[governance] FYI - should IGC respond to DOC re JPA?

[William Drake]

Hi Anriette,

I agree, and not just because there are USians on the list.  The  
relevant NTIA staff actually do read and consider non-US views and  
certainly have been aware of IGC positions in the past.  Obviously, if  
the weight of Congressional and domestic interest group opinion  
strongly favors continuing the JPA and the administration thinks  
there's no better alternative, views from abroad aren't going to  
override these factors.  However, insofar as some of them may no  
longer be true, at least not to the same extent as before,  
international views (especially but not only governmental) could play  
a supporting role in a policy change.

Cheers,

Bill



On Apr 29, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Hi all - thanks for posting Wolfgang
>
> I think it is a good idea to come up with a statement. There are many
> US-based or registered entities on this list. Perhaps they can submit
> responses directly, as well as the IGC doing a response.
>
> The questions in the RFC are actually quite interesting and just
> responding to those would probably be the most effective way of
> constructing a submission.
>
> Anriette
>
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 18:43 +1000, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29/04/09 6:11 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>
>>> The DOC has published a NOI for the JPA
>>>
>>> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9409.htm
>>>
>>> Should the IGC send a comment? I would say Yes.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>
>> Yes I would agree. Any volunteers to come up with a draft statement?
>>
>> NGOs in the past have taken two distinct lines
>>
>> 1. Some large North American NGOs have argued for continuance of  
>> the JPA
>> citing several problems with ICANN. Those who argue for government
>> regulation of all things Internet might favour this position in the  
>> absence
>> of any transnational or international arrangements? Is one  
>> government better
>> than no governments given that all governments is unlikely at this  
>> stage?
>>
>> 2. Most of the rest of us have argued on principle for removal of  
>> the JPA
>> despite any problems evident with ICANN.
>>
>> We have until June 8. I can only see IGC agreeing to an argument on  
>> the
>> latter lines - i.e. that despite any problems evident with ICANN  
>> the public
>> interest is best served by ending the JPA. That gives us a  
>> government free
>> ICANN at this stage subject only to the arrangements existent with  
>> GAC.
>>
>> So what would our statement look like? Would we support  
>> strengthening GAC as
>> part of an argument for ending JPA and providing an ongoing vehicle  
>> for
>> governmental involvement?
>>
>> Any volunteers to come up with a draft statement?
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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