AW: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA

[Kleinwächter, Wolfgang]

Here is another perspective:
 
The role of the JPA is overestimated in the debate. I fully supported to terminate the JPA as soon as possible and I supported also ICANNs statement. But if it is terminated it does not change things too much. It would be an important symbolic act and stimulate self-confidence of numerous constituenices, involved in thre broad ICANN community. And it could create unexpetced positive side-effetcs which can come from reduced self-censorship of decision makers within the various constituencies. And it would be something like win-win. It would cost nothing to the US administration. A clever new USA administration could turn this into a big public and communication success telling the world that the USA becomes more open to international concerns. 
 
But again the JPA does not really constitute a command-control relationship. Joint meetings and reporting duties to the "global community" (including to the DoC) is not something which is normally understood under "oversight". The JPA is a "joint project" which was established on the basis of a certain common "understanding" (laid down in the original MoU). It did constitute a "light hand" over ICANN to push it forward to fulfill its duties (mainly laid down in the Annex), which includes also to become THE "model" for a multistakeholder Internet organisation. And this is good. Without such a light pressure probably ICANN would have never worked towards the building of the At Large Network.    
 
However, the real point in the global power struggle is not the JPA, it is the IANA contract. And the IANA contract is not the subject of the recent debate. 
 
If the next administration terminates the JPA and gives independence to ICANN (with some final minor obligations probably laid down in an exchange of letters as a very low form of arrangement) not much will change. The US will not "give away anything" or "loose the Internet". But the DOC can sell it to the world as a big step forward giving the global Internet community a greater role in doing their own business and strengthening the private sector leadership principle embedded in a multilayer multiplayer multistkaholder mechanism. In such a mechanism VeriSign will be the strongest private player and ISOC the strongest non-commercial player and IANA will continue to control the IP addresses and the USG will play a leading role in the GAC. And the DOC will tell the Senate that nothing has changed. And it is right. 
 
If China wants to have a ccTLD for .cn with Chinese characters (after the JPA termination) it still has to go through the IANA process which means that the .cn root zone file will move from IANA to the NTIA/DOC and a US governmental person will look into the case and only after clearance it will authorize its publication in the Hidden Server managed by VeriSign. This is a burocratical technical procedure (never misused but always mistrusted with a lot of symbolic meaning). Neither the IANA contract nor the contract between the DoC and VeriSign will be affected from the termination of the JPA. And this IANA/DOC/VeriSign-procedure will be defined as an important element to guarantee the security and stability of the Internet, a service of the USG for the global Internet community. And (if the symbolism is excluded) it is difficult to disagree. Did some intelligent workable and effective solutions came up in the ten years of discussion? A UN Internet Security council? Another private company as external oversight body?  A new NGO? ICANN itself? All ideas have their merits but unchecked side-effects. And they could open other boxes of pandora. 
 
My proposal - which I made in WGIG - to establish an external (multistakholder) ad-hoc Committee (like ICANNs committee for the contigency plan) which would be activated only in cases where a deletion, modification or addition of a root zone file into or out of the root raises concerns by legitimate parties was never seriously discussed. Lets wait and see what will happend. 
 
Wolfgang   

________________________________

Von: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro]
Gesendet: Do 03.04.2008 02:19
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA



I didn't read this "announcement" as announcing much at all. I 
wouldn't be too quick to read much into it.

As far as whether ICANN ever will be privatized, remember that the 
document that started us on this process was a 1996 publication of the 
Clinton Administration. Clinton started the ball rolling, but left it 
to the next administration, Bush, to complete. When the JPA was agreed 
in 2006, to resolve in 2009, Bush, in turn, effectively passed the 
task to the next administration, McCain/Clinton/Obama, to complete. I 
don't think it's realistic to expect that new administration, whoever 
is leading it, six months into its term in office, to privatize ICANN 
completely in September, 2009. "Giving away the Internet," which is 
what it will be called by ICANN's political opponents here in the 
U.S., is politically risky. The understandable inclination of U.S. 
politicians, even those who might agree with the concept of 
privatizing these global resources, is to delay, and leave it to 
someone else to finally make it happen.

    Bret
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance