaining contracts, larger political environment, "long-standing agreement" with the USG, et al. Will be interesting to see the reactions within ITU and other places non-OECD governments roam. Either way, I suggest again that we split the bill (and change the subject line, getting tired).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">rules could be tough on they key issues. Someone care to spell out <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the argument for how this constitutes a real break in the governance <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of names and numbers, rather than a limited, incremental <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">step? Some years ago the US and EU came up with the face-saving <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">safe harbor agreement on privacy protection, and US business pretty <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">much continued on its merry way. How different will this be, <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in terms of outcomes?<br></blockquote><br>Bill, you are saying that this is not a very good accountability mechanism. Ding! On target. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> While I agree on the need for procedural rules and external accountability etc, I think I'm saying more than that. </div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>But, as far as the JPA termination goes, the basic issue is that (other than IANA contract) Commerce Dept oversight is finished, over, it's now just one of several GAC members in the basic supervision. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Never heard the phrase, first among equals?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Also the Affirmation itself seems to have no legal authority or binding power. And, the NTIA-ers got all the folks who might scream about "giving the internet away to furriners" (VeriSign, CSIS, Google) to agree to it in advance and put up favorable public comments on their web site. Altogether, an impressive fig leaf to cover the end of the JPA. Well done, tactically. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Ergo the safe harbor comparison.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>But no, let's not be fooled about this solving the accountability problem. And let's pay careful attention to the enhanced role of GAC and the possible abuse of its selection powers.<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>And start saving info for NCUC's first submission to the review panels :-)</div><div><br></div><div>Bill<br><br></div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></html>