From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 30 19:03:26 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Bad happens when good does nothing
Message-ID: <949538.48172.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>



There are some people on this list that work tirelessly for the good of "their" translate all  people.  They have courage, empathy and rightful energy.  I very well may be unworthy to loosen their sandals so as to clean their feet, from their journies & battles.
 
Here is an (anonymous for this post) debate between me and just such a man. He is arguing protectionism in its purist form -- which is a good thing if you can find it. But more he is arguing empowerment through the knowledge and access that the internet can provide in developing regions.  I disagree in part. But I appreciate and admire the notions that if we let regions develop in their own way at their own cultural speed we maintain a higher level of human dignity which essentially comes from preservation of heritage.
 
Rock on Africa!



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Eric
Dierker<cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> And this is good why??

It's a farily well understood concept that if the Internet will be
useful for folk in remote/underserved locations (such as African
villages) then content that is useful for them needs to be available
to them, especially in their own language(s).

>
> Is it to keep information flow in the hands of the status quo power
> structure?

the reverse actually.

>Why would knowledge be geographic?

knowledge, applications, services are only useful to folk if they
understand them in their own language and the economic benefit is
greater than the cost of accessing them.

Facebook in English is not going to be useful to someone who only
speaks Teso and needs to know (for example) commodity prices in
his/her area.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090630/27947cf6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun 30 19:34:31 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:04:31 -0430
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
Message-ID: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>

According to: 
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090630/ap_on_hi_te/as_tec_china_internet

"BEIJING - In a rare reversal, China's government gave in to domestic 
and international pressure and backed down Tuesday from a rule that 
would have required personal computers sold in the country to have 
Internet-filtering software."

Does anyone have more news on this?


____________________________________________________________
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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Tue Jun 30 19:42:51 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:42:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
In-Reply-To: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
References: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <874c02a20906301642s5bf306f5p77e2d5f054a23039@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> According to:
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090630/ap_on_hi_te/as_tec_china_internet
>
> "BEIJING - In a rare reversal, China's government gave in to domestic and
> international pressure and backed down Tuesday from a rule that would have
> required personal computers sold in the country to have Internet-filtering
> software."
>
> Does anyone have more news on this?


Yes I do.  This is not a rare reversal.  This is precedent setting.

But I have no doubt the Chinese have an alternate covert plan in the works.

cheers
joe baptista


>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090630/72a4fcc7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 30 20:11:16 2009
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
Message-ID: <429283.75807.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

This is the new big brother. "Regimes" are slowly but surely realizing that blocking access to information is not working.  But now they know it is better to see who is accessing that information -- kind of like our cookies, phishing and mining, only I somehow doubt theirs will be used to generate leads and make sales.
There was news out of Hanoi today, on a new restriction on hooking up on mobile "throwaway devices".  See Hanoi has been doing this data useage collection all along so the kids were just getting smart and using untraceable accounts via mobile phones.  It is fun like the drug trade of the early 90s, make one substance illegal, then the chemies would just alter one element and make a different drug.  China cannot keep up with the youth.

--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org> wrote:


From: Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] China backs down on filter?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 11:42 PM





On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

According to: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090630/ap_on_hi_te/as_tec_china_internet

"BEIJING - In a rare reversal, China's government gave in to domestic and international pressure and backed down Tuesday from a rule that would have required personal computers sold in the country to have Internet-filtering software."

Does anyone have more news on this?

Yes I do.  This is not a rare reversal.  This is precedent setting.

But I have no doubt the Chinese have an alternate covert plan in the works.

cheers
joe baptista
 




____________________________________________________________
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



-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090630/9943a900/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Jun 30 23:34:33 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:34:33 +0500
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
In-Reply-To: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
References: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906302034s6fa10774x9b7134b85167f59e@mail.gmail.com>

Well its far from openness. Just to help you all understand that what
really happens there:
http://chinayouren.com/eng/2009/01/chinese-internet-censorship-explained/

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Ginger Paque<gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> According to:
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090630/ap_on_hi_te/as_tec_china_internet
>
> "BEIJING - In a rare reversal, China's government gave in to domestic and
> international pressure and backed down Tuesday from a rule that would have
> required personal computers sold in the country to have Internet-filtering
> software."
>
> Does anyone have more news on this?
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Jun 30 23:36:58 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:36:58 +0500
Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter?
In-Reply-To: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
References: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906302036j6c139645h3d4d96d9753ef558@mail.gmail.com>

For details on what's recently been taken care of: http://ciirc.china.cn/
____________________________________________________________
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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Mon Jun  1 00:22:03 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 21:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1243829957.73221.296@lists.cpsr.org>

Very nice Ian,

A little tweek here & there;

-
Under Response to Question 6: Edit

>Therefore, all of us believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.

Change to:
In this respect,  all of us believe the JPA should be end as soon as these are
satisfide.

-

>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.

Change to:
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 make necessary
changes via oversite provided under a JPA extention agreement.
--

Looks good
____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 00:41:49 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:41:49 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>

nice one Ian,
My suggested changes below:


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

<snip>


>
> 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?)
>
> 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

words "multistakeholder management"

multistakeholder principle
> which has evolved from

<insert>
the narrow Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the

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.
>
> Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
>  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
>  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?)
>
> 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

add "global allocation of" to:

(IP addresses,

strike "root servers and addresses" here, as we already mentioned IP
addresses and ICANN doesn't really have regulatory authority over root
servers.


root
> servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and
> accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in
> mind.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jun  1 01:26:15 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:56:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>

Ian

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.

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.

As I said in my quoted email

"For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other 
than US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "

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."

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.

In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an 
independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread highlights 
issues with industry led governance systems which is what US government 
sees as independent ICANN)

Parminder


Ian Peter wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> We have a few days for comments -- mid week we will need to present 
> the final draft for a consensus call.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>  
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , 
> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>  
> *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?)*
>
> 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.
>  
> *Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to 
> transition the  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously 
> performed by the U.S.  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?)
>  
> *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.   
>
> *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?)
> *
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>  
>  
> *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?
> *
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's 
> operation.
> 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.
>  
> 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:
>  
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
> society interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
>
>  
>  
> We also believe that ICANN should
>  
>  
> 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;
>
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current 
> Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of 
> freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a 
> norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not 
> be used to violate those  principles.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/1b3234b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 01:43:11 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:43:11 +0300
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>
	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:26 PM, George Sadowsky
<george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
> This is getting to be a silly argument.

twas always such

>
> Norbert: you know full well that ISOC is not governed the way Cambodia is.
>  Why make the post?
>
> Parminder:  You seem to have a lot of problems.

Well, it's not just him, there are a number of ppl on this list that
labor under misunderstandings/misapprehensions regarding the 3 Cs
model of Communication, Collaboration and Cooperation as practiced by
ISOC/IETF/ICANN/RIRs, etc.

They don't grok the notion that these groups already represent a
multistakeholder model that has worked very well for a very long time.

Couple that with a penchant for seeing ICANN as the new North Korea,
and ISOC as a shill for corporate America, and you have a recipe for
the creation of a "Bad Idea Force" as seen in Issue 2 of this
hilarious and quite educational comic series:

https://www.arin.net/knowledge/comic.html

This is like the old "Peter Packet" cartoon from Cisco, but for the IG arena.

>
> I was on the ISOC Board for 7 years, stepping down in 2004.  I never saw any
> evidence of favoritism to commercial entities that were donors to ISOC.  I
> doubt that this has changed.

Thank you for this first hand account.

>
> I suggest that if you want an explanation of of what this membership
> applications means, you go directly to ISOC and ask them.

Better yet, join ISOC (globally or local chapter) and get involved in
the fight against "Agent FUD"

;-)
-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 02:26:41 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:26:41 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Ian
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).

>
> As I said in my quoted email
>
> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other than
> US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "

and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
agree on, no?

>
> 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

Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
of geolocation of ICANN Board members.

Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:

http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm

Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
compatriots.

If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?

, and submit to the outcomes of
> the same."
>
> 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.

We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.

>
> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
> independent ICANN'.

Is this the "royal we"? ;-)

(The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
> with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
> independent ICANN)

yes, they apparently do see it this way.

However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
organisations, what we call CS orgs.

In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".

If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
would be useful.

<snip>
really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jun  1 02:36:23 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:36:23 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Parminder,

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.
Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we all
accept, but we do not all accept externalising this.

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.

Ian






On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Ian
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> As I said in my quoted email
> 
> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other than US
> gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
> 
> 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."
> 
> 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.
> 
> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
> independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
> with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
> independent ICANN)
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: 
>>  JPA - final draft for comments 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.
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>> We have a few days for comments ­ mid week we will need to present the final
>> draft for a consensus call.
>>  
>> Ian Peter 
>>  
>>  
>> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non
>> governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>> 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 www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>  
>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according
>> to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred,
>> inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society².
>> We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all
>> stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.
>>  
>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and
>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>  
>>  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?) 
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>>  Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
>> coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
>> 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?)
>>  
>>  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.
>>  
>>  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?)
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>> 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 ICANN¹s operation ­ either as conditions for immediate cessation or
>> conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.
>>  
>>  
>>  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?
>>  
>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
>> 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.
>>  
>> 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:
>>  
>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>> interests and Internet users
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      transparency
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
>> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>  
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> We also believe that ICANN should
>>  
>>  
>> 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;
>>  
>> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current Independent
>> Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>>  
>> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of freedom of
>> expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a norm that its
>> policies for administration of  identifiers should not be used to violate
>> those  principles.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/4fd91637/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jun  1 04:21:42 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:51:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A238F96.7090304@itforchange.net>


Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> 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.
Ian

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.

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.

> Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we all 
> accept, but we do not all accept externalising this.
and others do not accept internalising it.

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.
>
> 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.
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.

parminder

>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>     Ian
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     As I said in my quoted email
>
>     "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism
>     other than US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
>
>     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."
>
>     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.
>
>     In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as
>      'an independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread
>     highlights issues with industry led governance systems which is
>     what US government sees as independent ICANN)
>
>     Parminder
>
>
>     Ian Peter wrote:
>
>         JPA - final draft for comments 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.
>          
>         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.
>          
>         We have a few days for comments -- mid week we will need to
>         present the final draft for a consensus call.
>          
>         Ian Peter
>          
>          
>         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 www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>          
>         In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the
>         WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance,
>         carried out according to the Geneva 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.
>          
>         We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with
>         ICANN , and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>          
>          *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?)*
>          
>         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.
>          
>          *Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to
>         transition the  coordination of DNS responsibilities,
>         previously performed by the U.S.  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?)
>          
>          *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.   
>          
>          *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?)
>          
>         *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.
>          
>         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.
>          
>         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.
>          
>          
>          *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?
>          
>         *Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
>         that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in
>         ICANN's operation.
>         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.
>          
>         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:
>          
>          ·      bottom up co-ordination
>          
>
>          ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including
>         civil society interests and Internet users
>          
>
>          ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>          
>
>          ·      transparency
>          
>
>          ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>          
>
>          ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate
>         governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder,
>         democratic, and transparent
>          
>
>          ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>          
>
>          
>          
>         We also believe that ICANN should
>          
>          
>         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;
>          
>         2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current
>         Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>          
>         3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle
>         of freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and
>         establish a norm that its policies for administration of
>          identifiers should not be used to violate those  principles.
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>          
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/d185d3f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Jun  1 05:18:40 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:18:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <F1D97420-2B42-43E3-B975-B1355F43AA91@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ian,

Returning to this thread after a holiday weekend, the text seems much  
improved and more reflective of the range of views that have been  
expressed, so kudos.  A couple comments:
>
> Your Question 1
>
> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see  
> them embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN.

Bylaws, not constitution

> We would propose to replace "private sector management" with the  
> multistakeholder principle

To be more precise, "with multistakeholder management, in keeping  
with..."

> which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information  
> Society.....
>
>
> Your question 6.
>
> 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.

This seems a rather broad and bold claim.  What cooperation exactly  
does the JPA preclude?  Does it prevent governments from working in  
GAC, posturing in ITU, fumbling about in the EU...?  If we're going to  
slap NTIA it might be helpful to explain or at least give one example,  
otherwise it might be read as a bit gratuitous.

> 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.

> 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.

Personally, I'd prefer a second sentence like, "Others of us believe  
that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced as soon  
feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for  
accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."

> We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in  
> future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.

I'd cut this sentence, the JPA of course would be reviewed, per  
current practice.

[BTW, re: Parminder's message this morning----"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"---I at least would not  
say "oversight," which inevitably will be viewed as an authority/ 
command relationship that privileges governments, since that's how the  
term has been used in WSIS and ITU.  I don't suspect that the others  
mentioned favor that either.]
>
>
> 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.

I think it would be more reflective of the diverse views expressed on  
the list to delete "short term."  We cannot know whether a functional  
accountability framework could actually be concluded by Sept. 2010.
>
>
> Your question  7.
>
> 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:

ICANN can claim, not without justification, that it embodies the  
listed principles now and has made progress in this regard since WSIS  
(see e.g. the materials at www.icann.org/en/transparency/, www.icann.org/en/psc/ 
, www.icann.org/en/reviews/, www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/....The issue is  
that it is not implementing them and related principles one could  
imagine with sufficient consistency and depth.  Presumably we are  
looking for some sort of mechanism for ongoing monitoring and  
evaluation and airing of grievances beyond what is already possible  
within ICANN's structures.  The JPA provides possibilities in this  
regard, even if they've not been used much to date by CS collectively  
(although IGP and a few other individual orgs have worked to fill the  
gaps), and that's what we'd be losing.  Is there something we could at  
least allude to by way of replacement?
>
>
> We also believe that ICANN should
>
>
> 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;
>
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current  
> Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of  
> freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a  
> norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not  
> be used to violate those  principles.
>

Quite helpful additions.

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/9ea39266/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Jun  1 05:25:01 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:25:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] COE on IG
Message-ID: <44A73229-C3BC-4D5C-BF67-0A533DA0393A@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

The Council of Europe just held a ministerial conference in Iceland at  
which inter alia a secretariat paper was presented on IG.  Inter alia,  
it concludes

"In order to fulfil their responsibility to ensure the public service  
value of the Internet, and to protect the right to freedom of  
expression and information on the Internet, states may need to enter  
into interstate arrangements comparable to those that apply to certain  
natural resources or risks."

So some sort of intergovernmentalism, with the emphasis on some sort--- 
they're as unclear on the options as anyone else.

http://www.ministerialconference.is/media/images/igen.pdf

Bill


***********************************************************
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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Jun  1 06:00:00 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:00:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <F1D97420-2B42-43E3-B975-B1355F43AA91@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <F1D97420-2B42-43E3-B975-B1355F43AA91@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A23A6A0.2060902@wzb.eu>




Hi Ian,

from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to 
effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think 
it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is 
widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I 
would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.

>> *Your question 6. *
>>
>> 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. 
> 
> This seems a rather broad and bold claim.  What cooperation exactly does 
> the JPA preclude?  Does it prevent governments from working in GAC, 
> posturing in ITU, fumbling about in the EU...?  If we're going to slap 
> NTIA it might be helpful to explain or at least give one example, 
> otherwise it might be read as a bit gratuitous.
> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer a second sentence like, "Others of us believe 
> that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced as soon feasible 
> by a new global, multistakeholder framework for accountability, the 
> development of which should commence in early 2010."

I support Bill's suggestion for the second sentence.
> 
>> We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA should in 
>> future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.
> 
> I'd cut this sentence, the JPA of course would be reviewed, per current 
> practice.  
> 
> [BTW, re: Parminder's message this morning----"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"---I at least would not say 
> "oversight," which inevitably will be viewed as an authority/command 
> relationship that privileges governments, since that's how the term has 
> been used in WSIS and ITU.  I don't suspect that the others mentioned 
> favor that either.]

I understand your concern but is there any better wording you can think 
of that would reflect some form of authority in the accountability 
relationship between ICANN and an independent agency?
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I think it would be more reflective of the diverse views expressed on 
> the list to delete "short term."  We cannot know whether a functional 
> accountability framework could actually be concluded by Sept. 2010.

I agree with the deleting of "short term" as well.

jeanette

>> 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:
> 
> ICANN can claim, not without justification, that it embodies the listed 
> principles now and has made progress in this regard since WSIS (see e.g. 
> the materials at www.icann.org/en/transparency/ 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/transparency/>, www.icann.org/en/psc/ 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/psc/>, www.icann.org/en/reviews/ 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/>, www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/ 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/>....The issue is that it is not 
> implementing them and related principles one could imagine with 
> sufficient consistency and depth.  Presumably we are looking for some 
> sort of mechanism for ongoing monitoring and evaluation and airing of 
> grievances beyond what is already possible within ICANN's structures. 
>  The JPA provides possibilities in this regard, even if they've not been 
> used much to date by CS collectively (although IGP and a few other 
> individual orgs have worked to fill the gaps), and that's what we'd be 
> losing.  Is there something we could at least allude to by way of 
> replacement?
>>  
>>  
>> We also believe that ICANN should
>>  
>>  
>> 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;
>>
>> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current 
>> Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>>
>> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of 
>> freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a 
>> norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not 
>> be used to violate those  principles.
>>  
> 
> Quite helpful additions.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
____________________________________________________________
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


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun  1 07:19:05 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:19:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net>
 <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that, GAC-like, sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it. 

By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for harmed parties. 

Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but lawful constraint.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> 
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> > Ian
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).
> 
> >
> > As I said in my quoted email
> >
> > "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
> than
> > US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
> 
> and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
> is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
> agree on, no?
> 
> >
> > 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
> 
> Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
> but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
> of geolocation of ICANN Board members.
> 
> Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm
> 
> Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
> EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
> compatriots.
> 
> If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?
> 
> , and submit to the outcomes of
> > the same."
> >
> > 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.
> 
> We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.
> 
> >
> > In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
> > independent ICANN'.
> 
> Is this the "royal we"? ;-)
> 
> (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
> > with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
> > independent ICANN)
> 
> yes, they apparently do see it this way.
> 
> However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
> sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
> organisations, what we call CS orgs.
> 
> In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
> terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".
> 
> If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
> would be useful.
> 
> <snip>
> really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun  1 07:21:30 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:21:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A238F96.7090304@itforchange.net>
References: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A238F96.7090304@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

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.

________________________________
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:22 AM
To: Ian Peter
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments


Ian Peter wrote:
Hi Parminder,

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.
Ian

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.

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.


Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we all accept, but we do not all accept externalising this.
and others do not accept internalising it.

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.


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.
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.

parminder



Ian






On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
Ian

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.

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.

As I said in my quoted email

"For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other than US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "

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."

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.

In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as independent ICANN)

Parminder


Ian Peter wrote:
JPA - final draft for comments 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.

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.

We have a few days for comments - mid week we will need to present the final draft for a consensus call.

Ian Peter


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 www.igcaucus.org<http://www.igcaucus.org> <http://www.igcaucus.org><http://www.igcaucus.org> .

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva 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.

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and  respectfully submit as  follows.

 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?)

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.

 Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.  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?)

 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.

 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?)

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.

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.

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.


 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?

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's operation.
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.

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:

 *      bottom up co-ordination


 *      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users


 *      ensuring the stability of the Internet


 *      transparency


 *      appropriate accountability mechanisms


 *      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent


 *      decision making driven by the public interest




We also believe that ICANN should


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;

2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board

3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not be used to violate those  principles.









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/f143f133/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jun  1 07:27:12 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:27:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>
	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
 <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> Well, it's not just him, there are a number of ppl on this list that
> labor under misunderstandings/misapprehensions regarding the 3 Cs
> model of Communication, Collaboration and Cooperation as practiced by
> ISOC/IETF/ICANN/RIRs, etc.

The misunderstandings work both ways. RIRs have paying members who elect their Board. Clear lines of accountability to clearly defined stakeholders (address block holders). IETF has no members but no binding power, it is a coordination via consensus body, no one has to use or adopt its standards. Those models evolved organically out of a fairly cohesive community. ICANN is totally different. It has binding regulatory authority over the dns industry and over the top level address space but no membership and no clear lines of accountability to its "stakeholders." It was created by fiat of the USG (it was NOT a simple evolution of IANA) 

The other models may indeed work well, but ICANN needs to be fixed. You know this. 

____________________________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jun  1 07:42:56 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:12:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A23BEC0.8080502@itforchange.net>



Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that, GAC-like, sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it. 
>
> By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for harmed parties. 
>
> Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but lawful constraint.
>   
Milton

Any legal framework requires an institutional anchor/ system, that is 
all what is meant by accountability/ oversight mechanism. Should for 
instance Californian courts continue to adjudicate ICANN matters? Who 
makes and amends the rules/ legal framework you speak about? If we agree 
that some new mechanisms are needed here, we are agreeing enough for the 
present purpose.

parminder

>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:27 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>>     
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).
>>
>>     
>>> As I said in my quoted email
>>>
>>> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
>>>       
>> than
>>     
>>> US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
>>>       
>> and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
>> is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
>> agree on, no?
>>
>>     
>>> 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
>>>       
>> Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
>> but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
>> of geolocation of ICANN Board members.
>>
>> Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm
>>
>> Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
>> EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
>> compatriots.
>>
>> If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?
>>
>> , and submit to the outcomes of
>>     
>>> the same."
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.
>>
>>     
>>> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
>>> independent ICANN'.
>>>       
>> Is this the "royal we"? ;-)
>>
>> (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
>>     
>>> with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
>>> independent ICANN)
>>>       
>> yes, they apparently do see it this way.
>>
>> However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
>> sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
>> organisations, what we call CS orgs.
>>
>> In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
>> terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".
>>
>> If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
>> would be useful.
>>
>> <snip>
>> really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>     
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/f53ddf50/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:30:45 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:30:45 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A23E615.5050504@rits.org.br>

McT, I could not grasp one of your suggestions:

McTim wrote:
> nice one Ian,
> My suggested changes below:
> [...]
> 
> multistakeholder principle
>> which has evolved from
> 
> <insert>
> the narrow Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the
> 
> 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.

I do not understand what is to be inserted where. As I read it, the
phrase to be inserted would be "the narrow Internet Governance model to
its [not it's] meaning derived from the..."

Please clarify.

--c.a.


____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:38:12 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:38:12 -0300
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3> <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A23E7D4.6000400@rits.org.br>

And so goes the McTim conspiration theory within the IGC... ;) The
rightful ones are the ones who believe the organizations quoted furnish
the perfect 3Cs world and the stupid radicals "who have problems" should
either follow them or stop trying to take the sweet from their divine
mouths.

The theory has followers...

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:26 PM, George Sadowsky
> <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
>> This is getting to be a silly argument.
> 
> twas always such
> 
>> Norbert: you know full well that ISOC is not governed the way Cambodia is.
>>  Why make the post?
>>
>> Parminder:  You seem to have a lot of problems.
> 
> Well, it's not just him, there are a number of ppl on this list that
> labor under misunderstandings/misapprehensions regarding the 3 Cs
> model of Communication, Collaboration and Cooperation as practiced by
> ISOC/IETF/ICANN/RIRs, etc.
> 
> They don't grok the notion that these groups already represent a
> multistakeholder model that has worked very well for a very long time.
> 
> Couple that with a penchant for seeing ICANN as the new North Korea,
> and ISOC as a shill for corporate America, and you have a recipe for
> the creation of a "Bad Idea Force" as seen in Issue 2 of this
> hilarious and quite educational comic series:
> 
> https://www.arin.net/knowledge/comic.html
> 
> This is like the old "Peter Packet" cartoon from Cisco, but for the IG arena.
> 
>> I was on the ISOC Board for 7 years, stepping down in 2004.  I never saw any
>> evidence of favoritism to commercial entities that were donors to ISOC.  I
>> doubt that this has changed.
> 
> Thank you for this first hand account.
> 
>> I suggest that if you want an explanation of of what this membership
>> applications means, you go directly to ISOC and ask them.
> 
> Better yet, join ISOC (globally or local chapter) and get involved in
> the fight against "Agent FUD"
> 
> ;-)

____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 10:45:28 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:45:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A23E615.5050504@rits.org.br>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A23E615.5050504@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906010745p4c478ff0u1e0bf3dc13322ca7@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> McT, I could not grasp one of your suggestions:


>
> McTim wrote:
>> nice one Ian,
>> My suggested changes below:
>> [...]
>>
>> multistakeholder principle
>>> which has evolved from
>>
>> <insert>
>> the narrow Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the
>>
>> 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.
>
> I do not understand what is to be inserted where. As I read it, the
> phrase to be inserted would be "the narrow Internet Governance model to
> its [not it's] meaning derived from the..."
>
> Please clarify.

it would read thusly:


IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see
them embedded in the bylaws of an independent ICANN. We would propose
to
replace "private sector management" with the
words "multistakeholder management" which has evolved from the narrow
Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the 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.

The above acknowledges that there was multistakeholderism b4 WSIS, that's all.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:46:59 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:46:59 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C649B407.28B0%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A238F96.7090304@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A23E9E3.1090502@rits.org.br>

Ditto.

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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.
> 
> ________________________________ From: Parminder
> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:22
> AM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re:
> [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> 
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder,
> 
> 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. Ian
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we
> all accept, but we do not all accept externalising this. and others
> do not accept internalising it.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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. 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.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder"
> <parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: 
> Ian
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> As I said in my quoted email
> 
> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
> than US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
> 
> 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."
> 
> 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.
> 
> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as
> 'an independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread
> highlights issues with industry led governance systems which is what
> US government sees as independent ICANN)
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: JPA - final draft for comments 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> We have a few days for comments - mid week we will need to present
> the final draft for a consensus call.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> 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 www.igcaucus.org<http://www.igcaucus.org>
> <http://www.igcaucus.org><http://www.igcaucus.org> .
> 
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva 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.
> 
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN
> , and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> 
> 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?)
> 
> 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.
> 
> Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to
> transition the  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously
> performed by the U.S.  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?)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's
> operation. 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.
> 
> 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:
> 
> *      bottom up co-ordination
> 
> 
> *      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil
> society interests and Internet users
> 
> 
> *      ensuring the stability of the Internet
> 
> 
> *      transparency
> 
> 
> *      appropriate accountability mechanisms
> 
> 
> *      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate
> governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic,
> and transparent
> 
> 
> *      decision making driven by the public interest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also believe that ICANN should
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current
> Independent Review Process, is binding on its  Board
> 
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of
> freedom of expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a
> norm that its policies for administration of  identifiers should not
> be used to violate those  principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:45:52 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:45:52 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A23E9A0.7020901@rits.org.br>

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external
> "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of
> discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that,
> GAC-like, sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it.

I agree this oversight idea is too generic and might lead to any sort of
relationship. I think the idea is not to propose a GAC-like oversight,
since the GAC does anything but oversight, since Icann is currently
shielded against it.

> 
> By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are
> interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that
> constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for
> harmed parties.

The challenge here is that "legal rules", unlike the Internet, are bound
to a State or a [multilateral] treaty. Beyond this there are only
recommendations. How to bind an internationalized Icann to "legal
rules"? Via a treaty? Unless the hypothesis is that, whatever happens,
Icann will remain a legally California+USA-bound entity.


frt rgds

--c.a.

____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:50:54 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:50:54 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906010745p4c478ff0u1e0bf3dc13322ca7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <f65fb55e0905312141m2a72b94el9ec4094197146ead@mail.gmail.com>	 <4A23E615.5050504@rits.org.br> <f65fb55e0906010745p4c478ff0u1e0bf3dc13322ca7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A23EACE.50906@rits.org.br>

OK. It is "it's" or "its"?? If the first, something is missing to give
meaning to the phrase.

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
>> McT, I could not grasp one of your suggestions:
> 
> 
>> McTim wrote:
>>> nice one Ian,
>>> My suggested changes below:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> multistakeholder principle
>>>> which has evolved from
>>> <insert>
>>> the narrow Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the
>>>
>>> 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.
>> I do not understand what is to be inserted where. As I read it, the
>> phrase to be inserted would be "the narrow Internet Governance model to
>> its [not it's] meaning derived from the..."
>>
>> Please clarify.
> 
> it would read thusly:
> 
> 
> IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see
> them embedded in the bylaws of an independent ICANN. We would propose
> to
> replace "private sector management" with the
> words "multistakeholder management" which has evolved from the narrow
> Internet Governance model to it's meaning derived from the 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.
> 
> The above acknowledges that there was multistakeholderism b4 WSIS, that's all.
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Jun  1 10:48:33 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:48:33 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A23BEC0.8080502@itforchange.net>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A23BEC0.8080502@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A23EA41.3080104@rits.org.br>

Parm, good. I just sent a note with similar concerns.

--c.a.

Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external
>> "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of
>> discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that, GAC-like,
>> sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it.
>> By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are
>> interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that
>> constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for
>> harmed parties.
>> Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can whimsically
>> overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would just serve as
>> a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already converge on
>> ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the missing link. It
>> is not policy direction that is missing, but lawful constraint.
>>   
> Milton
> 
> Any legal framework requires an institutional anchor/ system, that is
> all what is meant by accountability/ oversight mechanism. Should for
> instance Californian courts continue to adjudicate ICANN matters? Who
> makes and amends the rules/ legal framework you speak about? If we agree
> that some new mechanisms are needed here, we are agreeing enough for the
> present purpose.
> 
> parminder
> 
>>  
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:27 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>       
>>> and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).
>>>
>>>    
>>>> As I said in my quoted email
>>>>
>>>> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
>>>>       
>>> than
>>>    
>>>> US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
>>>>       
>>> and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
>>> is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
>>> agree on, no?
>>>
>>>    
>>>> 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
>>>>       
>>> Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
>>> but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
>>> of geolocation of ICANN Board members.
>>>
>>> Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:
>>>
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm
>>>
>>> Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
>>> EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
>>> compatriots.
>>>
>>> If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?
>>>
>>> , and submit to the outcomes of
>>>    
>>>> the same."
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>       
>>> We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
>>>> independent ICANN'.
>>>>       
>>> Is this the "royal we"? ;-)
>>>
>>> (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
>>>    
>>>> with industry led governance systems which is what US government
>>>> sees as
>>>> independent ICANN)
>>>>       
>>> yes, they apparently do see it this way.
>>>
>>> However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
>>> sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
>>> organisations, what we call CS orgs.
>>>
>>> In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
>>> terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".
>>>
>>> If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
>>> would be useful.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 10:57:08 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:57:08 +0300
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>
	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
	 <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906010757x2bd520f2k10f9e729e9dbe9c7@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Well, it's not just him, there are a number of ppl on this list that
>> labor under misunderstandings/misapprehensions regarding the 3 Cs
>> model of Communication, Collaboration and Cooperation as practiced by
>> ISOC/IETF/ICANN/RIRs, etc.
>
> The misunderstandings work both ways. RIRs have paying members who elect their Board.

yes, they are all Associations AFAIK, members of which elect their
governing body.

> Clear lines of accountability to clearly defined stakeholders (address block holders).

Address block holders are not necessarily members of an RIR
association (but most are).  Members of an RIR community are not
necessarily members of an RIR association (but most are).  There are
stakeholders who are neither Members of an association nor are they
address space holders.

> IETF has no members but no binding power, it is a coordination via consensus body, no one has to use or adopt its standards. Those models evolved organically out of a fairly cohesive community. ICANN is totally different. It has binding regulatory authority over the dns industry

We have heard from Karl and others that this is not necessarily the case.

 and over the top level address space but no membership and no clear
lines of accountability to its "stakeholders." It was created by fiat
of the USG (it was NOT a simple evolution of IANA)
>
> The other models may indeed work well, but ICANN needs to be fixed. You know this.

The "other models" are part and parcel of the ICANN model.  If it
ain't broken.... ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Mon Jun  1 11:37:19 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:37:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] Obama on security, net neutrality, civil liberties
In-Reply-To: <p06240809c64683ffc9bd@221.115.9.43>
References: <p06240809c64683ffc9bd@221.115.9.43>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906010837x5f6fc51cp3ff45a448461f5cf@mail.gmail.com>

 It depends on where you stand vis-a-vis the post-JPA future for
ICANN, isn't it?

Truth be told, I have always been skeptical of an ICANN future without
JPA or some successor different only in name.  I figured the route
would have been paved by invoking the broad security interests of the
US cohabited in a JPA or some such formulation.

The mutterings you hear from Brussels is a preemptive strike against
and is reflection of the European discomfort on subject.

The week that was confirmed my own thinking; the plan is in play.

Carlton

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> Interesting things happening in the US:
>
> President Obama's speech "Securing Our Nation's Cyber Infrastructure", <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Securing-Our-Nations-Cyber-Infrastructure/> includes the paragraph:
>
> "Let me also be clear about what we will not do.  Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not -- I repeat, will not include -- monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic.  We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans.  Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be -- open and free."
>
> Administration supporting network neutrality, security *and* civil liberty and privacy.
>
> Next:
>
> ICANN oversight hearing in the Congress, Thursday June 4. "Event: 'Oversight Of The Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers (ICANN)' "
> <http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extmode=view&extid=47>
>
> Anyone know the speakers etc?
>
> And interesting, seems Andrew McLaughlin will join the Obama administration as Deputy Chief Technology Officer, reporting to Aneesh Chopra <http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/googles-top-policy-exec-to-join-obama-administration/>. You can see Andrew talking about technology and government in this video from the Obama transition <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InI5n3NTvR4>.
>
> Think Friday was a good day.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From garth.graham at telus.net  Mon Jun  1 11:45:56 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:45:56 -0700
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A236677.1020902@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0905312326p645220blcee81768a2487ed8@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C78E9BA4-8606-4EAB-B76C-E6AF31B81E45@telus.net>

On 1-Jun-09, at 4:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can  
> whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would  
> just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already  
> converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the  
> missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but  
> lawful constraint.

Because of the time constraints, this is a comment for the future,  
and not specifically for the draft.

In the event that the legal framework remains illusive, there is  
another route to advance the cause of an appropriate "accountability  
mechanism."  In the absence of "lawful constraint," and even of an  
effective "global" peg to hang that hat on, there is nothing to stop  
a consortium of citizen-based organizations concerned about Internet  
Governance from developing an "Equity Statement" to use in  
challenging  ICANN"s and the US Government's future intentions.   The  
purpose of such an equity statement would be to propose what, in our  
view, would be the substance of any missing answering standards.  It  
could and should state:
   - who would benefit, and why
   - how they would benefit, immediately and in the future
   - who would bear the costs and risks, and why
   - what the costs and risks would be, immediately and in the future
   - who would answer publicly, for what, and when

  For a fuller explanation of what an Equity Statement entails see:  
http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/equitystatement.html

GG


> On 27-May-09, at 8:48 AM, Garth Graham wrote:
>>
>> On 27-May-09, at 7:08 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> Jeanette, it may just be your phrasing, but I fear that you make  
>>> the same mistake that WSIS and so many others dealing with the  
>>> accountability problem have made. You think of accountability as  
>>> residing in an external "body" i.e. an organization, rather than  
>>> in rules or laws. This approach has two inherent problems:
>>>   1) once it is put in place, everyone ignores ICANN and reaches  
>>> directly for influence within that "body" (further undermining  
>>> ICANN's already tenuous bottom up)
>>>   2) the creation of the body just reproduces all the existing  
>>> politics within ICANN, with no guarantees that the result will be  
>>> any better. (infinite recursion).
>>
>>
>> True, accountability is a function of the organization that acts -  
>> not some oversight body.  But it also begins before the fact of  
>> acting - with clear statements of intentions.  Thus the standard  
>> of evaluation can and should evolve dynamically from its operating  
>> environment and not just statically as in "rules or laws."
>>
>> "For every important responsibility there is accountability.  
>> Public accountability is the obligation to answer publicly, fully  
>> and fairly, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the  
>> public in important ways. Responsibility is the obligation to act,  
>> which is obviously related to accountability, but it is  
>> conceptually different from accountability, the obligation to  
>> answer. While the answering obligation attaches to all significant  
>> responsibilities, the key is getting the answering. The answering  
>> is for intentions as well as results. When responsibilities affect  
>> the public in important ways, the decision-makers' answering must  
>> be public. And it is the governing bodies of organizations, not  
>> employee CEOs and managers, who have the obligation to account to  
>> the public. ...  Holding to account also includes validating the  
>> answering whenever this is prudent under the precautionary  
>> principle. Validation of the answering means independent  
>> assessment (audit) of its fairness and completeness by people who  
>> can competently assess it."  Henry McCandless. A Citizen's Guide  
>> to Public Accountability. http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/ 
>> index.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


From kpeters at tldainc.org  Mon Jun  1 12:09:08 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:09:08 -0700
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
Message-ID: <20090601090908.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.f76da24be6.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/9f5e5878/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From garth.graham at telus.net  Mon Jun  1 12:56:55 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:56:55 -0700
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <20090601090704.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.91fb596297.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090601090704.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.91fb596297.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <2A225D75-3143-4ADF-93A6-758FDE899C89@telus.net>

Perhaps to clarify?  I believe Milton Mueller is right to note the  
absence of external oversight, but not necessarily right in seeking  
some other external means to put a different leash on ICANN.  We are,  
after all, talking about governance of self-organizing systems, where  
the rules about changing the rules are internal to each of the  
members of the system.  In what I believe will be continuing absence  
of an agreement on a means of external constrain, legal or otherwise,  
I was pointing to a mechanism whereby members of the "system" could  
remind ICANN effectively of its responsibility to account.  The means  
to "challenge" internally exists and provides a basis for dialogue on  
future intentions.  And it is always a citizen's responsibility to  
remind a governing agency that it is failing to meet its  
responsibility, including its responsibility to account.

GG

On 1-Jun-09, at 9:07 AM, Karl E. Peters wrote:

> Perhaps another question to add to the below list is who and how  
> would make a challenge that a policy failed in its directive or  
> hurt more than it helped so as to bring about the use of the last  
> question, being who would be responsible and how...  Without a  
> means to challenge and overturn, "responsibility" will have no  
> teeth and the user no mechanism to protest effectively.
>
> -Karl E. Peters
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> From: Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net>
> Date: Mon, June 01, 2009 11:45 am
> To: governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> On 1-Jun-09, at 4:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> > Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can
> > whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would
> > just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already
> > converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the
> > missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but
> > lawful constraint.
>
> Because of the time constraints, this is a comment for the future,
> and not specifically for the draft.
>
> In the event that the legal framework remains illusive, there is
> another route to advance the cause of an appropriate "accountability
> mechanism." In the absence of "lawful constraint," and even of an
> effective "global" peg to hang that hat on, there is nothing to stop
> a consortium of citizen-based organizations concerned about Internet
> Governance from developing an "Equity Statement" to use in
> challenging ICANN"s and the US Government's future intentions. The
> purpose of such an equity statement would be to propose what, in our
> view, would be the substance of any missing answering standards. It
> could and should state:
> - who would benefit, and why
> - how they would benefit, immediately and in the future
> - who would bear the costs and risks, and why
> - what the costs and risks would be, immediately and in the future
> - who would answer publicly, for what, and when
>
> For a fuller explanation of what an Equity Statement entails see:
> http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/equitystatement.html
>
> GG
>
>
> > On 27-May-09, at 8:48 AM, Garth Graham wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27-May-09, at 7:08 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>> Jeanette, it may just be your phrasing, but I fear that you make
> >>> the same mistake that WSIS and so many others dealing with the
> >>> accountability problem have made. You think of accountability as
> >>> residing in an external "body" i.e. an organization, rather than
> >>> in rules or laws. This approach has two inherent problems:
> >>> 1) once it is put in place, everyone ignores ICANN and reaches
> >>> directly for influence within that "body" (further undermining
> >>> ICANN's already tenuous bottom up)
> >>> 2) the creation of the body just reproduces all the existing
> >>> politics within ICANN, with no guarantees that the result will be
> >>> any better. (infinite recursion).
> >>
> >>
> >> True, accountability is a function of the organization that acts -
> >> not some oversight body. But it also begins before the fact of
> >> acting - with clear statements of intentions. Thus the standard
> >> of evaluation can and should evolve dynamically from its operating
> >> environment and not just statically as in "rules or laws."
> >>
> >> "For every important responsibility there is accountability.
> >> Public accountability is the obligation to answer publicly, fully
> >> and fairly, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the
> >> public in important ways. Responsibility is the obligation to act,
> >> which is obviously related to accountability, but it is
> >> conceptually different from accountability, the obligation to
> >> answer. While the answering obligation attaches to all significant
> >> responsibilities, the key is getting the answering. The answering
> >> is for intentions as well as results. When responsibilities affect
> >> the public in important ways, the decision-makers' answering must
> >> be public. And it is the governing bodies of organizations, not
> >> employee CEOs and managers, who have the obligation to account to
> >> the public. ... Holding to account also includes validating the
> >> answering whenever this is prudent under the precautionary
> >> principle. Validation of the answering means independent
> >> assessment (audit) of its fairness and completeness by people who
> >> can competently assess it." Henry McCandless. A Citizen's Guide
> >> to Public Accountability. http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/
> >> index.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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jun  1 16:08:29 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:08:29 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C64A725D.2921%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Sorry Milton, I don¹t quite understand ­ can you point out which sentence in
the draft (or sentences) you believe we should remove? The draft is at the
bottom of this message

If it¹s the section


On 1/06/09 9:21 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Agree with Parminder here about JPA extension. Don¹t say that. I¹m in DC right
> now, and you couldn¹t 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.
>  
> 
> 
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:22 AM
> To: Ian Peter
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>  
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: 
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> 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.
> Ian
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Multistakeholder governance we all accept, not  US Govt centred we all accept,
> but we do not all accept externalising this.
> and others do not accept internalising it.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 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.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/06/09 3:26 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Ian
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> As I said in my quoted email
> 
> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other than US
> gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
> 
> 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."
> 
> 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.
> 
> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
> independent ICANN'. (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
> with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
> independent ICANN)
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> Ian Peter wrote: 
> JPA - final draft for comments 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> We have a few days for comments ­ mid week we will need to present the final
> draft for a consensus call.
>  
> Ian Peter 
>  
>  
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and non
> governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s 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 www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org>
> <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>  
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according
> to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred,
> inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society².
> We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all
> stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.
>  
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and
> respectfully submit as  follows.
>  
>  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?)
>  
> 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.
>  
>  Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
> coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
> 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?)
>  
>  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.
>  
>  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?)
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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
> ICANN¹s operation ­ either as conditions for immediate cessation or conditions
> to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.
>  
>  
>  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?
>  
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
> 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.
>  
> 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:
>  
>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>  
> 
>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>  
> 
>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>  
> 
>  ·      transparency
>  
> 
>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>  
> 
>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>  
> 
>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>  
> 
>  
>  
> We also believe that ICANN should
>  
>  
> 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;
>  
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current Independent Review
> Process, is binding on its  Board
>  
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of freedom of
> expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a norm that its
> policies for administration of  identifiers should not be used to violate
> those  principles.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090602/44993a91/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Mon Jun  1 16:12:36 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:12:36 -0500
Subject: [governance] JPA response - second draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A1FDE86.90604@itforchange.net>
References: <C645DB85.2748%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A1FDE86.90604@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906011312y462dd932mcbdb5f4e942119ed@mail.gmail.com>

I support Parminder's views.

Carlton

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Ian
>
> I thought that we would go for a compromise of the kind that will call for
> end of JPA but mention that 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.
>
> While it may be a difficult be clear about how the above is possible, we
> can leave that vague in the statement. However the above formulation should
> partly satisfy both sides - those who want JPA to end and those who want it
> to be extended temporarily till alternative internationalised arrangements
> are worked out ( with due multistakeholder elements etc). I thought these
> were the two principal sides of the discussion which took place on this list
> a few days ago. The present formulation is too much on the side of those who
> just want JPA to end. Vague mentions of some binding principles means
> little; of course everyone is ready to adopt some binding principles when
> one is not clear what they are. For many of us an external accountability/
> oversight mechanism other than US gov-centred one is an absolute
> non-negotiable.
>
> Two more things;
>
> We should *not add* multistakeholder principle to private sector leadership
> but ask for the term 'private sector' to be *replaced* by 'multi-stakeholder
> system'. Also we need to clearly mention that we are not for an industry-led
> ICANN but for  a multi-stakeholder system. To mention this is absolutely
> necessary because one of the questions clearly mentions the term 'industry
> led'.
>
> Second thing: we should mention explicitly that WSIS principles should be
> explicitly included in the principles agreed to for ICANN constitution.
> These principles are agreed to by the whole world community. And as was
> discussed in open consultations and MAG meeting WSIS principles are not just
> about democratic, multilateral, transparent, multistakeholder IG  etc (para
> 29 of Tunis agenda)  also the people-centric, development-oriented and
> inclusive aspects of IG (para 31).
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
> Parminder
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Hi Anriette,
>
> I still believe that the JPA can be ended, subject to ICANN agreeing to
> certain binding conditions. That I think is a far preferable arrangement if
> it can happen.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> On 29/05/09 5:36 PM, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org> <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>  McTim.. that is exactly the question:
>
>
>  between ICANN and ????
>
>
>
>  It is because of those ???? that some of us believe that a temporary
> extension of the JPA is needed - merely until the ???? can be replaced
> with something relatively tangible and accessible.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/8c4864a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 16:44:33 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:14:33 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
Message-ID: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>

Having read the discussion on the list, and trying to reconcile the various viewpoints, YJ and I have come up with the following first draft proposal for a statement to the IGF Secretariat regarding the IGF Review process. Please add your comments. Thanks! Ginger

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by governments and the developing world in the IGF and
the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. To do so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF process. We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.

More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation.




____________________________________________________________
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


From Dvorshak at ISOC.org  Mon Jun  1 16:56:25 2009
From: Dvorshak at ISOC.org (Drew Dvorshak)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:56:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clarifications on ISOC's Platinum Sponsorship Program
Message-ID: <FA03C407263F425A88CA9EB43E902538@ISOC.local>

Dear colleagues,
As ISOC’s organization membership program lead, I would like to briefly
address recent points of discussion on this list regarding ISOC’s Platinum
Membership program.  First, we are taking this opportunity to review all the
language on the Platinum level and the organization membership program in
general to ensure accuracy and clarity in descriptions of its value
proposition and benefits at all levels. Additionally I wanted to reinforce a
few of the points already made in the thread in question and also make a few
clarifications.

1. ISOC is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization and its mission is to promote
the open development, evolution, and use of the Internet for the benefit of
all people throughout the world.  It does so through support of the open
standards process; global education, training and capacity building and
principled participation in public policy and economic fora.  It does not
engage in “lobbying” activities on its own behalf or that of members,
sponsors or any other parties. 

2. Platinum members indeed have the option to designate program areas and or
activities to which they would like their contribution to be applied.  The
same document referenced in the thread contains several good possible
examples.  However, in no way does “sponsorship” or “membership” constitute
the purchase of any role or influence in the management or decision-making
processes associated with that or *any* activity, ISOC itself or the IETF.
Under absolutely no circumstances does any sponsor or member dictate ISOC
policy or gain any favor, advantage or status in the standards process as a
result of a funding relationship.

3. At any given time, 2 of the organizations recognized as Platinum members
are so because they hosted an IETF meeting within the last year which means
that they paid for costs of networking requirements and meeting space
(latter applies only to meetings outside the U.S.).  At least twice in the
past three years, organizations recognized for IETF meeting support were
actually not even financial contributors to ISOC.

4. As regards “enhanced access” and “your voice being heard” this is an
example of where our program language could indeed use a fresh look and I
appreciate the notice.  After reviewing those sentences I do see how,
without proper context, one might interpret them to mean “enhanced access”
to and having “your voice is heard” in a policy forum, etc. However, that is
not what is meant at all.  It is the opportunity for access to and an
open/objective ear from ISOC staff and management that is at the core of our
stakeholder engagement model. Most importantly, this applies *equally* to
*all* organization and chapter members as well as other stakeholder groups,
not just Platinum contributors.

As you all know, ISOC is, by nature, a consultative organization which
values the intellectual capital present in the vast array of stakeholder
groups with whom it has relationships.  Organization members and Chapters
are certainly among them.  

ISOC staff have numerous in-person and web/telephone conference meetings
with representatives from chapters and organization members to discuss and
solicit input on their work and important developments in various fora in
which ISOC participates.  They also pose questions for discussion, and
solicit nominations of individuals with specific expertise for participation
in various activities, etc.  

Again, level of membership has absolutely no bearing on access to these
dialogues, weighting of ideas, consideration for participation in any
activity, etc.  In fact, I frequently invite representatives to participate
from organizations that are not even members or contributors to give them a
practical example of how we engage members and other stakeholders.  Also
very important is that it is frequently communicated to and well understood
by participants that such consultations are open and voluntary and
specifically not “instruction” or “dictation” to ISOC staff/management.

Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the dialogue. I welcome any
questions or additional comments.  I am not a subscriber to the list so my
coordinates follow. 
 
Andrew Dvorshak
Sr. Mgr., Organizational Membership
Internet Society (ISOC)
1775 Wiehle Ave., Ste. 201
Reston, VA 20910-5108
USA
 
dvorshak at isoc.org
Office: +1 703 439 2129
Fax: +1 703 326 9881



____________________________________________________________
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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Mon Jun  1 22:39:52 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Mon,  1 Jun 2009 19:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: C64A725D.2921%ian.peter@ianpeter.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1243910097.34613.4@lists.cpsr.org>

Dear Ian,

I see that I am somewhat in the Minority in regards to extending the JPA.

Among the posting I have read through, not one has offered any evidence or
proof of assurances that ICANN will follow any practice or suggestion once it
has freed itself from the Department of Commerce's Internet Oversight Committee
(JPA & MoU). Nor has anyone offered any 'Mechanism-of-Assurance(s)' that ICANN
will proportidly follow. 

A review of past call(s) for "Structural Reform" has shown that, not only had
the proposals fallen on deaf-ears but have also been abandoned or reformulated
so much that they no longer resemble their original intent.

For example, in regards to an attempt of "Oversite", the 'Generic Top Level
Domain Memorandum of Understanding | http://www.gtld-mou.org/  
and it's Policy Oversight Committee | http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/faq.html#1.4

The gTLD-MoU now provides that the POC consists of  twelve members appointed as
follows:
 
IANA
ISOC
Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”)
Council of Registrars (“CORE”)
International Trademark Association (“INTA”)
World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”)
International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”)
Representative of the Depository of the Memorandum of Understanding on the
Generic Top Level Domain Name 
Space of the Internet Domain Name System (“gTLD-MoU”) (the ITU)

Now-these! were Heavyweight Contenders - R.I.P AUG 12, 1999. 

ICANN has no MoU with these Contenders that incorporates the desires expressed
in your current daft letter.

Reforms, how many reform attempts have we seen? 

Icann-at-Large, Icann-atLarge II, WSIS, IGF I/II/III, and Danny Younger (The
One-Man Reform Machine). All of these attempts called upon ICANN to make
reforms, either by Mandate or Forum Conclusion, only one, Danny
Younger had succeeded in bring about the reform via ICANN's ALAC (At-Large
Advisory Committee), with regards to Register's Domain Registrations Practices,
too which the net result is ICANN's Help Desk InterNIC Complaint Form |
http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi

I recall a paper of Hans & Milton April 2005
What to Do About ICANN: A Proposal for Structural Reform |
http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/igp-icannreform.pdf

Wherein it depicts three types of accountability.

Top-Down
Bottom-Up
Peer-to-Peer

In the Conclusion "... National governments would benefit from shifting from an
advisory role to an oversight role. Internet users and diverse stakeholders
would benefit from direct and equitable participation in policymaking bodies.
Developing countries would benefit from leveraging their established expertise
in ITU processes. All Internet users would benefit from market discipline of
coordinated competition between regulatory entities. ..."

Milton?: 'National governments would benefit from shifting from an advisory
role to an oversight role' In four years, your comments of late ... have gone
180. (New & Improved - Reformulated)
Have you've become the Esther Dyson of 'International Internet Globalization'.

I love you Man :-)

-

Anyway my point in the beginning is of Minority Interests, Yes I support
extending the JPA (for a limited time). I feel strongly that Government
Oversite (USG, be that as it may) provides assurances that safeguard multistake
holder interest within ICANN processes. In particualry when there is a
Minority-Interest. 

MoU's, Agreements, Treaties, and such don't operate in way that Court's and
their Opinions do. They* don't provide for a Decenting Opinion (a Minority
Interest).

Modern Democratic Governments protect these Minority Interest with systematic
provisions (provided by their Constitutions).

For that alone, I would hope that you would see clear the reasoning to wit, of
your original statements in regards to 'question 6'.

JPA - " A bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush"
-
* MoU's, Agreements, Treaties____________________________________________________________
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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Jun  1 22:55:59 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:55:59 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
In-Reply-To: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>
References: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3D1D8C8E-E1DD-4FAD-A673-4BB7496DF138@ciroap.org>

On 02/06/2009, at 4:44 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the  
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive  
> participation. To do so, governments must be motivated to  
> participate fully in the IGF process. We ask whether a more  
> substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or  
> guidelines would catalyze this engagement.

I would add "This may in turn require the reconsideration of a format  
for outcome-focussed discussions that would facilitate the generation  
of such an output document - for example, the roundtables that were  
originally considered for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting."

-- 
JEREMY MALCOLM
Project Coordinator
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East	

Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
www.consumersinternational.org

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global  
campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in  
115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer  
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more  
information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.

____________________________________________________________
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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 00:37:37 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:07:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C649604C.2880%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian,

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.

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 ?

some more comments inline.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> We have a few days for comments – mid week we will need to present the
final
> draft for a consensus call.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and
>  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> 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?)
>
> 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.

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...

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?

>
> Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
>  coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
>  Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so
as
> to  enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making.

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?

> 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?)
>
> 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.

Evasive. The IGC does not have anything to suggest?

>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.
>
> 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?)
>
> 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.

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.

>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.
>
> 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.

So, the IGC believes that the JPA should be extended for many, many years
with annual reviews?

>
> 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.
>
>
> 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?
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation.
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
>
>
>
> We also believe that ICANN should
>
>
> 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;
>
> 2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current Independent
> Review Process, is binding on its  Board
>
> 3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of freedom
of
> expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a norm that its
> policies for administration of  identifiers should not be used to violate
> those  principles.

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?

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090602/63225ee7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 00:42:09 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:42:09 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
In-Reply-To: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>
References: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906012142w4a55a19cq82a291d201fa4c4d@mail.gmail.com>

Ginger,

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by governments

Are we, really?

> and the developing world in the IGF and
> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum
> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. To do
> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF process.
> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.

Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
am happy with.

>
> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
> remote participation.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 06:17:17 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 05:47:17 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906012142w4a55a19cq82a291d201fa4c4d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com> <f65fb55e0906012142w4a55a19cq82a291d201fa4c4d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A24FC2D.9010708@gmail.com>

I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my 
thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process must 
include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just talking 
to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big picture. If 
the government thought is that the other stakeholders (us) will be 
distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they (governments) 
can go off and do business as usual, we are not using the IGF process to 
effect real change. Not only do governments have to listen to us, we 
have to listen to them.

Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include this. 
Please opine. Thanks! gp

McTim wrote:
> Ginger,
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>   
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by governments
>>     
>
> Are we, really?
>
>   
>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum
>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
>> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. To do
>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF process.
>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>     
>
> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
> I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
> listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
> each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
> output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
> am happy with.
>
>   
>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>> remote participation.
>>     
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Jun  2 08:07:57 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:07:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement
In-Reply-To: <4A24FC2D.9010708@gmail.com>
References: <4A243DB1.4060005@gmail.com> <f65fb55e0906012142w4a55a19cq82a291d201fa4c4d@mail.gmail.com> <4A24FC2D.9010708@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A25161D.7080404@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

I agree that it would be important to get greater government involvement 
in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we would want to 
write to the secretariat saying this, since they are acutely aware of 
the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might be misrepresented 
in some circles as lending credence to the purported need for a more 
intergovernmental orientation.  And given all the views expressed in IGC 
over the years on this point, I don't suspect we're going to get 
consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask whether a more substantial 
output in the form of a statement, recommendations or guidelines would 
catalyze this engagement." 

In short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should do 
it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, from a 
CS standpoint?

Best,

Bill

Ginger Paque wrote:
> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my 
> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just 
> talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big 
> picture. If the government thought is that the other stakeholders (us) 
> will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have to 
> listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>
> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include 
> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>
> McTim wrote:
>> Ginger,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>  
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>> and broad
>>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>>> process by
>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>> principle.
>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>> governments
>>>     
>>
>> Are we, really?
>>
>>  
>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum
>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>>> review
>>> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>> participation. To do
>>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF 
>>> process.
>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>     
>>
>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
>> I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
>> listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
>> each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
>> output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
>> am happy with.
>>
>>  
>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current 
>>> process
>>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
>>> inclusion of
>>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>>> remote participation.
>>>     
>>
>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 08:59:57 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 08:29:57 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
Message-ID: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com>



Thanks Bill,

I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments joining 
us as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor 
is it likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.

If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you 
propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted 
completely?

Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard voices? 
Can we offer a realistic alternative?

Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.

Thanks! gp

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that it would be important to get greater government 
> involvement in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we 
> would want to write to the secretariat saying this, since they are 
> acutely aware of the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might 
> be misrepresented in some circles as lending credence to the purported 
> need for a more intergovernmental orientation.  And given all the 
> views expressed in IGC over the years on this point, I don't suspect 
> we're going to get consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask whether a 
> more substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or 
> guidelines would catalyze this engagement."
> In short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
> long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should 
> do it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, 
> from a CS standpoint?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my 
>> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
>> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just 
>> talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big 
>> picture. If the government thought is that the other stakeholders 
>> (us) will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
>> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
>> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have 
>> to listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>>
>> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include 
>> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>>
>> McTim wrote:
>>> Ginger,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>  
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>> and broad
>>>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>>>> process by
>>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>>> principle.
>>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>>> governments
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Are we, really?
>>>
>>>  
>>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental 
>>>> forum
>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>> the review
>>>> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>> participation. To do
>>>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF 
>>>> process.
>>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
>>> I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
>>> listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
>>> each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
>>> output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
>>> am happy with.
>>>
>>>  
>>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current 
>>>> process
>>>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
>>>> inclusion of
>>>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited 
>>>> to,
>>>> remote participation.
>>>>     
>>>
>>>   
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 09:25:17 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:25:17 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com>
References: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906020625s41b413c5m8fdeca1126e9687d@mail.gmail.com>

How's this:

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of
the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates
the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful
implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until
the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the
IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and
the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
participation.

More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current
process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active
inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but
not limited to, remote participation.


---------------


One sentence removed in one para and 2 words gone from another

-- 
Cheers,

McTim



On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Bill,
>
> I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments joining us
> as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor is it
> likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.
>
> If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you
> propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted
> completely?
>
> Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard voices? Can
> we offer a realistic alternative?
>
> Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.
>
> Thanks! gp
____________________________________________________________
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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 10:15:20 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:45:20 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906020625s41b413c5m8fdeca1126e9687d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com> <f65fb55e0906020625s41b413c5m8fdeca1126e9687d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A2533F8.4010707@gmail.com>

McTim (and all) Small proposed changes noted in CAPS:

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the NEW proposal WHICH SEEKS TO CREATE an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.

More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation.



McTim wrote:
> How's this:
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates
> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful
> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until
> the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
> broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the
> IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and
> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
> participation.
>
> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current
> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active
> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but
> not limited to, remote participation.
>
>
> ---------------
>
>
> One sentence removed in one para and 2 words gone from another
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Jun  2 10:28:50 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:28:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] FYI: Letter from Bulgarian Internet community
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906010757x2bd520f2k10f9e729e9dbe9c7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <73c67d2f0905300941o307316c0iea9eba6a62a4e68f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p0620072ec64847be76b6@10.0.1.3> <4A22AE5F.9030108@itforchange.net>
	 <200906010040.54786.nhklein@gmx.net> <p06200734c6487af477b3@10.0.1.3>
	 <f65fb55e0905312243s65e76021kf417200a60b69201@mail.gmail.com>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0906010757x2bd520f2k10f9e729e9dbe9c7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

It's broken

> -----Original Message-----
>  
> The "other models" are part and parcel of the ICANN model.  If it
> ain't broken.... ;-)
> 
____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 13:04:52 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:04:52 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <4A25224D.3040100@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7631A4F335C447F39A3FC0E9C5D68D5D@userPC>

I agree that there is an issue in the IGF with "unheard voices"...

But the issue (and its resolution) may not simply be the mechanical one of
lack of (technological or other) opportunity for participation.  

The issue of "unheard voices" is as much about what those voices might have
to say about alternative approaches/issue areas/basic assumptions concerning
IG and this isn't dealt with by mechanical/technological means.

Rather it requires an opening up of the discussion to critical voices around
what is meant (or could be meant) by "governance" in and of the Internet
(q.v. GG's continuing commentary on collaborative or open governance),
questions concerning how current assumptions/practices of Internet
governance privilege certain approaches (and players) and disempower/limit
access for other players (q.v. the on-going critique of IG issues coming
from indigenous communities), mechanisms for opening up IG to effective
interaction with various groups with special needs (q.v. the contrast
between the lobbying effectiveness of the evidently very well resourced
"youth at risk" lobby with the seemingly much greater difficulty with
intervention from the various disability groups etc.etc.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:00 AM
To: William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]




Thanks Bill,

I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments joining 
us as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor 
is it likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.

If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you 
propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted 
completely?

Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard voices? 
Can we offer a realistic alternative?

Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.

Thanks! gp

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that it would be important to get greater government
> involvement in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we 
> would want to write to the secretariat saying this, since they are 
> acutely aware of the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might 
> be misrepresented in some circles as lending credence to the purported 
> need for a more intergovernmental orientation.  And given all the 
> views expressed in IGC over the years on this point, I don't suspect 
> we're going to get consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask whether a 
> more substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or 
> guidelines would catalyze this engagement."
> In short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
> long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should 
> do it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, 
> from a CS standpoint?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my
>> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
>> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just 
>> talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big 
>> picture. If the government thought is that the other stakeholders 
>> (us) will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
>> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
>> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have 
>> to listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>>
>> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include
>> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>>
>> McTim wrote:
>>> Ginger,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>  
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow
>>>> and broad
>>>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>>>> process by
>>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>>> principle.
>>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>>> governments
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Are we, really?
>>>
>>>  
>>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
>>>> forum
>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
>>>> participation. To do
>>>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF 
>>>> process.
>>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  
>>> Why? I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting 
>>> around listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the 
>>> mic in each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we 
>>> encourage an output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's 
>>> not a format I am happy with.
>>>
>>>  
>>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current
>>>> process
>>>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
>>>> inclusion of
>>>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited 
>>>> to,
>>>> remote participation.
>>>>     
>>>
>>>   
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

____________________________________________________________
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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 13:09:51 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:39:51 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <7631A4F335C447F39A3FC0E9C5D68D5D@userPC>
References: <7631A4F335C447F39A3FC0E9C5D68D5D@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A255CDF.4050801@gmail.com>

Exactly. That is why a discussion forum like the IGF is precisely the 
place to hear these unheard or rarely heard voices. Do you have a 
suggestion on how to improve the wording of the proposal?

Thanks!



Michael Gurstein wrote:
> I agree that there is an issue in the IGF with "unheard voices"...
>
> But the issue (and its resolution) may not simply be the mechanical one of
> lack of (technological or other) opportunity for participation.  
>
> The issue of "unheard voices" is as much about what those voices might have
> to say about alternative approaches/issue areas/basic assumptions concerning
> IG and this isn't dealt with by mechanical/technological means.
>
> Rather it requires an opening up of the discussion to critical voices around
> what is meant (or could be meant) by "governance" in and of the Internet
> (q.v. GG's continuing commentary on collaborative or open governance),
> questions concerning how current assumptions/practices of Internet
> governance privilege certain approaches (and players) and disempower/limit
> access for other players (q.v. the on-going critique of IG issues coming
> from indigenous communities), mechanisms for opening up IG to effective
> interaction with various groups with special needs (q.v. the contrast
> between the lobbying effectiveness of the evidently very well resourced
> "youth at risk" lobby with the seemingly much greater difficulty with
> intervention from the various disability groups etc.etc.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:00 AM
> To: William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Bill,
>
> I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments joining 
> us as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor 
> is it likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.
>
> If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you 
> propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted 
> completely?
>
> Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard voices? 
> Can we offer a realistic alternative?
>
> Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.
>
> Thanks! gp
>
> William Drake wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree that it would be important to get greater government
>> involvement in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we 
>> would want to write to the secretariat saying this, since they are 
>> acutely aware of the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might 
>> be misrepresented in some circles as lending credence to the purported 
>> need for a more intergovernmental orientation.  And given all the 
>> views expressed in IGC over the years on this point, I don't suspect 
>> we're going to get consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask whether a 
>> more substantial output in the form of a statement, recommendations or 
>> guidelines would catalyze this engagement."
>> In short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
>> long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should 
>> do it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, 
>> from a CS standpoint?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>     
>>> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my
>>> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
>>> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just 
>>> talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big 
>>> picture. If the government thought is that the other stakeholders 
>>> (us) will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
>>> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
>>> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have 
>>> to listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>>>
>>> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include
>>> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>>>
>>> McTim wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow
>>>>> and broad
>>>>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>>>>> process by
>>>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>>>> principle.
>>>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>>>> governments
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Are we, really?
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
>>>>> forum
>>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
>>>>> participation. To do
>>>>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF 
>>>>> process.
>>>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  
>>>> Why? I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting 
>>>> around listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the 
>>>> mic in each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we 
>>>> encourage an output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's 
>>>> not a format I am happy with.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current
>>>>> process
>>>>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
>>>>> inclusion of
>>>>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited 
>>>>> to,
>>>>> remote participation.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 14:19:00 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:19:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
In-Reply-To: <4A255CDF.4050801@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E69AA2E9047C4042929A00FA12B4D7CE@userPC>

Hi Ginger,

That is a very interesting challenge and I've just been reflecting on
it...and why I'm finding it so difficult to respond directly...

I think the reason is that in order to respond I/we need to reflect on and
recognize the limits (and costs) of "multi-stakeholderism"... The kind of
critical voices that I've been pointing to are precisely those that have not
been included as "stakeholders" in these overall IG discussions and notably
were not included in the "official" WSIS discussions.

But then reflecting on the "official" WSIS discussions and the process of
stakeholder inclusion, one thing that I think is extremely notable (a Ph.D.
topic for a very brave soul), is that contrary to most such UN thematic
conferences, at WSIS I&II there was no contra-conference... 

The other UN Conferences were as notable for the counter conference staged
by Civil Society as by the official conference and the most useful long term
outcomes (and certainly long term energies) from these other conferences
arguably was the result of the creative dialogue/tension between the "ins"
and the "outs"--between the officials and the critics... Between governments
and civil society!

With WSIS, apart from a brief flurry of activity around some localized human
rights issues in Tunis, there was a notable lack of (creative) tension at
these events and effectively no "counter" conference either physically on
site or virtually in cyberspace. The potentially "critical" voices were
either completely uninvolved (the new media/ICT/social networking/ culture
folks), or absorbed as footnotes in the larger national or NGO initiatives
(indigenous peoples, the grassroots folks, disability advocates etc.). And
this process has continued with the IGF (and the narrowing of the band of
issues under discussion) with even the "footnotes" being disengaged through
lack of interest/attention/funding and IG related civil society being
evidently quite content with this outcome.

So from this perspective I don't see what proposal might be presented that
would deal with what I see as being in fact a systemic rather than an
operational issue...

But as a bit of a suggestion (only slightly tongue in cheek), the IGF could
do rather worse than taking a look at
http://intercontinentalcry.org/continental-indigenous-summit-focused-on-unit
y/ and inviting some of these folks to participate and present what their
take might be on "Global Internet Governance".

MBG

Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and
Training Vancouver, CANADA http://www.communityinformatics.net
CA tel. +1-604-602-0624






-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:10 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]


Exactly. That is why a discussion forum like the IGF is precisely the 
place to hear these unheard or rarely heard voices. Do you have a 
suggestion on how to improve the wording of the proposal?

Thanks!



Michael Gurstein wrote:
> I agree that there is an issue in the IGF with "unheard voices"...
>
> But the issue (and its resolution) may not simply be the mechanical
> one of lack of (technological or other) opportunity for participation.
>
> The issue of "unheard voices" is as much about what those voices might
> have to say about alternative approaches/issue areas/basic assumptions 
> concerning IG and this isn't dealt with by mechanical/technological 
> means.
>
> Rather it requires an opening up of the discussion to critical voices
> around what is meant (or could be meant) by "governance" in and of the 
> Internet (q.v. GG's continuing commentary on collaborative or open 
> governance), questions concerning how current assumptions/practices of 
> Internet governance privilege certain approaches (and players) and 
> disempower/limit access for other players (q.v. the on-going critique 
> of IG issues coming from indigenous communities), mechanisms for 
> opening up IG to effective interaction with various groups with 
> special needs (q.v. the contrast between the lobbying effectiveness of 
> the evidently very well resourced "youth at risk" lobby with the 
> seemingly much greater difficulty with intervention from the various 
> disability groups etc.etc.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:00 AM
> To: William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Bill,
>
> I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments
> joining
> us as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor 
> is it likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.
>
> If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you 
> propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted 
> completely?
>
> Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard
> voices?
> Can we offer a realistic alternative?
>
> Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.
>
> Thanks! gp
>
> William Drake wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree that it would be important to get greater government
>> involvement in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we 
>> would want to write to the secretariat saying this, since they are 
>> acutely aware of the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might 
>> be misrepresented in some circles as lending credence to the 
>> purported need for a more intergovernmental orientation.  And given 
>> all the views expressed in IGC over the years on this point, I don't 
>> suspect we're going to get consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask 
>> whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement, 
>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement." In 
>> short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
>> long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should 
>> do it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, 
>> from a CS standpoint?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>     
>>> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my
>>> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
>>> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are 
>>> just talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the 
>>> big picture. If the government thought is that the other 
>>> stakeholders
>>> (us) will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
>>> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
>>> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have 
>>> to listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>>>
>>> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include
>>> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>>>
>>> McTim wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow
>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved 
>>>>> in the IGF process by
>>>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>>>> principle.
>>>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>>>> governments
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Are we, really?
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
>>>>> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>>> participation. To do so, governments must be motivated to 
>>>>> participate fully in the IGF process.
>>>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point? 
>>>> Why? I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting 
>>>> around listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at 
>>>> the mic in each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we 
>>>> encourage an output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  
>>>> It's not a format I am happy with.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current
>>>>> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
>>>>> active inclusion of
>>>>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited 
>>>>> to,
>>>>> remote participation.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>   

____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Jun  2 17:52:45 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:52:45 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is a
much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage
what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows.
I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
the main points we want to make.

I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.

My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
and of course any suggested improvements in wording.

Ian Peter



The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
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 www.igcaucus.org.
 
We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
security. 

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. 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. 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:
 
·      bottom up co-ordination

 
·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
interests and Internet users

 
·      ensuring the stability of the Internet

 
·      transparency

 
·      appropriate accountability mechanisms

 
·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent

 
·      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
³multistakeholder management², in line 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 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.   





 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/94f98850/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 02:27:51 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:27:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>
	 <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906022327w4b52d20dvf416dacd67fcdab6@mail.gmail.com>

drop "root servers", and I'm fine with it.  ICANN doesn't have reg
auth over the rootops/servers, does it?

rgds,

McTim

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Jun  3 05:24:49 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:24:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ian,

Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they  
require gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles  
that already apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to  
take on board some tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced  
and accommodative of the various views expressed.

Why are we tossing the work that was done?

Best,

Bill

On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path  
> forward is a much reduced response which concentrates on principles.  
> So at this stage what I would propose for a consensus call in 24  
> hours or so is what follows. I would be happy however for someone  
> else to suggest a wider ranging draft covering additional points,  
> but I have come to the conclusion that anything we are likely to  
> agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from the main  
> points we want to make.
>
> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as  
> to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people  
> make individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area.  
> For IGC as a whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>
> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this  
> approach, and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with  
> ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS  
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out  
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that  
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s  
> operation. 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. 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:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil  
> society interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate  
> governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder,  
> democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with  
> “multistakeholder management”, in line 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 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/3c6d1f59/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Jun  3 05:59:48 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:59:48 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <C64C86B4.2A6A%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Bill, read all the comments ­ carefully. From my reading there is very
little left if we take into account all comments received critical of
various sections. I cannot find consensus text on either models or JPA, not
acceptance of text which tries to accommodate differing beliefs. This leads
me to believe that simpler and shorter is better.

I am very happy for someone else to advance a draft of course!


Ian

On 3/06/09 7:24 PM, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> 
> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require
> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already
> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some
> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
> various views expressed.
> 
> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>>  Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is a
>> much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage what
>> I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows. I
>> would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
>> the main points we want to make.
>>  
>>  I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>  
>>  My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>  
>>  Ian Peter
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>> 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 www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>   
>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>  
>>  In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according
>> to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred,
>> inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society².
>> We also recognise the need for high levels of global co-operation from all
>> stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and security.
>>  
>>  Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. 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. 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:
>>   
>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>> interests and Internet users
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      transparency
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
>> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>  
>>   
>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>  
>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>> ³multistakeholder management², in line 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 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.   
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>   
>>   ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
>> ***********************************************************
>>  
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/af98dfc1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jun  3 06:16:53 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:46:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A264D95.5000409@itforchange.net>

I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 
in the draft statement which was

" 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.

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."

I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut 
and the following sentence be added in the end.

""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be 
replaced as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework 
for accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."

With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.


Parminder


William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they 
> require gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles 
> that already apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to 
> take on board some tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced 
> and accommodative of the various views expressed.  
>
> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path 
>> forward is a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. 
>> So at this stage what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 
>> hours or so is what follows. I would be happy however for someone 
>> else to suggest a wider ranging draft covering additional points, but 
>> I have come to the conclusion that anything we are likely to agree on 
>> at this stage would only take emphasis away from the main points we 
>> want to make.
>>
>> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as 
>> to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people 
>> make individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For 
>> IGC as a whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>
>> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this 
>> approach, and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org>.
>>  
>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
>> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>>
>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
>> according to the Geneva 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.
>>
>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
>> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's 
>> operation. 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. 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:
>>  
>> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>
>>
>> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
>> society interests and Internet users
>>
>>
>> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>
>>
>> ·      transparency
>>
>>
>> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>
>>
>> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate 
>> governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, 
>> and transparent
>>
>>
>> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>
>> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
>> "multistakeholder management", in line 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 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.   
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html 
> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
> ***********************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/e900d04e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Jun  3 07:02:51 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:02:51 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A264D95.5000409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.

Eg...

Jeanette -


³from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.²

Milton -

³I¹m in DC right now, and you couldn¹t 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.²
 


So I don¹t think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
statement



 


On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in the
> draft statement which was
> 
> " 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.
> 
> 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."
> 
> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut and
> the following sentence be added in the end.
> 
> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced
> as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for
> accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."
> 
> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.
> 
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Ian, 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require
>> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already
>> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some
>> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
>> various views expressed.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Bill
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>>  Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is
>>> a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage
>>> what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows.
>>> I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
>>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
>>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
>>> the main points we want to make.
>>>  
>>> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
>>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
>>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>>  
>>> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
>>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>>  
>>> Ian Peter
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>> 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 www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>>  
>>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>  
>>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>> Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>> security. 
>>>  
>>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. 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. 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:
>>>  
>>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>> interests and Internet users
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      transparency
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
>>> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>>  
>>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>> ³multistakeholder management², in line 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 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. 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>   
>>>   
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> <http://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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/4b338840/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Jun  3 07:09:36 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:09:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A2659F0.8050502@wzb.eu>

Hi, I suggested to skip the first paragraph and I supported the change 
that Bill suggested for the following para. However, I don't want to 
block consensus. Should I be the only one who dislikes the wording of 
the first para, please feel free to ignore my comment.

jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first 
> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
> 
> Eg...
> 
> Jeanette -
> 
> 
> “from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.”
> 
> Milton -
> 
> “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.”
>  
> 
> 
> So I don’t think that suggested change can be included in a consensus 
> statement
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>     I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question
>     6 in the draft statement which was
> 
>     " 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.
> 
>     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."
> 
>     I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be
>     cut and the following sentence be added in the end.
> 
>     ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but
>     be replaced as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder
>     framework for accountability, the development of which should
>     commence in early 2010."
> 
>     With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC
>     statement.
> 
> 
>     Parminder
> 
> 
>     William Drake wrote:
> 
>         Hi Ian,
> 
>          
>          
>         Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think
>         they require gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic
>         principles that already apply to varying degrees.  The prior
>         text, if amended to take on board some tweaks that were
>         suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
>         various views expressed.  
>          
> 
>          
>          
>         Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>          
> 
>          
>          
>         Best,
>          
> 
>          
>          
>         Bill
>          
> 
>          
>          
>          
>          
>         On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>          
>          
> 
> 
>              Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only
>             path forward is a much reduced response which concentrates
>             on principles. So at this stage what I would propose for a
>             consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows. I would be
>             happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging
>             draft covering additional points, but I have come to the
>             conclusion that anything we are likely to agree on at this
>             stage would only take emphasis away from the main points we
>             want to make.
>              
>             I have dropped all references to models and the varying
>             arguments as to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do
>             suggest that people make individual submissions to cover
>             their concerns in this area. For IGC as a whole, I think we
>             have to aim for something much simpler.
>              
>             My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think
>             of this approach, and of course any suggested improvements
>             in wording.
>              
>             Ian Peter
>              
>              
>              
>              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 www.igcaucus.org
>             <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>              
>             We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA
>             with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>              
>             In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of
>             the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet
>             governance, carried out according to the Geneva 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.
>              
>             Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
>             that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded
>             in ICANN’s operation. 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. 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:
>              
>              ·      bottom up co-ordination
>              
> 
>              ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including
>             civil society interests and Internet users
>              
> 
>              ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>              
> 
>              ·      transparency
>              
> 
>              ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>              
> 
>              ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate
>             governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder,
>             democratic, and transparent
>              
> 
>              ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>              
>             We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>             “multistakeholder management”, in line 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 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.   
>              
>              
> 
> 
>              
> 
>              
>             ____________________________________________________________
>             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
>             <http://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
> 
____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 07:50:20 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:50:20 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>

Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the set 
of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the JPA is an 
obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of that "barrier".

My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate end 
to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to formulate 
the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings (in particular 
the IANA function which holds the root zone file hostage to the USDoC) 
and the process to actual internationalization -- this agreement would 
constitute a multistakeholder group (including UN agencies, of course) 
to prepare this formulation -- no particular stakeholder would have any 
golden rule or special privileges on it.

We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist group 
should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but we could 
try. In my view, this would be a working group with five govs, five 
private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU, WIPO comes to 
mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists (legal, technical) 
who would act as resource persons, plus reps from the current ICANN 
Board -- striving for balanced representation in regional and interest 
group terms.

If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be extended 
or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk even be 
regarded as that civil society group which is to the right of the Obama 
administration... So we better then strike the whole thing out as Ian 
suggests.

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:
> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
> 
> Eg...
> 
> Jeanette -
> 
> 
> ³from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.²
> 
> Milton -
> 
> ³I¹m in DC right now, and you couldn¹t 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.²
>  
> 
> 
> So I don¹t think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
> statement
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in the
>> draft statement which was
>>
>> " 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.
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut and
>> the following sentence be added in the end.
>>
>> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced
>> as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for
>> accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."
>>
>> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.
>>
>>
>> Parminder 
>>
>>
>> William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Ian, 
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require
>>> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already
>>> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some
>>> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
>>> various views expressed.
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Best,
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Bill
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>  
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is
>>>> a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage
>>>> what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows.
>>>> I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
>>>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
>>>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
>>>> the main points we want to make.
>>>>  
>>>> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
>>>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>>>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
>>>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>>>  
>>>> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
>>>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>>>  
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>>> 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 www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>>>  
>>>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>>>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>>  
>>>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>>> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>>> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>>> Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>>> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>>> security. 
>>>>  
>>>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>>>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. 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. 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:
>>>>  
>>>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>>> interests and Internet users
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      transparency
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
>>>> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>>>  
>>>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>>> ³multistakeholder management², in line 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 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. 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <http://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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 08:08:49 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:38:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906030508h5a128939nec6c557d7d6550c0@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian,

I would rather agree with William Drake's view that the draft should not be
tossed at this stage. What is missing is a powerful statement from IGC that
the JPA should not continue. What is also missing is the assertion that
ICANN as an organization has the capability to be independant. The draft
could be modified with the missing positve statements and could go as the
IGC input.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:

> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the set of
> chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the JPA is an
> obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of that "barrier".
>
> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate end to
> the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to formulate the
> termination as soon as possible of the other bindings (in particular the
> IANA function which holds the root zone file hostage to the USDoC) and the
> process to actual internationalization -- this agreement would constitute a
> multistakeholder group (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this
> formulation -- no particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or
> special privileges on it.
>
> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist group
> should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but we could try.
> In my view, this would be a working group with five govs, five private
> sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU, WIPO comes to mind
> immediately), and a suitable set of specialists (legal, technical) who would
> act as resource persons, plus reps from the current ICANN Board -- striving
> for balanced representation in regional and interest group terms.
>
> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be extended or
> continued in any form, I insist after September we risk even be regarded as
> that civil society group which is to the right of the Obama
> administration... So we better then strike the whole thing out as Ian
> suggests.
>
> --c.a.
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
>> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
>>
>> Eg...
>>
>> Jeanette -
>>
>>
>> łfrom what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
>> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
>> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
>> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
>> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.˛
>>
>> Milton -
>>
>> łIąm in DC right now, and you couldnąt 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.˛
>>
>>
>> So I donąt think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
>>
>> statement
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>  I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in
>>> the
>>> draft statement which was
>>>
>>> " 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.
>>>
>>> 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."
>>>
>>> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut
>>> and
>>> the following sentence be added in the end.
>>>
>>> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be
>>> replaced
>>> as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for
>>> accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."
>>>
>>> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>> William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ian,
>>>>   Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they
>>>> require
>>>> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that
>>>> already
>>>> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board
>>>> some
>>>> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of
>>>> the
>>>> various views expressed.
>>>>
>>>>   Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>>>>
>>>>   Best,
>>>>
>>>>   Bill
>>>>
>>>>     On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>   Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path
>>>>> forward is
>>>>> a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this
>>>>> stage
>>>>> what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what
>>>>> follows.
>>>>> I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging
>>>>> draft
>>>>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that
>>>>> anything
>>>>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away
>>>>> from
>>>>> the main points we want to make.
>>>>>  I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as
>>>>> to
>>>>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>>>>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as
>>>>> a
>>>>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>>>>  My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this
>>>>> approach,
>>>>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>>>>  Ian Peter
>>>>>     The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil
>>>>> society and
>>>>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the
>>>>> UNąs
>>>>> 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 www.igcaucus.org <
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>>>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN,
>>>>> and
>>>>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>>>  In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>>>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>>>> according to the Geneva 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.  Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
>>>>> that certain
>>>>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANNąs operation. 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. 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:
>>>>>   ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>>>>     ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil
>>>>> society
>>>>> interests and Internet users
>>>>>     ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>>>>     ·      transparency
>>>>>     ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>>>>     ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate
>>>>> governance
>>>>> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and
>>>>> transparent
>>>>>     ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>>>>   We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>>>> łmultistakeholder management˛, in line 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 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.
>>>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>> <http://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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/2bd7e55a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Wed Jun  3 08:42:36 2009
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
Message-ID: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


Hi all,

A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic issues.

Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and information?

Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in contributions from people interested in submitting articles.

Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any questions, please let me know.

Cheers
David

 ---------


David Goldstein
email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au
web:   http://davidgoldstein.tel/

http://goldsteinreport.com/
phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home

mail:  4/3 Abbott Street
COOGEE NSW 2034
AUSTRALIA


"Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery



      Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
____________________________________________________________
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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Jun  3 08:56:57 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:56:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Carlos,

On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the  
> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the  
> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of  
> that "barrier".

Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess  
let's not confuse the narrative...
>
> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate  
> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to  
> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings  
> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file  
> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization  
> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group  
> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no  
> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special  
> privileges on it.

So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield  
immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in  
the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an  
accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence  
and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne  
and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in  
which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a  
recipe for some very serious conflict.

The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's  
phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather  
than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for  
success would be very long either way, but they are probably much  
longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.

That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll  
get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it  
happens, you effectively asked for it :-)

Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings  
tomorrow....

>
> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist  
> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but  
> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five  
> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,  
> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists  
> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from  
> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in  
> regional and interest group terms.
>
> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be  
> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk  
> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right  
> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole  
> thing out as Ian suggests.

So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN  
run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to  
live with the least bad of currently available options until there's  
something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass  
here...

Cheers,

Bill
____________________________________________________________
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


From anriette at apc.org  Wed Jun  3 09:28:36 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:28:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
In-Reply-To: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1244035716.4118.124.camel@anriette-laptop>

Hi David (replying onlist - apologies to those not interested, but other
might have good suggestions)

Your friend should take a good look at all the existing resources on
this. Of course Asia is huge and diverse, but there are many resources
available already.

He can start by looking at:

http://www.apdip.net/ - sadly UNDP discontinued this but the site still
has valuable information
http://southasia.oneworld.net/
http://www.idrc.ca/panasia/
http://www.itforchange.net/
http://www.i4donline.ne
http://defindia.net/
http://www.apc.org/en/home/all/asiapacific
http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org/index.cfm

But there is probably a lot more information out there. 

We would be interested to know more about this initiative.

Best

Anriette


On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 05:42 -0700, David Goldstein wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic issues.
> 
> Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and information?
> 
> Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
> 
> Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any questions, please let me know.
> 
> Cheers
> David
> 
>  ---------
> 
> 
> David Goldstein
> email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au
> web:   http://davidgoldstein.tel/
> 
> http://goldsteinreport.com/
> phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home
> 
> mail:  4/3 Abbott Street
> COOGEE NSW 2034
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> 
> "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery
> 
> 
> 
>       Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

____________________________________________________________
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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 09:57:22 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:57:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,

I agree with Bill that we are at point where 'immediate' ends and 'immediate' transitions to some other internationalized state of conditions needs to be defined more precisely.

 It will take years to reach some level of multistakeholder consensus on what is next.

Carlos, starting with negotiation of a transition agreement I fear would just add another layer of negotiations onto what is after all going to be a laborious process.  

So with that in mind,

- will end of JPA in 2009 help or hurt in defining where transition is going to?
(given continued IANA contract etc, and open discussions on within what broader context should ICANN exist)
Pro: a sign of movement
Con: unclear where we are going

I'll admit I have gone back and forth myself between thinking the JPA should just be allowed to expire, thereby forcing all parties to deal with new reality, versus a more measured process whereby the USG lets go when it knows what it is letting go to.

Realistically, USG won't/can't do otherwise, one way or another, than hold on til it thinks it safe to let go.  

So for myself I'm betting on a new and improved JPA or  maybe let's go back to an MOU for the next X years.... ; ) 

Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for participation in a transition process, with of course USG noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?

Lee


________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:56 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
Cc: Ian Peter; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Hi Carlos,

On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the
> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the
> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of
> that "barrier".

Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess
let's not confuse the narrative...
>
> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate
> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to
> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings
> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file
> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization
> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group
> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no
> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special
> privileges on it.

So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield
immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in
the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an
accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence
and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne
and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in
which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a
recipe for some very serious conflict.

The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's
phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather
than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for
success would be very long either way, but they are probably much
longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.

That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll
get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it
happens, you effectively asked for it :-)

Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings
tomorrow....

>
> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist
> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but
> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five
> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,
> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists
> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from
> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in
> regional and interest group terms.
>
> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be
> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk
> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right
> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole
> thing out as Ian suggests.

So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN
run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to
live with the least bad of currently available options until there's
something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass
here...

Cheers,

Bill
____________________________________________________________
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


From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 10:24:17 2009
From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
Message-ID: <246000.26116.qm@web45213.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Hi Anriette 
Thank you very much for the very interesting list and if you fined more please let us know.
Best 
Dina


--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICT4D resources
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 6:28 AM

Hi David (replying onlist - apologies to those not interested, but other
might have good suggestions)

Your friend should take a good look at all the existing resources on
this. Of course Asia is huge and diverse, but there are many resources
available already.

He can start by looking at:

http://www.apdip.net/ - sadly UNDP discontinued this but the site still
has valuable information
http://southasia.oneworld.net/
http://www.idrc.ca/panasia/
http://www.itforchange.net/
http://www.i4donline.ne
http://defindia.net/
http://www.apc.org/en/home/all/asiapacific
http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org/index.cfm

But there is probably a lot more information out there. 

We would be interested to know more about this initiative.

Best

Anriette


On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 05:42 -0700, David Goldstein wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic issues.
> 
> Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and information?
> 
> Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
> 
> Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any questions, please let me know.
> 
> Cheers
> David
> 
>  ---------
> 
> 
> David Goldstein
> email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au
> web:   http://davidgoldstein.tel/
> 
> http://goldsteinreport.com/
> phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home
> 
> mail:  4/3 Abbott Street
> COOGEE NSW 2034
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> 
> "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery
> 
> 
> 
>       Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

____________________________________________________________
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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/6857bbac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 10:27:52 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:27:52 +0700
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
In-Reply-To: <246000.26116.qm@web45213.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <246000.26116.qm@web45213.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906030727p3f5f5474nea52a9ae1e6bfdd1@mail.gmail.com>

Here are a few worthy resources:

BytesForAll South Asia Network:
About: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BytesForAll
Live List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers
Website: http://www.bytesforall.net/

Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor Forum:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/

Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor
Website: http://pakistanictpolicy.bytesforall.net/

AskBajwa.com
http://www.askbajwa.com

Bangladesh ICT Policy Monitor:
http://bangladeshictpolicy.bytesforall.net/

ICT Infrastructure in emerging Asia: Policy and Regulatory Roadblocks
The book can be downloaded free at: http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/378-2


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Dina <dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Anriette
> Thank you very much for the very interesting list and if you fined more
> please let us know.
> Best
> Dina
>
>
> --- On Wed, 6/3/09, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] ICT4D resources
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 6:28 AM
>
> Hi David (replying onlist - apologies to those not interested, but other
> might have good suggestions)
>
> Your friend should take a good look at all the existing resources on
> this. Of course Asia is huge and diverse, but there are many resources
> available already.
>
> He can start by looking at:
>
> http://www.apdip.net/ - sadly UNDP discontinued this but the site still
> has valuable information
> http://southasia.oneworld.net/
> http://www.idrc.ca/panasia/
> http://www.itforchange.net/
> http://www.i4donline.ne
> http://defindia.net/
> http://www.apc.org/en/home/all/asiapacific
> http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org/index.cfm
>
> But there is probably a lot more information out there.
>
> We would be interested to know more about this initiative.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 05:42 -0700, David Goldstein wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some
>> similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health,
>> rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic
>> issues.
>>
>> Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and
>> information?
>>
>> Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in
>> contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
>>
>> Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any
>> questions, please let me know.
>>
>> Cheers
>> David
>>
>>  ---------
>>
>>
>> David Goldstein
>> email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au
>> web:   http://davidgoldstein.tel/
>>
>> http://goldsteinreport.com/
>> phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home
>>
>> mail:  4/3 Abbott Street
>> COOGEE NSW 2034
>> AUSTRALIA
>>
>>
>> "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time
>> you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery
>>
>>
>>
>>       Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter
>> now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> --
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> anriette esterhuysen - executive director
> association for progressive communications
> p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
> anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
> http://www.apc.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 10:30:17 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:30:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
In-Reply-To: <1244035716.4118.124.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <BB19C06050694322956BF33593D3BA30@userPC>


David, 

Further to what Anriette has said could I suggest that you look to sub-divide the project... India alone could well occupy you for your entire effort and there are significant initiatives underway in virtually all of the countries in all parts of Asia... For India, (and South Asia) a hugely valuable resource is the bytesforall email list <bytesforall at yahoogroups.com> ... 

To get into the details on a country by country basis may require access to local languages but I can give you some names off-list that could help in some of the specific countries...

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:29 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] ICT4D resources


Hi David (replying onlist - apologies to those not interested, but other might have good suggestions)

Your friend should take a good look at all the existing resources on this. Of course Asia is huge and diverse, but there are many resources available already.

He can start by looking at:

http://www.apdip.net/ - sadly UNDP discontinued this but the site still has valuable information http://southasia.oneworld.net/ http://www.idrc.ca/panasia/ http://www.itforchange.net/ http://www.i4donline.ne http://defindia.net/ http://www.apc.org/en/home/all/asiapacific
http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org/index.cfm

But there is probably a lot more information out there. 

We would be interested to know more about this initiative.

Best

Anriette


On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 05:42 -0700, David Goldstein wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some 
> similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at 
> health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and 
> socio-economic issues.
> 
> Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas 
> and information?
> 
> Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in 
> contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
> 
> Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any 
> questions, please let me know.
> 
> Cheers
> David
> 
>  ---------
> 
> 
> David Goldstein
> email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au
> web:   http://davidgoldstein.tel/
> 
> http://goldsteinreport.com/
> phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home
> 
> mail:  4/3 Abbott Street
> COOGEE NSW 2034
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> 
> "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every 
> time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr 
> Tim Flannery
> 
> 
> 
>       Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter 
> now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

____________________________________________________________
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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Jun  3 10:47:30 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:47:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD
In-Reply-To: <p06240834c645a5c485fe@[221.115.9.43]>
References: <C645DB85.2748%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <3DF7CA17-C844-4D1C-A593-AC4D567E35AE@graduateinstitute.ch> <p06240834c645a5c485fe@[221.115.9.43]>
Message-ID: <83BA4ED8-692F-44CB-A981-8E00959E85EA@graduateinstitute.ch>

Adam,

On May 29, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

> At 2:39 PM +0200 5/29/09, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>
>> Among whom would the binding conditions be agreed?  In what form?  
>> How would their implementation be monitored and assessed?  What  
>> consequences would flow from failure to implement?  And so  
>> on...we're not going to get consensus on a statement that's based  
>> on abstractions and leaps of faith.  What's really needed is some  
>> serious brainstorming on 3.0 architectural options that are  
>> responsive to what goes on within the organization and to the  
>> growing intergovernmental machinations outside of it (witness this  
>> week's CSTD meeting etc).
>
>
> What machinations were these?  Could you summarize?

I never responded to you as Anriette promptly sent an update on CSTD,  
but there was a lot of maneuvering among the usual governments to  
establish that enhanced cooperation is a preeminently if not entirely  
intergovernmental affair, in which the ITU is playing a lead role; and  
to downplay if not diss the contributions of the IGF and the arguments  
for its extension.  Anriette, Guru and Bertrand sat through more of  
these sessions than I and could provide more detail.

I just received from the secretariat the final resolution (well, it's  
a 'draft' until adopted by ECOSOC I guess) on "Assessment of the  
progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes  
of the World Summit on the Information Society."  Not as bad as it  
could have been, thanks to friendlies and fellow travelers who pushed  
back.  A few highlights:

ECOSOC

14.  Reaffirms the principles enunciated in the WSIS that the Internet  
has evolved into a global facility available to the public and its  
governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society  
agenda. The international management of the Internet should be  
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of  
governments, the private sector, civil society and international  
organizations. It should ensure an equitable distribution of  
resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure  
functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism;

15. Notes the discussions in the IGF as a multi-stakeholder platform  
on public policy issues related to internet governance which were  
observed by the UN SG in his report, expresses appreciation for the  
work done by the Chair, the Secretariat and the host Governments of  
the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and looks forward to the  
convening of the fourth meeting of the IGF in Egypt; [no positive  
adjectives but no negatives either]

16. Encourages all stakeholders to contribute to the online  
consultations regarding the “desirability of the continuation” of the  
IGF as envisaged in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda and to give  
consideration of the stakeholders in under-developed areas that could  
not get connected online and urge the UNSG to take all appropriate  
measures to consult the stakeholders at a broad basis;

17. Notes that paragraph 80 of the Tunis Agenda refers to development  
of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional and  
international levels; [good this was inserted]

18. Recognizes the contribution of WTSA08 towards enhanced  
cooperation; [ ITU gets only the specific mention as contributing to EC]

19.  Notes the conclusion of the UNSG on the basis of performance  
reports from 10 organizations relevant to Internet Governance, that  
while the efforts made varied in nature between the different  
organizations, the performance reports suggest that the Tunis Agenda's  
call for enhanced cooperation has been taken seriously by these  
organizations, and requests the Secretary General to report to ECOSOC  
through CSTD on the progress towards enhanced cooperation;  [since  
these included non-intergovernmentals, the EC as exclusively  
intergovernmental premise looks even more odd]

36. Encourages the WSIS action line facilitators to increase their  
efforts to include all stakeholders in the facilitation process on  
implementing the WSIS action lines and to further enhance the  
interactivity of the process;

Anyway, thought I'd share this FYI.

Bill____________________________________________________________
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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 10:51:22 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:51:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>,<C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Ian, 
I missed a day of comment and am not understanding how we went from a good statement with some debate on the margins to the meaningless stuff you have below. 
I can assure you that a statement as proposed below would have utterly no impact on the discussion in Washington. I'd recommend reverting back a step to the document and working out those minor differences. 
________________________________________
From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:52 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows. I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from the main points we want to make.

I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.

My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach, and of course any suggested improvements in wording.

Ian Peter



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 www.igcaucus.org.

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva 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.

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. 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. 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:

•      bottom up co-ordination


•      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users


•      ensuring the stability of the Internet


•      transparency


•      appropriate accountability mechanisms


•      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent


•      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with “multistakeholder management”, in line 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 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.






____________________________________________________________
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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 10:54:55 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:54:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A264D95.5000409@itforchange.net>
References: <C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <3D8A91A1-7500-4E1F-9FAF-DB9CAC76A24A@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4A264D95.5000409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E68@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Agreed. The Caucus has to make meaningful statements about the JPA otherwise you may as well not bother. 
________________________________________
From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:16 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
Cc: Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in the draft statement which was

" 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.

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."

I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut and the following sentence be added in the end.

""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."

With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.


Parminder


William Drake wrote:
Hi Ian,

Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the various views expressed.

Why are we tossing the work that was done?

Best,

Bill

On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows. I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from the main points we want to make.

I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.

My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach, and of course any suggested improvements in wording.

Ian Peter



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 www.igcaucus.org<http://www.igcaucus.org>.

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva 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.

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. 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. 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:

•      bottom up co-ordination


•      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users


•      ensuring the stability of the Internet


•      transparency


•      appropriate accountability mechanisms


•      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent


•      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with “multistakeholder management”, in line 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 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.






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<http://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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 10:59:14 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:59:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>,<4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Come to think of it, who actually does believe that the JPA should be extended? 
Of those who do, they dont support US oversight or even the JPA itself, they just want to use it as leverage to pressure ICANN to make certain reforms. 
________________________________________
From: Carlos Afonso [ca at rits.org.br]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:50 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the set
of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the JPA is an
obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of that "barrier".

My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate end
to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to formulate
the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings (in particular
the IANA function which holds the root zone file hostage to the USDoC)
and the process to actual internationalization -- this agreement would
constitute a multistakeholder group (including UN agencies, of course)
to prepare this formulation -- no particular stakeholder would have any
golden rule or special privileges on it.

We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist group
should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but we could
try. In my view, this would be a working group with five govs, five
private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU, WIPO comes to
mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists (legal, technical)
who would act as resource persons, plus reps from the current ICANN
Board -- striving for balanced representation in regional and interest
group terms.

If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be extended
or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk even be
regarded as that civil society group which is to the right of the Obama
administration... So we better then strike the whole thing out as Ian
suggests.

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:
> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
>
> Eg...
>
> Jeanette -
>
>
> ³from what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.²
>
> Milton -
>
> ³I¹m in DC right now, and you couldn¹t 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.²
>
>
>
> So I don¹t think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
> statement
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in the
>> draft statement which was
>>
>> " 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.
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut and
>> the following sentence be added in the end.
>>
>> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be replaced
>> as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for
>> accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."
>>
>> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.
>>
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>> William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Ian,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they require
>>> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that already
>>> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board some
>>> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of the
>>> various views expressed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path forward is
>>>> a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this stage
>>>> what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what follows.
>>>> I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging draft
>>>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that anything
>>>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away from
>>>> the main points we want to make.
>>>>
>>>> I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as to
>>>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>>>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as a
>>>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>>>
>>>> My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this approach,
>>>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>>>
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>>> 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 www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> .
>>>>
>>>> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>>>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>>
>>>> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>>> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>>> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>>> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>>> Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>>> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>>> security.
>>>>
>>>> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
>>>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. 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. 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:
>>>>
>>>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>>> interests and Internet users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      transparency
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
>>>> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>>>
>>>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>>> ³multistakeholder management², in line 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 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <http://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
>
>

____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 11:03:21 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:03:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: PrepcomII SMSI's birthday is in 7 days (Jun. 10)
Message-ID: <12981B10C19849D8B89C247FC4834AF6@userPC>

In case you missed it...
 
M
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Plaxo Birthday Reminder [mailto:noreply at plaxo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:37 AM
To: Gurstein, Michael
Subject: PrepcomII SMSI's birthday is in 7 days (Jun. 10)



			

		
	
	PrepcomII SMSI's birthday is in 7 days (Jun. 10) 
 
<https://www.plaxo.com/display_entry?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&t=bre
minder> View more info |
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&r=6&s=0> Snooze
reminder |
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&r=1&s=0> Turn
off reminder 		
 plaxo eCards <http://www.plaxo.com/images/bday_aim/ecards.gif>


	
 
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=18&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C10> Send an eCard	
  <http://www.plaxo.com/images/bday_i18n/dancers.gif> 		

	

 
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=10&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C10> Flowers
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=11&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C110> Spanish eCard
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=10&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C104> Portuguese eCard	

 
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=13&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C112> Dutch eCard
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=14&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C139> Italian eCard	
 
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=16&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C10> Choose fonts, colors and
frames!	 	

		Select a card now! We'll deliver it on PrepcomII's birthday.
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&s=0&f=1&new=1&b
day=2009-06-10&src=InternationalDay7PhotoOff&Design=International&r=17&ecard
url=%2Fecard%2Findex.php%3F%23h%2C1%2C0%2C0%2C10> Add your own photo!-Create
Your Own	 	
			
	
	You are receiving this birthday reminder as part of your Plaxo
membership
registered under the email address: gurstein at gmail.com.
Learn more about  <http://www.plaxo.com/support/birthday_reminder> Plaxo
Birthday Reminders | Turn
<http://www.plaxo.com/bday?e=8590977824-453644373-2983809508&r=1&s=0> off
birthday reminders for PrepcomII SMSI 		
	
Plaxo, Inc. - 203 Ravendale Drive - Mountain View - CA - 94043 - USA
	
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/06fff776/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 11:00:49 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:00:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


Bill
JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us any accountability. 
JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the community. 
There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever. 

________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:56 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
Cc: Ian Peter; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Hi Carlos,

On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the
> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the
> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of
> that "barrier".

Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess
let's not confuse the narrative...
>
> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate
> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to
> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings
> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file
> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization
> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group
> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no
> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special
> privileges on it.

So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield
immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in
the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an
accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence
and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne
and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in
which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a
recipe for some very serious conflict.

The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's
phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather
than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for
success would be very long either way, but they are probably much
longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.

That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll
get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it
happens, you effectively asked for it :-)

Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings
tomorrow....

>
> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist
> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but
> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five
> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,
> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists
> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from
> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in
> regional and interest group terms.
>
> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be
> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk
> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right
> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole
> thing out as Ian suggests.

So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN
run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to
live with the least bad of currently available options until there's
something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass
here...

Cheers,

Bill
____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 11:32:23 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:32:23 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>  Bill
>  JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us any accountability.
>  JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the community.

then...aren't you all for ending it? Breaking Carlos' "chains" and
ending his "hostage" drama?

>  There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever.

and aren't we then playing into their hands by asking for an extension.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Jun  3 11:36:24 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:36:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu>

The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The point 
is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide 
accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before the 
JPA ends.

jeanette

McTim wrote:
> On 6/3/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>  Bill
>>  JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us any accountability.
>>  JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the community.
> 
> then...aren't you all for ending it? Breaking Carlos' "chains" and
> ending his "hostage" drama?
> 
>>  There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever.
> 
> and aren't we then playing into their hands by asking for an extension.
> 
____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 11:37:27 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:37:27 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>,<C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A2698B7.4070708@rits.org.br>

:)

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Ian, I missed a day of comment and am not understanding how we went
> from a good statement with some debate on the margins to the
> meaningless stuff you have below.


____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 11:36:42 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:36:42 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br>

Dear Lee,

Lee W McKnight wrote:
[...]
> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
> 
> Lee


I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...

frt rgds

--c.a.

____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 11:40:31 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:40:31 +0300
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
In-Reply-To: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906030840q412c70c7y315b69635ab24afa@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

You might find this useful in some way:

Impact Assessment of ICT-for-Development Projects: A Compendium of Approaches
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/di_wp36.htm
Richard Heeks & Alemayehu Molla

Abstract

Billions of US dollars are invested each year by the public, NGO and
private sectors in
information-and-communication-technologies-for-development (ICT4D)
projects such as telecentres, village phone schemes, e-health and
e-education projects, e-government kiosks, etc.

Yet we have very little sense of the effect of that investment.  Put
simply, there is far too little impact assessment of ICT4D projects.

In part that reflects a lack of political will and motivation.  But in
part it also reflects a lack of knowledge about how to undertake
impact assessment of ICT4D.

This Compendium aims to address that lack of knowledge.  It presents a
set of frameworks that can be used by ICT4D practitioners,
policy-makers and consultants to understand the impact of informatics
initiatives in developing countries.

The Compendium is arranged into three parts:

    * Overview – explains the basis for understanding impact
assessment of ICT4D projects, and the different assessment frameworks
that can be used.
    * Frameworks – summarises a series of impact assessment
frameworks, each one drawing from a different perspective.
    * Bibliography – a tabular summary of real-world examples of ICT4D
impact assessment.

On 6/3/09, David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
>  A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and socio-economic issues.
>
>  Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and information?
>
>  Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
>
>  Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any questions, please let me know.
>
>  Cheers
>  David
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 11:39:08 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:39:08 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A26991C.2010803@rits.org.br>

I agree, MM.

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Bill
> JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us any accountability. 
> JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the community. 
> There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever. 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
> Cc: Ian Peter; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> 
>> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the
>> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the
>> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of
>> that "barrier".
> 
> Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess
> let's not confuse the narrative...
>> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate
>> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to
>> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings
>> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file
>> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization
>> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group
>> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no
>> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special
>> privileges on it.
> 
> So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield
> immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in
> the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an
> accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence
> and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne
> and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in
> which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a
> recipe for some very serious conflict.
> 
> The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's
> phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather
> than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for
> success would be very long either way, but they are probably much
> longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.
> 
> That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll
> get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it
> happens, you effectively asked for it :-)
> 
> Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings
> tomorrow....
> 
>> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist
>> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but
>> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five
>> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,
>> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists
>> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from
>> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in
>> regional and interest group terms.
>>
>> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be
>> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk
>> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right
>> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole
>> thing out as Ian suggests.
> 
> So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN
> run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to
> live with the least bad of currently available options until there's
> something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass
> here...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Jun  3 12:01:08 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:01:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <0FBD46F9-CFA7-48AC-92FE-7616396D555B@graduateinstitute.ch>

MM,

On Jun 3, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> Bill
> JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us  
> any accountability.

If you read back through the thread you'll know that I've agree with  
you that it hasn't, but pointed out that it in principle at least  
provides a channel through which one could attempt to apply pressure.   
And that rather few public interest actors have tried to use it that  
way.
>
> JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to  
> institute reforms demanded by the community.

Right, it can in principle be leveraged to demand, uh, accountability.

But anyway that's not the main point some of us have been making.   
We've been talking about how and when to launch a process on  
accountability mechs to replace it, the linkage and timing is the focus.
>
> There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual  
> property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever.

Sure, for very different reasons.   There are also firms who want to  
end it immediately cuz that fits their agendas, that doesn't mean that  
CS people who advocate immediate cessation are aligned with them, or  
board/staff/etc. either.

Last week you expressed reservations about ending with no strings and  
agreed process on alternative mechanisms, are you now shifting because  
of what you're hearing in DC?

BD
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
> Cc: Ian Peter; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>
>> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the
>> set of chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the
>> JPA is an obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of
>> that "barrier".
>
> Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess
> let's not confuse the narrative...
>>
>> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate
>> end to the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to
>> formulate the termination as soon as possible of the other bindings
>> (in particular the IANA function which holds the root zone file
>> hostage to the USDoC) and the process to actual internationalization
>> -- this agreement would constitute a multistakeholder group
>> (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this formulation -- no
>> particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or special
>> privileges on it.
>
> So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield
> immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in
> the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an
> accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence
> and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne
> and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in
> which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a
> recipe for some very serious conflict.
>
> The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's
> phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather
> than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for
> success would be very long either way, but they are probably much
> longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.
>
> That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll
> get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it
> happens, you effectively asked for it :-)
>
> Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings
> tomorrow....
>
>>
>> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist
>> group should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but
>> we could try. In my view, this would be a working group with five
>> govs, five private sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU,
>> WIPO comes to mind immediately), and a suitable set of specialists
>> (legal, technical) who would act as resource persons, plus reps from
>> the current ICANN Board -- striving for balanced representation in
>> regional and interest group terms.
>>
>> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be
>> extended or continued in any form, I insist after September we risk
>> even be regarded as that civil society group which is to the right
>> of the Obama administration... So we better then strike the whole
>> thing out as Ian suggests.
>
> So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN
> run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to
> live with the least bad of currently available options until there's
> something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass
> here...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From garth.graham at telus.net  Wed Jun  3 12:29:50 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:29:50 -0700
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <fecfce260906012137w196093a5j4c2b98f33f8ce967@mail.gmail.com>,<C64BDC4D.29F5%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E67@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <D6F62C1B-81A1-4441-96AE-C5BC326CE5B8@telus.net>

On 3-Jun-09, at 7:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I .... am not understanding how we went from a good statement with  
> some debate on the margins to the meaningless stuff you have below.

We got there through a reasonable synthesis of what many people  
actually said, and through effective application of a consensus  
process - good qualities in a coordinator.

And it is not "meaningless" to re-iterate the principles "we" would  
apply in assessing the future status of ICANN's roles or any  
statements about intentions.  If fact, such principles can serve  
quite well as a standard of measurement to be used in calling upon  
ICANN, and the agencies setting the context in which it operates, to  
account for their actions.

GG
____________________________________________________________
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


From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Wed Jun  3 12:34:04 2009
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:34:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICT4D resources
References: <198354.85372.qm@web58902.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <f65fb55e0906030840q412c70c7y315b69635ab24afa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EA09C65D526A4EB8AE61BD6F1637843A@PCbureau>

Dear all

McTim wrote :
<Yet we have very little sense of the effect of that investment.  Put 
simply, there is far too little impact assessment of ICT4D projects. In part 
that reflects a lack of political will and motivation.  But in part it also 
reflects a lack of knowledge about how to undertake impact assessment of 
ICT4D.>

In my humble opinion this also reflects that a significant part of these 
ICT4D projects are designed and carried out without sufficient dialogue with 
the people and their representative orgs. Only a true exchange with them 
upon their needs and their views on how they could evolve on one hand, and 
the the possibilities of suitable and adequately dimensioned technologies on 
the other hand, can fulfil the conditions for a people centered and 
therefore useful development. Remember : ICT isn't THE goal : it is only A 
tool !

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "David Goldstein" 
<goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] ICT4D resources



Hi,

You might find this useful in some way:

Impact Assessment of ICT-for-Development Projects: A Compendium of 
Approaches
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/di_wp36.htm
Richard Heeks & Alemayehu Molla

Abstract

Billions of US dollars are invested each year by the public, NGO and
private sectors in
information-and-communication-technologies-for-development (ICT4D)
projects such as telecentres, village phone schemes, e-health and
e-education projects, e-government kiosks, etc.

Yet we have very little sense of the effect of that investment.  Put
simply, there is far too little impact assessment of ICT4D projects.

In part that reflects a lack of political will and motivation.  But in
part it also reflects a lack of knowledge about how to undertake
impact assessment of ICT4D.

This Compendium aims to address that lack of knowledge.  It presents a
set of frameworks that can be used by ICT4D practitioners,
policy-makers and consultants to understand the impact of informatics
initiatives in developing countries.

The Compendium is arranged into three parts:

    * Overview – explains the basis for understanding impact
assessment of ICT4D projects, and the different assessment frameworks
that can be used.
    * Frameworks – summarises a series of impact assessment
frameworks, each one drawing from a different perspective.
    * Bibliography – a tabular summary of real-world examples of ICT4D
impact assessment.

On 6/3/09, David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
>  A client of mine is interested in me compiling a newsletter or some 
> similar resource on ICT4D issues, focussing on Asia, and looking at 
> health, rural and agriculture issues, education, political issues and 
> socio-economic issues.
>
>  Does anyone have any resources they could recommend to me for ideas and 
> information?
>
>  Assuming it gets off the ground I could even be interested in 
> contributions from people interested in submitting articles.
>
>  Feel free to reply directly to me or to the list. And if you have any 
> questions, please let me know.
>
>  Cheers
>  David
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 13:21:58 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:21:58 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A26B136.8070804@rits.org.br>



McTim wrote:
> On 6/3/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> Bill JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not
>> lose us any accountability. JPA is significant only insofar as
>> ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the
>> community.
> 
> then...aren't you all for ending it? Breaking Carlos' "chains" and 
> ending his "hostage" drama?

I am! :)

> 
>> There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual
>> property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever.
> 
> and aren't we then playing into their hands by asking for an
> extension.
> 

Possibly, but my understanding is that "they" do not want it anymore as
well. Some of us are behind "them" in this regard.

--c.a.

____________________________________________________________
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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 14:30:12 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:30:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <0FBD46F9-CFA7-48AC-92FE-7616396D555B@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <0FBD46F9-CFA7-48AC-92FE-7616396D555B@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 

> Last week you expressed reservations about ending with no 
> strings and agreed process on alternative mechanisms, are you now 
> shifting because of what you're hearing in DC?
> 

To simplify, yes. In the current political context, any talk of extending JPA to "increase accountability" plays into the hands of US-based business interests and US nationalists. There will always be some interest group that is not satisfied with ICANN. If all of them (irrationally) view the JPA as leverage to achieve their specific goals, we will never get out of it. Yet that is the game everyone seems to be playing. ____________________________________________________________
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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 14:32:38 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:32:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
 <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place before the JPA ends (in three months!). 
If you want the US not to let go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
> 
> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. 
> The point 
> is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide 
> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place 
> before the 
> JPA ends.
> 
____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Jun  3 14:47:26 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:47:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com> <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A26C53E.6000001@rits.org.br>

Yes, Milton!

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place before the JPA ends (in three months!). 
> If you want the US not to let go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds. 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
>>
>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. 
>> The point 
>> is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide 
>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place 
>> before the 
>> JPA ends.
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Jun  3 14:57:22 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:57:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com> <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A26C792.50803@wzb.eu>

Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides 
another leverage that could be used to get some form of external 
accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that 
one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external 
accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on 
that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an 
extension also won't change my mind.

jeanette

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> 
>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide 
>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>> the JPA ends.
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________ 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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Jun  3 15:22:53 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:22:53 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26C792.50803@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
- but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
express the other side!

Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
about JPA, how does this sit.

The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
lasting viable solution.
 
Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
changes.

Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)

What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
this additional text?




On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
> extension also won't change my mind.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>> 
>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>> the JPA ends.
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ 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


____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Jun  3 15:42:51 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:42:51 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>


One additional add on to my last message - the following text -


Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
process."


So the newly included text would read

The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
lasting viable solution.
  
Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
changes.

Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
an open, transparent and inclusive process.

What do you all think ? In or out?

Ian




On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
> express the other side!
> 
> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
> about JPA, how does this sit.
> 
> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>  
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
> 
> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
> 
> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
> this additional text?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>> extension also won't change my mind.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>> 
>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 16:48:13 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:48:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26C792.50803@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233E6B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0906030832h8eb05a4jb0f228c13fa1809b@mail.gmail.com>
 <4A269878.70500@wzb.eu>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209EB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4A26C792.50803@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B2209F2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 

> The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an 
> extension also won't change my mind.
 
It should. 

Both of you can't get what you want from JPA extensions. 

The idea that the JPA should be retained until no stakeholder has any complaint about ICANN is unrealistic. Realize what kind of a game is being played here. Some of us are dissatisfied with ICANN's accountability and institutional structure; those are legitimate concerns. Others are just unhappy with policy outcomes. The JPA puts them both in the same pot and mixes them up so that they are indistinguishable. You will never get out of that game as long as ICANN is reviewed by the US and makes decisions that are controversial. 




____________________________________________________________
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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 16:50:39 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:20:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906031350x29b1e74i889dca99b4002b2d@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian

I am in, with the suggestion that para 2, "some of us believe this, some
that"  needs to changed something gentle such as "though there isn't an
absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in favor of ending the JPA"

I don't get the impression that there is a pro-JPA opinion in this list. My
inference is that there are some concerns about ICANN's readiness. Such
concerns could be addressed perhaps by the suggestion of a transition
arrangement - an arrangement for an interim period of a year or so, when a
joint oversight team of civil society and ten or twelve governments, perhaps
even a panel of jury together overseeing the transition to ensure that ICANN
would be efficient and fair when fully independant.

There has been enough of extensions.  US Government still hesitates to end
the JPA because “doing so would cause instability in the DNS” . and it may
really be wating for institutional confidence to improve. That is a process
that does not happen overnight, and one can eternally argue that it is not
enough.

There shouldn't be any ambiguity in the IGC statement on whether or not the
JPA should be ended  Lets say that it should be ended. And perhaps suggest a
transition period of a year, with a new transition arrangement, which is
also to be a time bound arrangement.

Para 2 as it is makes the IGC look very weak.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> > I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
> > writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this
> argument
> > - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
> > express the other side!
> >
> > Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the
> only
> > way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to
> say
> > about JPA, how does this sit.
> >
> > The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is
> subject
> > to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> > the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not
> a
> > lasting viable solution.
> >
> > Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> > mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
> on
> > a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
> that
> > a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> > most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> > changes.
> >
> > Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
> >
> > What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
> > this additional text?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
> >> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> >> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
> >> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
> >> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
> >> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
> >> extension also won't change my mind.
> >>
> >> jeanette
> >>
> >> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
> >>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
> >>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
> >>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> >>>>
> >>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
> >>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
> >>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
> >>>> the JPA ends.
> >>>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/6de8b81a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 16:55:17 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:25:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <fecfce260906031350x29b1e74i889dca99b4002b2d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <fecfce260906031350x29b1e74i889dca99b4002b2d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906031355k57016439oc1652b65b5dacd06@mail.gmail.com>

I wish to add:( on US concerns relating to DNS stability)

US Government's concerns are well founded but these concerns are global
concerns not merely American concerns. JPA is American but the Internet
happens to be global.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Ian
>
> I am in, with the suggestion that para 2, "some of us believe this, some
> that"  needs to changed something gentle such as "though there isn't an
> absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in favor of ending the JPA"
>
> I don't get the impression that there is a pro-JPA opinion in this list. My
> inference is that there are some concerns about ICANN's readiness. Such
> concerns could be addressed perhaps by the suggestion of a transition
> arrangement - an arrangement for an interim period of a year or so, when a
> joint oversight team of civil society and ten or twelve governments, perhaps
> even a panel of jury together overseeing the transition to ensure that ICANN
> would be efficient and fair when fully independant.
>
> There has been enough of extensions.  US Government still hesitates to end
> the JPA because “doing so would cause instability in the DNS” . and it may
> really be wating for institutional confidence to improve. That is a process
> that does not happen overnight, and one can eternally argue that it is not
> enough.
>
> There shouldn't be any ambiguity in the IGC statement on whether or not the
> JPA should be ended  Lets say that it should be ended. And perhaps suggest a
> transition period of a year, with a new transition arrangement, which is
> also to be a time bound arrangement.
>
> Para 2 as it is makes the IGC look very weak.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>>
>>
>> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>> it
>> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
>> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
>> process."
>>
>>
>> So the newly included text would read
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
>> Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not
>> a
>> lasting viable solution.
>>
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
>> on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
>> that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>> it
>> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
>> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>>
>> What do you all think ? In or out?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>> > writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this
>> argument
>> > - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>> > express the other side!
>> >
>> > Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the
>> only
>> > way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to
>> say
>> > about JPA, how does this sit.
>> >
>> > The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is
>> subject
>> > to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
>> Therefore,
>> > the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is
>> not a
>> > lasting viable solution.
>> >
>> > Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> > mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
>> on
>> > a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
>> that
>> > a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> > most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> > changes.
>> >
>> > Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>> >
>> > What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>> > this additional text?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract
>> provides
>> >> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>> >> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>> >> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that
>> external
>> >> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>> >> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>> >> extension also won't change my mind.
>> >>
>> >> jeanette
>> >>
>> >> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> >>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>> >>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>> >>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>> >>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>> >>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>> >>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>> >>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>> >>>> the JPA ends.
>> >>>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/44a3b625/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Jun  3 17:03:54 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:03:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>

Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
> 
> 
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
> 
> 
> So the newly included text would read
> 
> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>   
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
> 
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
> 
> What do you all think ? In or out?
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>> express the other side!
>>
>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
>> about JPA, how does this sit.
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>> lasting viable solution.
>>  
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>>
>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>> this additional text?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>>> extension also won't change my mind.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
____________________________________________________________
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


From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Wed Jun  3 17:44:30 2009
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:44:30 -0500
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <61a136f40906031444m5922d64ep530d609d789d4098@mail.gmail.com>

I like this revision.

Carlton Samuels

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> > I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
> > writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this
> argument
> > - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
> > express the other side!
> >
> > Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the
> only
> > way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to
> say
> > about JPA, how does this sit.
> >
> > The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is
> subject
> > to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> > the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not
> a
> > lasting viable solution.
> >
> > Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> > mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
> on
> > a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
> that
> > a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> > most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> > changes.
> >
> > Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
> >
> > What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
> > this additional text?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
> >> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> >> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
> >> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
> >> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
> >> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
> >> extension also won't change my mind.
> >>
> >> jeanette
> >>
> >> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
> >>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
> >>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
> >>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> >>>>
> >>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
> >>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
> >>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
> >>>> the JPA ends.
> >>>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/3c850b2c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 17:46:51 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:46:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64D0AAD.2ACF%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906031446t49dc6903u42901cc682d464af@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>  One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>  framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
>  prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
>  process."
>

that's a deal-breaker for me, sorry. the rest is fine tho.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Jun  3 17:51:37 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:51:37 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the latest version. It has my support.
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments



Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>  
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>> express the other side!
>>
>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
>> about JPA, how does this sit.
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>> lasting viable solution.
>> 
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>>
>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>> this additional text?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>>> extension also won't change my mind.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 23:46:01 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 06:46:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
In-Reply-To: <list-17708561@execdsl.com>
References: <list-17708561@execdsl.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906032046w31de3926l2fd7f796db72da24@mail.gmail.com>

FYI,

more red meat for the IGP blog?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Jun 4, 2009 6:35 AM
Subject: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
To: DNSSEC deployment <dnssec-deployment at shinkuro.com>
Cc:


Both ICANN and NIST are displaying a press release that the U.S. Dept
of Commerce, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to work together to get
the root signed by the end of the year.

Here are the URLs for the ICANN and NIST press releases.

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03jun09-en.htm

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/dnssec_060309.html

The text of the NIST press release is copied below.

Steve



Commerce Department to Work with ICANN and VeriSign to Enhance the
Security and Stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing
System

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 3, 2009

WASHINGTON —The U.S. Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today that the
two agencies are working with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) and VeriSign on an initiative to enhance the
security and stability of the Internet. The parties are working on an
interim approach to deployment, by year’s end, of a security
technology—Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC)—at the
authoritative root zone (i.e., the address book) of the Internet.
There will be further consultations with the Internet technical
community as the testing and implementation plans are developed.

The Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS) is a critical component of
the Internet infrastructure. The DNS associates user-friendly domain
names (e.g., www.commerce.gov) with the numeric network addresses
(e.g., 170.110.225.163) required to deliver information on the
Internet, making the Internet easier for the public to navigate. The
accuracy, integrity, and availability of the data supplied by the DNS
are essential to the operation of any system or service that uses the
Internet. Over the years, vulnerabilities have been identified in the
DNS protocol that threaten the authenticity and integrity of the DNS
data.  Many of these vulnerabilities are mitigated by DNSSEC, which is
a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications for
securing information provided by the DNS.

“The Internet is an ever-increasing means of communications and
commerce, and this success is due in part to the Internet domain name
and addressing system,” said Acting NTIA Administrator Anna M. Gomez.
“The Administration is committed to preserving the stability and
security of the DNS, and today’s announcement supports this
commitment.”

"NIST has been an active participant within the international
community in developing the DNSSEC protocols and has collaborated with
various U.S. agencies in deploying DNSSEC within the .gov domain,"
said Cita M. Furlani, director of NIST's Information Technology
Laboratory. "Signing the root will significantly speed up the global
deployment of DNSSEC and enhance the security of the Internet.”

The NTIA in the U.S. Department of Commerce serves as the executive
branch agency principally responsible for advising the President on
communications and information policies. For more information about
the NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov.

As a non-regulatory agency, NIST promotes U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards
and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
quality of life. For more information visit, www.nist.gov.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Jun  3 23:52:39 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 23:52:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

likewise, fine by me
________________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:51 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the latest version. It has my support.

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments



Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>> express the other side!
>>
>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
>> about JPA, how does this sit.
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>> lasting viable solution.
>>
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>>
>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>> this additional text?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>>> extension also won't change my mind.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 01:06:59 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:36:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906032046w31de3926l2fd7f796db72da24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <list-17708561@execdsl.com> <f65fb55e0906032046w31de3926l2fd7f796db72da24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A275673.3010101@itforchange.net>

Since every lever of security is a lever of control, would definitely 
like an IGP blog, as well as other comments here, on how root signing 
makes rest of world more vulnerable to control by US gov, if at all.
BTW, McTim, you have any views on this? How would your country and your 
people react to this new situation? Parminder

McTim wrote:
> FYI,
>
> more red meat for the IGP blog?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:
> Date: Jun 4, 2009 6:35 AM
> Subject: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
> To: DNSSEC deployment <dnssec-deployment at shinkuro.com>
> Cc:
>
>
> Both ICANN and NIST are displaying a press release that the U.S. Dept
> of Commerce, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to work together to get
> the root signed by the end of the year.
>
> Here are the URLs for the ICANN and NIST press releases.
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03jun09-en.htm
>
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/dnssec_060309.html
>
> The text of the NIST press release is copied below.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> Commerce Department to Work with ICANN and VeriSign to Enhance the
> Security and Stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing
> System
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
> June 3, 2009
>
> WASHINGTON —The U.S. Department of Commerce's National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and National
> Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today that the
> two agencies are working with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers (ICANN) and VeriSign on an initiative to enhance the
> security and stability of the Internet. The parties are working on an
> interim approach to deployment, by year’s end, of a security
> technology—Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC)—at the
> authoritative root zone (i.e., the address book) of the Internet.
> There will be further consultations with the Internet technical
> community as the testing and implementation plans are developed.
>
> The Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS) is a critical component of
> the Internet infrastructure. The DNS associates user-friendly domain
> names (e.g., www.commerce.gov) with the numeric network addresses
> (e.g., 170.110.225.163) required to deliver information on the
> Internet, making the Internet easier for the public to navigate. The
> accuracy, integrity, and availability of the data supplied by the DNS
> are essential to the operation of any system or service that uses the
> Internet. Over the years, vulnerabilities have been identified in the
> DNS protocol that threaten the authenticity and integrity of the DNS
> data.  Many of these vulnerabilities are mitigated by DNSSEC, which is
> a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications for
> securing information provided by the DNS.
>
> “The Internet is an ever-increasing means of communications and
> commerce, and this success is due in part to the Internet domain name
> and addressing system,” said Acting NTIA Administrator Anna M. Gomez.
> “The Administration is committed to preserving the stability and
> security of the DNS, and today’s announcement supports this
> commitment.”
>
> "NIST has been an active participant within the international
> community in developing the DNSSEC protocols and has collaborated with
> various U.S. agencies in deploying DNSSEC within the .gov domain,"
> said Cita M. Furlani, director of NIST's Information Technology
> Laboratory. "Signing the root will significantly speed up the global
> deployment of DNSSEC and enhance the security of the Internet.”
>
> The NTIA in the U.S. Department of Commerce serves as the executive
> branch agency principally responsible for advising the President on
> communications and information policies. For more information about
> the NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov.
>
> As a non-regulatory agency, NIST promotes U.S. innovation and
> industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards
> and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
> quality of life. For more information visit, www.nist.gov.
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/d6c82ad4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 02:14:09 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:44:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>

I can go with the present text. However I will request the 
co-coordinator to give the following serious consideration.

I  feel that the strength of the opinion on this list that 'JPA should 
end' is so high that it is not adequately represented in the phrase 
'Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now.....'

I agree with Sivasubramanian's suggestion that a phrase like

"though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in 
favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to Shiva's 
language)

represents the exchanges on this list much better.

In fact it may even be useful to add a phrase that "those few who have 
reservations on immediate ending of JPA also have it only on technical 
grounds, mindful of possible dangers of creating a vacuum as new 
arrangements are finalized".

This will, in my view, give a clearer picture of IGC's views on JPA.

Parminder


Lee W McKnight wrote:
> likewise, fine by me
> ________________________________________
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:51 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
> I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the latest version. It has my support.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
>
>
> Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
> jeanette
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>   
>> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>>
>>
>> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
>> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
>> process."
>>
>>
>> So the newly included text would read
>>
>> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>> lasting viable solution.
>>
>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>> changes.
>>
>> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
>> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>>
>> What do you all think ? In or out?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
>>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
>>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
>>> express the other side!
>>>
>>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
>>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
>>> about JPA, how does this sit.
>>>
>>> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
>>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
>>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
>>> lasting viable solution.
>>>
>>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
>>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>>>
>>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
>>> this additional text?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
>>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
>>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
>>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
>>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
>>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
>>>> extension also won't change my mind.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>>>>> the JPA ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
>>>>         
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>     
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/83f1ba22/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 02:35:03 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:05:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>

I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that "JPA 
should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.

this language is even clearer and more powerful.





Carlos Afonso wrote:
> Dear Lee,
>
> Lee W McKnight wrote:
> [...]
>   
>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>
>> Lee
>>     
>
>
> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/e87ff2c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jun  4 02:51:30 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 07:51:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu>

Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some reasons, 
you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your position.
I definitely disagree with your version.

Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate in 
this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than those 
speaking up here.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that "JPA 
> should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
> 
> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>> Dear Lee,
>>
>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>> [...]
>>   
>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>     
>>
>>
>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>
>>   
____________________________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 03:00:51 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:30:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>

Jeanette

The remark

"I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that "JPA 
should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "

was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. See 
the emails below.

When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving more 
definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am not 
trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.

As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up here' 
lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's Gurstien's pet 
theme :). You may want to see his emails.

parminder

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some reasons, 
> you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your position.
> I definitely disagree with your version.
>
> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate in 
> this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
> consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than 
> those speaking up here.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>
>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>> Dear Lee,
>>>
>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>  
>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>>
>>>> Lee
>>>>     
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>
>>> frt rgds
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/4016178f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jun  4 03:41:35 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:41:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>

Parminder,

sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails, particularly to:

"though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in 
favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to Shiva's 
language)

represents the exchanges on this list much better.

I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing 
consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.

In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as Wolfgang 
likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right strategy is 
under such circumstances. While we have similar goals, we are all 
guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each other seriously 
so that we can respect when and where we come to different conclusions.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> Jeanette
> 
> The remark
> 
> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that "JPA 
> should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
> 
> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. See 
> the emails below.
> 
> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving more 
> definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am not 
> trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
> 
> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up here' 
> lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's Gurstien's pet 
> theme :). You may want to see his emails.
> 
> parminder
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some reasons, 
>> you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your position.
>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>
>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate in 
>> this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
>> consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than 
>> those speaking up here.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Parminder wrote:
>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>
>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>
>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>  
>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>
>>>> frt rgds
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 04:10:50 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:40:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net> <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>



Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails, particularly to:
>
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is 
> in favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to 
> Shiva's language)
>
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>
> I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing 
> consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
>
> In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as 
> Wolfgang likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right 
> strategy is under such circumstances. While we have similar goals, we 
> are all guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each other 
> seriously so that we can respect when and where we come to different 
> conclusions.
>
> jeanette
>
Jeanette, thanks for clarifying.

I thought your reservations on ending the JPA was only about the vacuum 
it creates, and therefore I proposed a seperate line to take care of 
that consideration. In fact I heard no one on the list object to ending 
of JPA other than on the grounds of this 'technical aspect'. However 
this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is best 
to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for seeking 
extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.

As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is that 
at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views and/or 
action can be even more dangerous. (Having different views is a 
different matter altogether though). Just my view.

parminder


> Parminder wrote:
>> Jeanette
>>
>> The remark
>>
>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>>
>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>> See the emails below.
>>
>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am 
>> not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>>
>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your 
>>> position.
>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
>>> consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than 
>>> those speaking up here.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>
>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>  
>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>>
>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Thu Jun  4 04:13:35 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:13:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net> <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <DBAB2199-DFB2-4B8A-B345-4CB1E65E983D@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

Characterizing one position as majority and another as minority is not  
productive, especially when this has been mostly a discussion among  
just a handful of people.  We don't actually know what the other @ 200  
caucus members believe, and probably lots are as uncertain about the  
tactical merits of alternative time tables as those who have spoken.  
Who knows, there may be people here who'd favor extending the JPA  
without tying that to establishment of an alternative accountability  
framework, and there are undoubtedly people who are for immediate  
ICANN independence with no strings attached (e.g. McTim if I  
understand correctly).  So please let's not get into privileging one  
formulation over another.

Ian, could you resend the complete text with the compromise language  
inserted and the other tweaks suggested?

A related suggestion: before this is sent off to NTIA, how about if we  
see if the members of NCUC can quickly agree to co-sign?  A position  
statement from two CS coalitions, one of them active within ICANN,  
would seem a bit more notable, no?  While there's some overlap between  
the 50 orgs + individuals in NCUC and the IGC membership, I don't  
think that's an problem with respect to simply endorsing a statement...

Bill



On Jun 4, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Parminder,
>
> sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails,  
> particularly to:
>
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion  
> is in favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to  
> Shiva's language)
>
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>
> I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing  
> consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
>
> In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as  
> Wolfgang likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right  
> strategy is under such circumstances. While we have similar goals,  
> we are all guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each  
> other seriously so that we can respect when and where we come to  
> different conclusions.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>> Jeanette
>> The remark
>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that  
>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it.  
>> See the emails below.
>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving  
>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I  
>> am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up  
>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's  
>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>> parminder
>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some  
>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with  
>>> your position.
>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate  
>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much  
>>> more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people  
>>> than those speaking up here.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that  
>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>
>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until  
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe  
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a  
>>>>>> transition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean  
>>>>> we
>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated  
>>>>> guesses on
>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations"  
>>>>> go...
>>>>>
>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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

***********************************************************
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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jun  4 04:24:50 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:24:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net> <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>



Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Parminder,
>>
>> sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails, particularly to:
>>
>> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is 
>> in favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to 
>> Shiva's language)
>>
>> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>>
>> I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing 
>> consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
>>
>> In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as 
>> Wolfgang likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right 
>> strategy is under such circumstances. While we have similar goals, we 
>> are all guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each other 
>> seriously so that we can respect when and where we come to different 
>> conclusions.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
> Jeanette, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> I thought your reservations on ending the JPA was only about the vacuum 
> it creates, 

That is correct, yes.

and therefore I proposed a seperate line to take care of
> that consideration. In fact I heard no one on the list object to ending 
> of JPA other than on the grounds of this 'technical aspect'. 

I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I said 
at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to 
privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or 
accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral control 
and we want to replace it by something more international - some of us 
think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
political point, not a technical one.


However
> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is best 
> to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for seeking 
> extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
> 
> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is that 
> at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views and/or 
> action can be even more dangerous.

But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view, 
should take into account that different positions may reflect the 
openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).

jeanette

  (Having different views is a
> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
>> Parminder wrote:
>>> Jeanette
>>>
>>> The remark
>>>
>>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>>>
>>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>>> See the emails below.
>>>
>>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
>>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am 
>>> not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>>>
>>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
>>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
>>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
>>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your 
>>>> position.
>>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
>>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
>>>> consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than 
>>>> those speaking up here.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>>
>>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Jun  4 04:35:08 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:35:08 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906031446t49dc6903u42901cc682d464af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Mc Tim has made clear he doesnt support this particular paragraphs inclusion
- many others have supported it however. Does anyone else object to this
particular paragraph or have suggested wording changes?


Ian


On 4/06/09 7:46 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/3/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> 
>>  One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>> 
>> 
>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>>  framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
>>  prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
>>  process."
>> 
> 
> that's a deal-breaker for me, sorry. the rest is fine tho.
> 
> 


____________________________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 05:25:31 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:55:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net> <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net> <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net> <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net>


>
>> that consideration. In fact I heard no one on the list object to 
>> ending of JPA other than on the grounds of this 'technical aspect'. 
>
> I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I 
> said at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to 
> privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or 
> accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral 
> control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
> some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
> multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
> political point, not a technical one.

By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's 
immediate termination  have not done so because they per se like the  
JPA  to continue  but because they want other arrangements to be 
finalised before JPA  is terminated.  However, in substance,  everyone  
does want JPA  to  be  terminated. I just want that fact to come out 
strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.

However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.

Parminder


>
>
> However
>> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is 
>> best to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for 
>> seeking extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
>>
>> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
>> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is 
>> that at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views 
>> and/or action can be even more dangerous.
>
> But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view, 
> should take into account that different positions may reflect the 
> openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).
>
> jeanette
>
>  (Having different views is a
>> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>> Jeanette
>>>>
>>>> The remark
>>>>
>>>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>>>>
>>>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>>>> See the emails below.
>>>>
>>>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
>>>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I 
>>>> am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>>>>
>>>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
>>>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
>>>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
>>>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with 
>>>>> your position.
>>>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
>>>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much 
>>>>> more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people 
>>>>> than those speaking up here.
>>>>>
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until 
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a 
>>>>>>>> transition?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated 
>>>>>>> guesses on
>>>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Thu Jun  4 05:31:36 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:01:36 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <f65fb55e0906031446t49dc6903u42901cc682d464af@mail.gmail.com>
	 <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906040231y2d166518nd4021312e384ea26@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ian,


On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Mc Tim has made clear he doesnt support this particular paragraphs
> inclusion
> - many others have supported it however. Does anyone else object to this
> particular paragraph or have suggested wording changes?
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 4/06/09 7:46 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/3/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>  One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
> >>
> >>
> >>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes
> that it
> >>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> >>  framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I
> would
> >>  prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> >>  process."
> >>
> >
> > that's a deal-breaker for me, sorry. the rest is fine tho.
>

I feel that the above paragraph is alright if "irrespective of when the JPA
actually ends, however" and "early 2010" and if is worded as " the IGC
believes that it should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder
accountability framework, the development of which should commence as soon
as possible, in an open, transparent and inclusive process."

This may perhaps be agreeable to all.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


> >
> >
>


>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/f717625e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Thu Jun  4 05:38:42 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:08:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>
	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906040238q20a0ce09y91a9b9453b207804@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Parminder


On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  I can go with the present text. However I will request the co-coordinator
> to give the following serious consideration.
>
> I  feel that the strength of the opinion on this list that 'JPA should end'
> is so high that it is not adequately represented in the phrase 'Some of us
> believe the JPA should be ended now.....'
>
> I agree with Sivasubramanian's suggestion that a phrase like
>
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in
> favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to Shiva's
> language)
>
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>

Thank you. Infact you later suggestion that the wording could be "JPA should
end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. is even better.

>
>
> In fact it may even be useful to add a phrase that "those few who have
> reservations on immediate ending of JPA also have it only on technical
> grounds, mindful of possible dangers of creating a vacuum as new
> arrangements are finalized".
>
> This will, in my view, give a clearer picture of IGC's views on JPA.
>

I have some reservations. This paragraphs points to divisions within the
Caucus that are not yet defined. In any group, the views of the majority are
taken as voted, and once taken what is passed is deemed the views of the
WHOLE group. At that stage we don't say that 80 people voted for, and 20
against. 1) It is not necessary to talk about internal differences in an
opinion that goes out to be published and 2) "possible dangers of creating a
new vacuum as new arrangements are finalized" creates enough of an alarm to
discourage ending of the JPA,. so this statement whether expressed as the
opinion of the group or even as one or two members, is negative.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

>
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> likewise, fine by me
> ________________________________________
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:51 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
> I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the latest version. It has my support.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu <jeanette at wzb.eu>]
> Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>
>
>
> Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
> jeanette
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
>  One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
> express the other side!
>
> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
> about JPA, how does this sit.
>
> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting viable solution.
>
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
> changes.
>
> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
>
> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
> this additional text?
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
> extension also won't change my mind.
>
> jeanette
>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
>  This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu <jeanette at wzb.eu>]
>
> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
> the JPA ends.
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________ 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
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/3438dee8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Jun  4 06:18:33 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:18:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 ,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
	 <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>
	 <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>
	 <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>  <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop>

Dear all

Apologies for being silent on this important discussion. We are working
on an APC submission and want it to be as consistent with the IGF one as
possible.

Our thinking from a strategic point is that yes, we really should
emphasise that there is consensus on the JPA not being an acceptable
arrangement. It is important that that stands out clearly in all (or
most) submissions from civil society.

Then, if there is some nuance or different suggestions as to how and
when the JPA should be terminated, that won't matter so much as it will
not contradict what is a very widely held position on the JPA in
general.

Some thougths on the text below from Jeanette:

> > I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I 
> > said at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to 
> > privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or 
> > accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral 
> > control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
> > some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
> > multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
> > political point, not a technical one.

I think Jeanette has a point. Personally I do think it is risky to have
a situation where one's only recourse is the ICANN board and California
courts. All the language in the NTIA call for comment on the JPA is
about whether the time has come to transfer all the relevant
responsibilities to *private* or *private sector* control. It is based
on the assumption that industry is the primary player and should be
driving the process. The only question that mentions stakeholder
participation is no. 4 which refers, vaguely, to "multi-stakeholder
model" in the text of the 2006 annex to the JPA:

"4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a series
of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA.
Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities set
out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN Board
Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12

Those responsibilities included activities in the following categories:
security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server
security and relationships, TLD management, multi–stakeholder model,
role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and
corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet
each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If
not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served
in these areas?"

Jeanette also says:

> > We want to get rid of unilateral 
> > control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
> > some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
> > multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
> > political point, not a technical one.

Is it naive to think that it could be both? That:

Step 1: an international intergovernmental framework is developed WITH the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, drawing on the ICANN experience

Step 2: governments agree to this framework in the form of a treaty or some other agreement

Step 3: a multi-stakeholder body/process is established to to monitor implementation

Step 4: the arrangement is reviewed every 5 years or so

I think someone, Milton if I remember correctly, mentioned the World Comission on Dams before as an example http://www.dams.org/.

> By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's 
> immediate termination  have not done so because they per se like the  
> JPA  to continue  but because they want other arrangements to be 
> finalised before JPA  is terminated.  However, in substance,  everyone  
> does want JPA  to  be  terminated. I just want that fact to come out 
> strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.

Agree with Parminder on this.

Having read through the inquiry call several times I feel there are
really three primary points we want to get accross:

1) The JPA does need to end and be replaced by an arrangement which is
constituted from the outset as international and that clearly frames the
participation, roles and responsibilities of governments, the private
sector, civil society, and the academic and research community. 

2) The fundamental principle that underpins the JPA has been private
sector leadership and management of DNS etc. We believe this needs to be
reconsidered in the light of the WSIS process and WSIS principles which
governments agreed to, and which have been broadly endorsed by business
and civil society actors. 

We believe that the fundamental principles that underpin the work done
by ICANN, and therefore its structure, should be (1) the public interest
as opposed to the interests of specific private sector entities and (2)
multi-stakeholder participation.

3) ICANN, in spite of the extensive efforts undertaken by ICANN staff
and the ICANN board have not been able to successfully meet several of
the milestones outlined in the JPA annex. Moreover, new difficulties
have emerged in the form of... and here different submissions can
highlight what they feel are most important. 

I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government
reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully
not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the
regulator and the regulated. 

Please note that I am not making these comments as suggestions for
amendments to the IGC submission. I think you have done a very good job
in capturing consensus.

This NTIA inquiry has been a very good thing in forcing us all to have a
serious discussion about the JPA and ICANN. 

Anriette

> 
> However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.
> 
> Parminder

> 
> >
> >
> > However
> >> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is 
> >> best to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for 
> >> seeking extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
> >>
> >> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
> >> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is 
> >> that at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views 
> >> and/or action can be even more dangerous.
> >
> > But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view, 
> > should take into account that different positions may reflect the 
> > openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> >  (Having different views is a
> >> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>> Parminder wrote:
> >>>> Jeanette
> >>>>
> >>>> The remark
> >>>>
> >>>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
> >>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
> >>>>
> >>>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
> >>>> See the emails below.
> >>>>
> >>>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
> >>>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I 
> >>>> am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
> >>>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
> >>>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
> >>>>
> >>>> parminder
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >>>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
> >>>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with 
> >>>>> your position.
> >>>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
> >>>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much 
> >>>>> more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people 
> >>>>> than those speaking up here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jeanette
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Parminder wrote:
> >>>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
> >>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Lee,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
> >>>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
> >>>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until 
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
> >>>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a 
> >>>>>>>> transition?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Lee
> >>>>>>>>     
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
> >>>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated 
> >>>>>>> guesses on
> >>>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> frt rgds
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --c.a.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>   
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jun  4 07:19:09 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:19:09 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>

Yes, even better.

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>,  "governance at lists.cpsr.org"
<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>,  Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:05:03 +0530
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
> "JPA 
> should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
> 
> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > Dear Lee,
> >
> > Lee W McKnight wrote:
> > [...]
> >   
> >> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
> >> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
> >> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until
> that
> >> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
> >> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a
> transition?
> >>
> >> Lee
> >>     
> >
> >
> > I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
> > should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses
> on
> > what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
> >
> > frt rgds
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> >
> >   


____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jun  4 07:18:35 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:18:35 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>
References: <C64D0F5B.2AD7%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4A26E53A.90302@wzb.eu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871910D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4A276631.8020401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200906040818.AA18350628@rits.org.br>

I agree with the text with the modification proposed below by Parm.

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,  Jeanette Hofmann
<jeanette at wzb.eu>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:44:09 +0530
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

> I can go with the present text. However I will request the 
> co-coordinator to give the following serious consideration.
> 
> I  feel that the strength of the opinion on this list that 'JPA
> should 
> end' is so high that it is not adequately represented in the phrase 
> 'Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now.....'
> 
> I agree with Sivasubramanian's suggestion that a phrase like
> 
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is
> in 
> favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to Shiva's 
> language)
> 
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
> 
> In fact it may even be useful to add a phrase that "those few who
> have 
> reservations on immediate ending of JPA also have it only on
> technical 
> grounds, mindful of possible dangers of creating a vacuum as new 
> arrangements are finalized".
> 
> This will, in my view, give a clearer picture of IGC's views on JPA.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> Lee W McKnight wrote:
> > likewise, fine by me
> > ________________________________________
> > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:51 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> > Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> >
> > I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the
> latest version. It has my support.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> > Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
> > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
> > jeanette
> >
> > Ian Peter wrote:
> >   
> >> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
> >>
> >>
> >> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC
> believes that it
> >> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder
> accountability
> >> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010
> (I would
> >> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and
> inclusive
> >> process."
> >>
> >>
> >> So the newly included text would read
> >>
> >> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is
> subject
> >> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> >> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement
> is not a
> >> lasting viable solution.
> >>
> >> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an
> ineffective
> >> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place
> ICANN on
> >> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us
> believe that
> >> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> >> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
> necessary
> >> changes.
> >>
> >> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC
> believes that it
> >> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder
> accountability
> >> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as
> possible in
> >> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
> >>
> >> What do you all think ? In or out?
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>     
> >>> I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as
> well as
> >>> writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of
> this argument
> >>> - but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for
> IGC to
> >>> express the other side!
> >>>
> >>> Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be
> the only
> >>> way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are
> happy to say
> >>> about JPA, how does this sit.
> >>>
> >>> The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN
> is subject
> >>> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.
> Therefore,
> >>> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA
> arrangement is not a
> >>> lasting viable solution.
> >>>
> >>> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an
> ineffective
> >>> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to
> place ICANN on
> >>> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us
> believe that
> >>> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
> >>> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
> necessary
> >>> changes.
> >>>
> >>> Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)
> >>>
> >>> What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or
> without
> >>> this additional text?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract
> provides
> >>>> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> >>>> accountability framework established, I don't see why this
> implies that
> >>>> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that
> external
> >>>> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my
> mind on
> >>>> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for
> an
> >>>> extension also won't change my mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> jeanette
> >>>>
> >>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>>>         
> >>>>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take
> place
> >>>>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not
> to let
> >>>>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place,
> then
> >>>>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>           
> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability.
> The
> >>>>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to
> provide
> >>>>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place
> before
> >>>>>> the JPA ends.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> >>>>         
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>     
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun  4 07:17:22 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:47:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>	 ,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>	 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>	 <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>	 <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>	 <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>  <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net> <1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <4A27AD42.2060006@itforchange.net>

Anriette

Thanks for a very detailed analysis, and as you know I agree with all of 
it.

Just thought will contribute two comments (Ian, this is not necessarily 
to do with the text being considered.)

 >I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government

 >reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully

 >not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the

 >regulator and the regulated.

I agree that this is the principal problem with ICANN. However, such a 
situation is structural with industry-led models, isnt it. It can hardly 
be otherwise. It is for this reason that we should strongly oppose the 
language of 'industry-led' model used in the NTIA questionnaire.

Secondly, as for your very useful presentation of possible steps towards 
alternative arrangements, it is important that we reclaim the 'enhanced 
cooperation' framework for this purpose. That would be the clearly the 
most practical way to go forward. This framework is there, and there is 
an express direction to SG to do something on it, which he has not. It 
is  a bit odd to mention the need for  a process to start etc for an 
external accountability/ oversight framework without invoking the 
enhanced cooperation framework.

parminder




Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Apologies for being silent on this important discussion. We are working
> on an APC submission and want it to be as consistent with the IGF one as
> possible.
>
> Our thinking from a strategic point is that yes, we really should
> emphasise that there is consensus on the JPA not being an acceptable
> arrangement. It is important that that stands out clearly in all (or
> most) submissions from civil society.
>
> Then, if there is some nuance or different suggestions as to how and
> when the JPA should be terminated, that won't matter so much as it will
> not contradict what is a very widely held position on the JPA in
> general.
>
> Some thougths on the text below from Jeanette:
>
>   
>>> I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I 
>>> said at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to 
>>> privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or 
>>> accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral 
>>> control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
>>> some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
>>> multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
>>> political point, not a technical one.
>>>       
>
> I think Jeanette has a point. Personally I do think it is risky to have
> a situation where one's only recourse is the ICANN board and California
> courts. All the language in the NTIA call for comment on the JPA is
> about whether the time has come to transfer all the relevant
> responsibilities to *private* or *private sector* control. It is based
> on the assumption that industry is the primary player and should be
> driving the process. The only question that mentions stakeholder
> participation is no. 4 which refers, vaguely, to "multi-stakeholder
> model" in the text of the 2006 annex to the JPA:
>
> "4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a series
> of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA.
> Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities set
> out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN Board
> Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12
>
> Those responsibilities included activities in the following categories:
> security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server
> security and relationships, TLD management, multi–stakeholder model,
> role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and
> corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet
> each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If
> not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served
> in these areas?"
>
> Jeanette also says:
>
>   
>>> We want to get rid of unilateral 
>>> control and we want to replace it by something more international - 
>>> some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
>>> multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
>>> political point, not a technical one.
>>>       
>
> Is it naive to think that it could be both? That:
>
> Step 1: an international intergovernmental framework is developed WITH the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, drawing on the ICANN experience
>
> Step 2: governments agree to this framework in the form of a treaty or some other agreement
>
> Step 3: a multi-stakeholder body/process is established to to monitor implementation
>
> Step 4: the arrangement is reviewed every 5 years or so
>
> I think someone, Milton if I remember correctly, mentioned the World Comission on Dams before as an example http://www.dams.org/.
>
>   
>> By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's 
>> immediate termination  have not done so because they per se like the  
>> JPA  to continue  but because they want other arrangements to be 
>> finalised before JPA  is terminated.  However, in substance,  everyone  
>> does want JPA  to  be  terminated. I just want that fact to come out 
>> strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.
>>     
>
> Agree with Parminder on this.
>
> Having read through the inquiry call several times I feel there are
> really three primary points we want to get accross:
>
> 1) The JPA does need to end and be replaced by an arrangement which is
> constituted from the outset as international and that clearly frames the
> participation, roles and responsibilities of governments, the private
> sector, civil society, and the academic and research community. 
>
> 2) The fundamental principle that underpins the JPA has been private
> sector leadership and management of DNS etc. We believe this needs to be
> reconsidered in the light of the WSIS process and WSIS principles which
> governments agreed to, and which have been broadly endorsed by business
> and civil society actors. 
>
> We believe that the fundamental principles that underpin the work done
> by ICANN, and therefore its structure, should be (1) the public interest
> as opposed to the interests of specific private sector entities and (2)
> multi-stakeholder participation.
>
> 3) ICANN, in spite of the extensive efforts undertaken by ICANN staff
> and the ICANN board have not been able to successfully meet several of
> the milestones outlined in the JPA annex. Moreover, new difficulties
> have emerged in the form of... and here different submissions can
> highlight what they feel are most important. 
>
> I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government
> reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully
> not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the
> regulator and the regulated. 
>
> Please note that I am not making these comments as suggestions for
> amendments to the IGC submission. I think you have done a very good job
> in capturing consensus.
>
> This NTIA inquiry has been a very good thing in forcing us all to have a
> serious discussion about the JPA and ICANN. 
>
> Anriette
>
>   
>> However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.
>>
>> Parminder
>>     
>
>   
>>> However
>>>       
>>>> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is 
>>>> best to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for 
>>>> seeking extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
>>>>
>>>> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
>>>> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is 
>>>> that at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views 
>>>> and/or action can be even more dangerous.
>>>>         
>>> But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view, 
>>> should take into account that different positions may reflect the 
>>> openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>>  (Having different views is a
>>>       
>>>> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Jeanette
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The remark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>>>>>> See the emails below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
>>>>>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I 
>>>>>> am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
>>>>>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
>>>>>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
>>>>>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with 
>>>>>>> your position.
>>>>>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
>>>>>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much 
>>>>>>> more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people 
>>>>>>> than those speaking up here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until 
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a 
>>>>>>>>>> transition?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>>>                     
>>>>>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>>>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated 
>>>>>>>>> guesses on
>>>>>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090604/220782d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Jun  4 07:26:30 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:26:30 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 <EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
	 <WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906040426t3a98a131l90232c9f0246a270@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/09, carlos a. afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> Yes, even better.

A) if you carry on top posting we won't know what you are referring to.

B) if it's this:

> > I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
>  > "JPA
>  > should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.

Well, that's just bizarre.  "End it, but transition to something else
unspecified with a MoU to another unspecified party"?

Do we not want to be taken seriously?  Seriously!?!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Jun  4 12:31:00 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:31:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <f65fb55e0906031446t49dc6903u42901cc682d464af@mail.gmail.com>
 <C64DC45C.2B23%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220A08@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
> 
> Mc Tim has made clear he doesnt support this particular 
> paragraphs inclusion - many others have supported it however. Does anyone else 
> object to this particular paragraph or have suggested wording changes?
> 

delete the word "multistakeholder" from "global, multistakeholder accountability framework," and move it to the enxt phrase, "development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process." 

"MS accountability framework reinforces" the idea that accountability comes from some organization or group sitting on top of ICANN and second-guessing its decisions. no, that's worse than what we have now. By "accountability framework" I mean legal recourse according to fixed, known rules. 

Whatever IGC does, I won't block consensus, we are filing our own comments anyway.  ____________________________________________________________
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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 13:17:02 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 10:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: 1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop
Message-ID: <sympa.1244135770.92033.172@lists.cpsr.org>

Dear Anriette,

Thank you for posting something well written and which is a well thought-out
consideration of the situation.

My question too You concern the Adjudication of matter(s) arrising from ICANN's
action in a Post-JPA world.

Where do you think the Adjudictional Authority be established with respect to
ICANN, IF: ...

1# ICANN vest it's power to Self-Adjudicates?
2# ICANN is subject to a Convention of Multi-National Governments?
3# ICANN is barred for any Self-Adjudication?
and
4# Within which Body(ies) will the Adjudication lye in fore mentioned
situations, when Legal Actions need to be takes within ICANN and upon ICANN?

Kind regards

--

Provided here is a short historical summary of the underwritten root of the
situation or root of the problem, depending on ones perspective.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf

yehuda
____________________________________________________________
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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Jun  4 13:40:00 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:40:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br>
 <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>,<WorldClient-F200906040819.AA19090629@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Me too, even better, that's a clean short sentence....which we might all agree on? 
________________________________________
From: carlos a. afonso [ca at rits.org.br]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:19 AM
To: Parminder
Cc: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; William  Drake; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Yes, even better.

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>,  "governance at lists.cpsr.org"
<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>,  Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:05:03 +0530
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
> "JPA
> should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>
> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>
>
>
>
>
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > Dear Lee,
> >
> > Lee W McKnight wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
> >> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
> >> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until
> that
> >> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
> >> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a
> transition?
> >>
> >> Lee
> >>
> >
> >
> > I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
> > should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses
> on
> > what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
> >
> > frt rgds
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> >
> >


____________________________________________________________
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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Jun  4 13:51:25 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:51:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <4A27AD42.2060006@itforchange.net>
References: <C64C957B.2A73%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <4A26637C.2010909@rits.org.br>
	 ,<EBE6641C-15A4-4289-AC2D-53DD0A447E8E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4A26988A.9070004@rits.org.br> <4A276B17.7060704@itforchange.net>
	 <4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu> <4A277123.7020507@itforchange.net>
	 <4A277AAF.2070201@wzb.eu> <4A27818A.1000601@itforchange.net>
	 <4A2784D2.7060906@wzb.eu>  <4A27930B.9070907@itforchange.net>
 <1244110713.4746.103.camel@anriette-laptop>,<4A27AD42.2060006@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder, Anriette,

This opens a longer discussion, beyond final tweaking of statement, but (in my opinion):

1) IGF is/will be the forum for enhanced cooperation, following wsis - I believe the Brazilian government has made  a statement along these lines not long ago.  I agree.

Benefit: since IGF already exists, we don;t need to invent it.   

2) IGF is already the (nascent) forum helping channel feedback from the interested multistakeholder community to ICANN.

Our objective is to eventually get govts & biz comfortable with 1 + 2, since I think cs already feels (reasonably) comfortable that its voices can be heard at IGF. 

It may well take the various steps Anriette outlined to get there, but at least (in my opinion) we know where  we are going....to Egypt! ; )

Lee
________________________________________
From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:17 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Anriette

Thanks for a very detailed analysis, and as you know I agree with all of it.

Just thought will contribute two comments (Ian, this is not necessarily to do with the text being considered.)

>I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government

>reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully

>not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the

>regulator and the regulated.

I agree that this is the principal problem with ICANN. However, such a situation is structural with industry-led models, isnt it. It can hardly be otherwise. It is for this reason that we should strongly oppose the language of 'industry-led' model used in the NTIA questionnaire.

Secondly, as for your very useful presentation of possible steps towards alternative arrangements, it is important that we reclaim the 'enhanced cooperation' framework for this purpose. That would be the clearly the most practical way to go forward. This framework is there, and there is an express direction to SG to do something on it, which he has not. It is  a bit odd to mention the need for  a process to start etc for an external accountability/ oversight framework without invoking the enhanced cooperation framework.

parminder




Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

Dear all

Apologies for being silent on this important discussion. We are working
on an APC submission and want it to be as consistent with the IGF one as
possible.

Our thinking from a strategic point is that yes, we really should
emphasise that there is consensus on the JPA not being an acceptable
arrangement. It is important that that stands out clearly in all (or
most) submissions from civil society.

Then, if there is some nuance or different suggestions as to how and
when the JPA should be terminated, that won't matter so much as it will
not contradict what is a very widely held position on the JPA in
general.

Some thougths on the text below from Jeanette:



I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I
said at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to
privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or
accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral
control and we want to replace it by something more international -
some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a
multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently
political point, not a technical one.



I think Jeanette has a point. Personally I do think it is risky to have
a situation where one's only recourse is the ICANN board and California
courts. All the language in the NTIA call for comment on the JPA is
about whether the time has come to transfer all the relevant
responsibilities to *private* or *private sector* control. It is based
on the assumption that industry is the primary player and should be
driving the process. The only question that mentions stakeholder
participation is no. 4 which refers, vaguely, to "multi-stakeholder
model" in the text of the 2006 annex to the JPA:

"4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a series
of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA.
Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities set
out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN Board
Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12

Those responsibilities included activities in the following categories:
security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server
security and relationships, TLD management, multi–stakeholder model,
role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and
corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet
each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If
not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served
in these areas?"

Jeanette also says:



We want to get rid of unilateral
control and we want to replace it by something more international -
some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a
multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently
political point, not a technical one.



Is it naive to think that it could be both? That:

Step 1: an international intergovernmental framework is developed WITH the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, drawing on the ICANN experience

Step 2: governments agree to this framework in the form of a treaty or some other agreement

Step 3: a multi-stakeholder body/process is established to to monitor implementation

Step 4: the arrangement is reviewed every 5 years or so

I think someone, Milton if I remember correctly, mentioned the World Comission on Dams before as an example http://www.dams.org/.



By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's
immediate termination  have not done so because they per se like the
JPA  to continue  but because they want other arrangements to be
finalised before JPA  is terminated.  However, in substance,  everyone
does want JPA  to  be  terminated. I just want that fact to come out
strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.



Agree with Parminder on this.

Having read through the inquiry call several times I feel there are
really three primary points we want to get accross:

1) The JPA does need to end and be replaced by an arrangement which is
constituted from the outset as international and that clearly frames the
participation, roles and responsibilities of governments, the private
sector, civil society, and the academic and research community.

2) The fundamental principle that underpins the JPA has been private
sector leadership and management of DNS etc. We believe this needs to be
reconsidered in the light of the WSIS process and WSIS principles which
governments agreed to, and which have been broadly endorsed by business
and civil society actors.

We believe that the fundamental principles that underpin the work done
by ICANN, and therefore its structure, should be (1) the public interest
as opposed to the interests of specific private sector entities and (2)
multi-stakeholder participation.

3) ICANN, in spite of the extensive efforts undertaken by ICANN staff
and the ICANN board have not been able to successfully meet several of
the milestones outlined in the JPA annex. Moreover, new difficulties
have emerged in the form of... and here different submissions can
highlight what they feel are most important.

I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government
reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully
not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the
regulator and the regulated.

Please note that I am not making these comments as suggestions for
amendments to the IGC submission. I think you have done a very good job
in capturing consensus.

This NTIA inquiry has been a very good thing in forcing us all to have a
serious discussion about the JPA and ICANN.

Anriette



However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.

Parminder






However


this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is
best to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for
seeking extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.

As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial
difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is
that at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views
and/or action can be even more dangerous.


But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view,
should take into account that different positions may reflect the
openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).

jeanette

 (Having different views is a


different matter altogether though). Just my view.

parminder




Parminder wrote:


Jeanette

The remark

"I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
"JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "

was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it.
See the emails below.

When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving
more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I
am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.

As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up
here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's
Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.

parminder

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:


Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some
reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with
your position.
I definitely disagree with your version.

Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate
in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much
more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people
than those speaking up here.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:


I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that
"JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.

this language is even clearer and more powerful.





Carlos Afonso wrote:


Dear Lee,

Lee W McKnight wrote:
[...]



Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
participation in a transition process, with of course USG
noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until
that
end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a
transition?

Lee




I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
should not express our position (with the obvious educated
guesses on
what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...

frt rgds

--c.a.





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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 16:11:09 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 13:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
Message-ID: <sympa.1244144776.92033.46@lists.cpsr.org>

This is Milt Blitzer reporting directly from inside the Green-Belt Room!

Hot-off-the-Press: Twomey recommends extending the JPA
http://www.icann.org/presentations/twomey-to-house-subcommittee-communications-technology-internet-04jun09-en.pdf


Thnx Evan
Ref:
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009/000604.html

[ALAC] Twomey testimony to US Congress on JPA and new gTLDs
Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org 
Thu Jun 4 15:08:08 EDT 2009 

----------------------------------------------------------

Interesting reading...

http://www.icann.org/presentations/twomey-to-house-subcommittee-communications-technology-internet-04jun09-en.pdf

Other testimonies before the committee are available at
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74

- Evan

--

Ian, 
I rest my Case [yehuda vs the rest of this list], for extension of the JPA.
Your all good sports, we just need to focus on the mechanisms of nuts & bolts
that make, whats working now ... work (Internationally)

In a Post-JPA environment, who will take over the NTIA's roll, the (US) State
Department's roll, the Judicial roll, the Commerce Department's roll, in an
International manner.

That's why I posted the attachment to:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf
It maps out the rolls (nuts & bolts) required to run the Internet now.

-

I'm just an old Man,
:-) smile, don't take the world so seriously.
____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Jun  4 16:38:05 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:38:05 +0300
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1244144776.92033.46@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1244144776.92033.46@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906041338x796d0ec7v58d04a1215824f2f@mail.gmail.com>

If you actually read the doc, he doesn't at all!

On 6/4/09, Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com> wrote:
> This is Milt Blitzer reporting directly from inside the Green-Belt Room!
>
>  Hot-off-the-Press: Twomey recommends extending the JPA
>  http://www.icann.org/presentations/twomey-to-house-subcommittee-communications-technology-internet-04jun09-en.pdf

"It is now time to end the 11 years of temporary MOUs and tentative
acceptance of this
model. In fact it is a unique time to show that the model within which
stakeholders can
address issues is the right one – and there are not other models, this
is the one and it is
designed to continuously improve."


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Thu Jun  4 16:45:07 2009
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:45:07 -0700
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906041338x796d0ec7v58d04a1215824f2f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <sympa.1244144776.92033.46@lists.cpsr.org> <f65fb55e0906041338x796d0ec7v58d04a1215824f2f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF695E91-FD6F-471E-B1AB-D4881E09789C@internet.law.pro>

My reading of the Twomey testimony (and I haven't yet listened to the  
audio), is:

1. He asks for the U.S. to *end* the Joint Project Agreement, by which  
ICANN and the U.S. set ICANN's agenda and policy priorities; but

2. The U.S. should take some comfort in doing 1. because it still has  
the IANA contract by which it will be able to exercise oversight  
authority.

This makes sense as a next step, and I fully support it!

      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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 17:36:21 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 14:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: CF695E91-FD6F-471E-B1AB-D4881E09789C@internet.law.pro
Message-ID: <sympa.1244151116.92586.871@lists.cpsr.org>

Bret,

My interpretation of Twomey's view is, We will extend it in essence without the
"agreement", in other word, at this point in time stay-the-course and submiss
the IANA function to the USG.

So he proposes a 'Gentlemen's Agreement' that things won't change for now (in
the Post-JPA atmosphere).

-
Ref.:
http://www.icann.org/presentations/twomey-to-house-subcommittee-communications-technology-internet-04jun09-en.pdf

Ibid., 3
...
Somehow overtime the language of the JPA has become the language of separation:
“ICANN is leaving home”; “ICANN is seeking independence”; “ICANN
wants to become less accountable”. That language is wrong and has confused
the understanding of what the JPA is and what conclusion means. ICANN is not
seeking independence; we have been independent since 1999. ICANN is not leaving
home. The United States will always be our corporate headquarters.
ICANN is not seeking less accountability. We are actively seeking more. ...

-

Ibid., 6-7
...
Enshrining What Works Whilst the JPA is not an oversight mechanism, what JPA
conclusion could and should signal is in fact permanence and entrenchment of
the good work done in building this successful model. As an organization with
international stakeholders we know that to extend JPA would be greeted with
concern. It galvanizes other governments and government institutions to demand
an additional role too. After 11 years of ‘testing’, renewing or extending
JPA – the possibility of another “temporary” agreement (the 8th in a row)
causes those with an interest to ‘model shop’ as they wait for some further
period for the original model to be confirmed. It is now time to end the 11
years of temporary MOUs and tentative acceptance of this model. In fact it is a
unique time to show that the model within which stakeholders can address issues
is the right one – and there are not other models, this is the one and it is
designed to continuously improve. The better route is to enshrine the
fundamental principles that have served all stakeholders so well as ICANN’s
permanent charter going forward.

ICANN will always:
Retain a narrow mission; Remain based in the US; Remain a not for profit;
Remain an independent organization; Remain private sector, multi stakeholder
led; Ensure the role of Governments in the ICANN model through the Governmental
Advisory Committee; Remain committed to continuous improvement. IANA Contract
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is what affords ICANN the
responsibility for the global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing, and
other Internet protocol resources. The IANA contract is held by the Department
of Commerce. When the JPA concludes in September, the U.S. Government role will
and must continue through IANA contract for the organization’s own legitimacy
and purpose. And being a California based company ensures ICANN is subject to
Congressional oversight and US legal process. Like any contract, ICANN must
perform the function with excellence. The United States Government and the
Congress will always hold oversight hearings and reach out to the business
community, with or without any temporary agreements. ...____________________________________________________________
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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 17:40:11 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 14:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: f65fb55e0906041338x796d0ec7v58d04a1215824f2f@mail.gmail.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1244151463.92033.869@lists.cpsr.org>

McTim,

I didn't read it that way,  My interpretation is that he would intend that
things be 'Status-Quo', minus the Pulp.

> ... and there are not other models, this
is the one and it is designed to continuously improve." ...
____________________________________________________________
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


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Thu Jun  4 17:43:59 2009
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:43:59 -0700
Subject: [governance] Twomey recommends extending the JPA
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1244151463.92033.869@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1244151463.92033.869@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <B78F5D4A-CD79-4F40-9277-13AE63A68FD8@internet.law.pro>

> My interpretation is that he would intend that
> things be 'Status-Quo', minus the Pulp.

Then I think we are probably in agreement on what he said, but I think  
the "Pulp Free ICANN" would be an incremental step in the right  
direction. :-)

         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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Jun  4 18:54:10 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:54:10 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1244135770.92033.172@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <C64E8DB2.2B7D%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Folks, I am about to post under a separate heading a new draft of this

But firstly I want to acknowledge the driving will to reach a consensus here
which has been evident in so many postings. That is good news and bides well
for our future. Lets also realise how difficult this subject is.

But I note that many people, as well as myself having read the comments
received, remain uncomfortable about the additional text I proposed
yesterday. So before going to a draft let me comment on why I personally
think it should be left out.

Firstly, as we are divided on JPA continuation, I am a little uncomfortable
about including text relating to this. Others clearly are as well, wanting
to change the balance with phrases such as "most of us" and "some of us"
etc. Bill rightly points out how counterproductive it would be to try and
present minority and majority opinions here. So to proceed with an area of
text that makes few people happy and is actually weakening our stance  just
for the sake of consensus does not appeal to me greatly. Milton makes this
point strongly.

I also have some problems with the text

>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>>  framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible, in
an open, transparent and inclusive
>>  process

Firstly, "replacement" tends to suggest external oversight, which we don't
all agree with. Secondly "new" suggests the current model should be
abandoned, rather than strengthened or built on. "development of a new
model" has similar connotations. So I am going to personally suggest this
text be left out.

So to test the wind here - under separate heading I will present a draft
with the additional later text bracketed, and call for either "yes with
bracketed text" or "yes without bracketed text". That will allow us to
decide which version to put up for the final call (something we need to do
within 24 hours) 

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Jun  4 19:04:48 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:04:48 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
Message-ID: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented for
consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of bracketed
text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, please indicate
your preference of versions with either of the following

YES without bracketed text

Or

YES with bracketed text


If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose
consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.

Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.

Thanks,

Ian Peter

The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
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 www.igcaucus.org.
 
We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
respectfully submit as  follows.
In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
security. 

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation. 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. 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:
 
·      bottom up co-ordination

 
·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
interests and Internet users

 
·      ensuring the stability of the Internet

 
·      transparency

 
·      appropriate accountability mechanisms

 
·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent

 
·      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
management, 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 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.   


BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS ­ PLEASE INDICATE ³YES² OR ³NO² TO ITS INCLUSION IN
YOUR RESPONSE


[On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
viable solution.
 Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
transparent and inclusive process.]






 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090605/b0e6cfab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Jun  4 19:18:22 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:48:22 -0430
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A28563E.4020900@gmail.com>

Yes without bracketed text.

Thanks to all of you for your excellent discussion. Great job of 
moderating, Ian!
Best, ginger

Ian Peter wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented 
> for consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of 
> bracketed text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, 
> please indicate your preference of versions with either of the following
>
> YES without bracketed text
>
> Or
>
> YES with bracketed text
>
>
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose 
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Peter
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
> and respectfully submit as follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s 
> operation. 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. 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:
>
> · bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> · balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society 
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> · ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> · transparency
>
>
> · appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> · continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> · decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
> multistakeholder management, 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 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.
>
>
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS – PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” TO ITS 
> INCLUSION IN YOUR RESPONSE
>
>
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly 
> believes that 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, that ICANN is subject 
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. 
> Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA 
> arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.
> Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an 
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved 
> to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, 
> some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be 
> the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board 
> necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes 
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, 
> the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an 
> open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Jun  4 19:59:51 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:59:51 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64E8DB2.2B7D%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C64E9D17.2B8C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Before I am accused of being misleading with my comments in the previous
message -

I should make clear that Bill Drake is, to my knowledge, supportive of the
bracketed text as it stands. His comments related to suggested changes to
the text that would indicate more of us oppose the JPA extension than
support it. I certainly don't mean to imply in my message that Bill (or
Milton) have indicated opposition to inclusion of the bracketed text. They
are both more than capable of stating their own opinions on this!

Ian Peter




On 5/06/09 8:54 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Folks, I am about to post under a separate heading a new draft of this
> 
> But firstly I want to acknowledge the driving will to reach a consensus here
> which has been evident in so many postings. That is good news and bides well
> for our future. Lets also realise how difficult this subject is.
> 
> But I note that many people, as well as myself having read the comments
> received, remain uncomfortable about the additional text I proposed
> yesterday. So before going to a draft let me comment on why I personally
> think it should be left out.
> 
> Firstly, as we are divided on JPA continuation, I am a little uncomfortable
> about including text relating to this. Others clearly are as well, wanting
> to change the balance with phrases such as "most of us" and "some of us"
> etc. Bill rightly points out how counterproductive it would be to try and
> present minority and majority opinions here. So to proceed with an area of
> text that makes few people happy and is actually weakening our stance  just
> for the sake of consensus does not appeal to me greatly. Milton makes this
> point strongly.
> 
> I also have some problems with the text
> 
>>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>>> it
>>>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>>>  framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible, in
> an open, transparent and inclusive
>>>  process
> 
> Firstly, "replacement" tends to suggest external oversight, which we don't
> all agree with. Secondly "new" suggests the current model should be
> abandoned, rather than strengthened or built on. "development of a new
> model" has similar connotations. So I am going to personally suggest this
> text be left out.
> 
> So to test the wind here - under separate heading I will present a draft
> with the additional later text bracketed, and call for either "yes with
> bracketed text" or "yes without bracketed text". That will allow us to
> decide which version to put up for the final call (something we need to do
> within 24 hours) 
> 
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun  4 21:47:39 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2009 18:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1244166360.92586.153@lists.cpsr.org>

YES with bracketed text

Thnx Ian
____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Jun  4 22:01:28 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:01:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [lacnog] Fwd: Root Signing announcement]
Message-ID: <4A287C78.1010609@rits.org.br>



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [lacnog] Fwd: Root Signing announcement
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:49:42 -0500
From: Francisco Arias <francisco at arias.com.mx>
Reply-To: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group 
<lacnog at lacnic.net>
To: lacnog at lacnic.net
References: <list-17708561 at execdsl.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
Date: 2009/6/3
Subject: [dnssec-deployment] Root Signing announcement
To: DNSSEC deployment <dnssec-deployment at shinkuro.com>
Cc: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>


Both ICANN and NIST are displaying a press release that the U.S. Dept
of Commerce, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to work together to get
the root signed by the end of the year.

Here are the URLs for the ICANN and NIST press releases.

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03jun09-en.htm

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/dnssec_060309.html

The text of the NIST press release is copied below.

Steve



Commerce Department to Work with ICANN and VeriSign to Enhance the
Security and Stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing
System

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 3, 2009

WASHINGTON —The U.S. Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today that the
two agencies are working with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) and VeriSign on an initiative to enhance the
security and stability of the Internet. The parties are working on an
interim approach to deployment, by year’s end, of a security
technology—Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC)—at the
authoritative root zone (i.e., the address book) of the Internet.
There will be further consultations with the Internet technical
community as the testing and implementation plans are developed.

The Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS) is a critical component of
the Internet infrastructure. The DNS associates user-friendly domain
names (e.g., www.commerce.gov) with the numeric network addresses
(e.g., 170.110.225.163) required to deliver information on the
Internet, making the Internet easier for the public to navigate. The
accuracy, integrity, and availability of the data supplied by the DNS
are essential to the operation of any system or service that uses the
Internet. Over the years, vulnerabilities have been identified in the
DNS protocol that threaten the authenticity and integrity of the DNS
data.  Many of these vulnerabilities are mitigated by DNSSEC, which is
a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications for
securing information provided by the DNS.

“The Internet is an ever-increasing means of communications and
commerce, and this success is due in part to the Internet domain name
and addressing system,” said Acting NTIA Administrator Anna M. Gomez.
“The Administration is committed to preserving the stability and
security of the DNS, and today’s announcement supports this
commitment.”

"NIST has been an active participant within the international
community in developing the DNSSEC protocols and has collaborated with
various U.S. agencies in deploying DNSSEC within the .gov domain,"
said Cita M. Furlani, director of NIST's Information Technology
Laboratory. "Signing the root will significantly speed up the global
deployment of DNSSEC and enhance the security of the Internet.”

The NTIA in the U.S. Department of Commerce serves as the executive
branch agency principally responsible for advising the President on
communications and information policies. For more information about
the NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov.

As a non-regulatory agency, NIST promotes U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards
and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
quality of life. For more information visit, www.nist.gov.
_______________________________________________
LACNOG mailing list
LACNOG at lacnic.net
https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog



____________________________________________________________
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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Jun  4 22:53:48 2009
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:53:48 +0800
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>

YES with bracketed text

--  
JEREMY MALCOLM
Project Coordinator
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East	

Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
www.consumersinternational.org

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global  
campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in  
115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer  
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more  
information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.

____________________________________________________________
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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Jun  4 23:08:07 2009
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:08:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>,<C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Yes with bracketed text. 

And for political correctness, add 'the US Dept of Commerce's natl Telecom (spell out full name) administration, JPA (spell out) with....' at the appropriate spot, instead of the short form. Since we want to be polite.
________________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:53 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text

YES with bracketed text

--
JEREMY MALCOLM
Project Coordinator
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East

Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
www.consumersinternational.org

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global
campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in
115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more
information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.

____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 00:28:21 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:28:21 +0300
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906042128x296fef2dw4e5f4d31717b8a3c@mail.gmail.com>

YES without bracketed text, will not oppose consensus...

--
McTim

On 6/5/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>  The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented for
> consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of bracketed
> text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, please indicate
> your preference of versions with either of the following
>
>  YES without bracketed text
>
>  Or
>
>  YES with bracketed text
>
>
>  If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
>  Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
>  Thanks,
>
____________________________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jun  5 01:40:39 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:10:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A28AFD7.1000706@itforchange.net>

Yes, with the bracketed part.

I understand that if that if the bracketed part is carried, it will come 
in its original place in the text, immediately preceding ' Irrespective 
of whether the JPA continues or not...."

Thanks for a great work on this Ian.

Parminder

Ian Peter wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented 
> for consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of 
> bracketed text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, 
> please indicate your preference of versions with either of the following
>
> YES without bracketed text
>
> Or
>
> YES with bracketed text
>
>
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose 
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Peter
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>  
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN's 
> operation. 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. 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:
>  
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
> society interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
> multistakeholder management, 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 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.   
>
>
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS -- PLEASE INDICATE "YES" OR "NO" TO ITS 
> INCLUSION IN YOUR RESPONSE
>
>
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly 
> believes that 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, that ICANN is subject 
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. 
> Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA 
> arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an 
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved 
> to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, 
> some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be 
> the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board 
> necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes 
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, 
> the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an 
> open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090605/33247a8f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Jun  5 02:57:52 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:57:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
In-Reply-To: <C64E9D17.2B8C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9D17.2B8C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <822C33EA-7905-4EE2-B209-50DE0024789D@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

On Jun 5, 2009, at 1:59 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Before I am accused of being misleading with my comments in the  
> previous
> message -

???  No worries.

>>
>> Firstly, as we are divided on JPA continuation, I am a little  
>> uncomfortable
>> about including text relating to this.

I don't actually think we're so divided.  Some of us just think it'd  
be better to tie ending to establishment of an external accountability  
framework (rules, not oversight), that the prospects for successful  
conclusion of such a thing become even more remote after a period of  
independent operation, and that this may further agitate things in  
certain intergovernmental circles.  It's a tactical and timing  
question rather than a matter of principle, and nobody's going to hari  
kari, especially if there's language reflecting the variation.  So  
let's focus on what unites rather than divides us (sorry to sound like  
Obama).

Anyway, yes with bracketed text.

Thanks for the good process management, Ian.

Bill
  
____________________________________________________________
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


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Fri Jun  5 03:14:29 2009
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:14:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [Fwd: [lacnog] Fwd: Root Signing announcement]
In-Reply-To: <4A287C78.1010609@rits.org.br>
References: <4A287C78.1010609@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <20090605071429.GA23969@nic.fr>

> Both ICANN and NIST are displaying a press release that the
> U.S. Dept of Commerce, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to work
> together

A more realistic (but less diplomatic) summary would be "The US
governement, world ruler of the DNS, decided that Verisign will sign
the root and that ICANN will be allowed to watch."
____________________________________________________________
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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Jun  5 03:21:15 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:21:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A28C76B.9090101@wzb.eu>

Hi, yes with bracketed text

and thanks from me as well for all your work and your good moderation.

jeanette

Ian Peter wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented 
> for consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of 
> bracketed text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, 
> please indicate your preference of versions with either of the following
> 
> YES without bracketed text
> 
> Or
> 
> YES with bracketed text
> 
> 
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose 
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
> 
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>  
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva 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.
> 
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s 
> operation. 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. 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:
>  
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
> 
> 
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
> society interests and Internet users
> 
> 
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
> 
> 
> ·      transparency
> 
> 
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
> 
> 
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
> 
> 
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
> 
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
> multistakeholder management, 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 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.   
> 
> 
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS – PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” TO ITS INCLUSION 
> IN YOUR RESPONSE
> 
> 
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly 
> believes that 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, that ICANN is subject to due 
> process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, 
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is 
> not a lasting viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective 
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN 
> on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us 
> believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most 
> effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes 
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the 
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, 
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
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


From anriette at apc.org  Fri Jun  5 05:52:46 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:52:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 ,<C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <1244195566.4026.333.camel@anriette-laptop>

Yes with bracketed text.

Well done, Ian, and everyone who contributed so constructively.

Anriette

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

____________________________________________________________
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


From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Jun  5 05:55:54 2009
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:55:54 -0300
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>,<C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A28EBAA.5020102@rits.org.br>

Yes with bracketed text. I second Lee's suggestion and would revise the
text to include the full meaning of all acroyms when they are first
mentioned in the text, like WSIS (which is mentioned at the beginning
and expanded later on etc).

frt rgds

--c.a.

Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Yes with bracketed text.
> 
> And for political correctness, add 'the US Dept of Commerce's natl
> Telecom (spell out full name) administration, JPA (spell out)
> with....' at the appropriate spot, instead of the short form. Since
> we want to be polite. ________________________________________ From:
> Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009
> 10:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re:
> [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
> 
> YES with bracketed text
> 
> -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL
> OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> 
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726
> 8599 www.consumersinternational.org
> 
> Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global 
> campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer 
> movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more 
> information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ 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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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


From guru at itforchange.net  Fri Jun  5 06:32:20 2009
From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:02:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4A28F434.60308@itforchange.net>

Yes with bracketed text.

thanks
Guru


Ian Peter wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented 
> for consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of 
> bracketed text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, 
> please indicate your preference of versions with either of the following
> 
> YES without bracketed text
> 
> Or
> 
> YES with bracketed text
> 
> 
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose 
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
> 
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>  
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, 
> and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS 
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
> according to the Geneva 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.
> 
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that 
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s 
> operation. 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. 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:
>  
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
> 
> 
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil 
> society interests and Internet users
> 
> 
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
> 
> 
> ·      transparency
> 
> 
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
> 
> 
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance 
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
> 
> 
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
> 
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with 
> multistakeholder management, 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 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.   
> 
> 
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS – PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” TO ITS INCLUSION 
> IN YOUR RESPONSE
> 
> 
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly 
> believes that 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, that ICANN is subject to due 
> process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, 
> the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is 
> not a lasting viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective 
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN 
> on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us 
> believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most 
> effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes 
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the 
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, 
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel:98454 37730
www.ITforChange.net
http://Public-Software.in
http://India.IS-Watch.net
http://IS-Watch.net
http://content-commons.in
*IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United
Nations’ Economic and Social Council*

____________________________________________________________
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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 07:35:30 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:35:30 +0500
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906050435g65265003t96ba66cc457174ec@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ian and all,

Yes with the bracketed text. I back IGC's proposal to replace "private
sector management" with multistakeholder management and effective
internet governance  arrangement.

Then, I would also like everyone to go through Vint Cerf's letter to
the ICANN before submission of this text:
https://quick-proxy.appspot.com/tr.im/nrbL

It should be noted that even Vint Cerf calls for abandoning the idea
of JPA extension. He states that the JPA should be considered only as
a test phase process. He further says that ICANN be multistakeholder
led but at the same wants independent and private sector operated
organization (that I would personally oppose and the IGC collectively
does too). That test phase has clearly demonstrated that the
coordination of the Internet’s unique identifiers is best done by an
organization that is and always should be:
- Multi-stakeholder led;
- Independent and private sector operated;
- Continually seeking more accountability;
- A not for profit corporation
- Committed to the performance of a narrow but critical technical function



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa


On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented for
> consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of bracketed
> text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, please indicate
> your preference of versions with either of the following
>
> YES without bracketed text
>
> Or
>
> YES with bracketed text
>
>
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Peter
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
>  respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. 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. 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:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
> management, 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 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.
>
>
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS – PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” TO ITS INCLUSION IN
> YOUR RESPONSE
>
>
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
> of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
> transparent and inclusive process.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg  Fri Jun  5 07:40:28 2009
From: iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg (Iliya Bazlyankov)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:40:28 +0300 (EEST)
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <62115.78.130.152.141.1244202028.squirrel@regia.bg>

Hi,

YES with bracketed text.

Regards,
Iliya

> The following draft (or next version of it) will need to be presented for
> consensus within 24 hours. It includes toward the end an area of bracketed
> text. To assist with resolving the main remaining issue, please indicate
> your preference of versions with either of the following
>
> YES without bracketed text
>
> Or
>
> YES with bracketed text
>
>
> If the inclusion of bracketed text would actually lead you to oppose
> consensus on the final statement, please indicate that as well.
>
> Your response will help to determine which draft we will proceed with.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Peter
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN, and
> respectfully submit as  follows.
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> Information SocietyІ. We also recognise the need for high levels of global
> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> security.
>
> Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN№s operation. 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. 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:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> multistakeholder
> management, 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 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.
>
>
> BRACKETED TEXT FOLLOWS ­ PLEASE INDICATE іYESІ OR іNOІ TO ITS INCLUSION IN
> YOUR RESPONSE
>
>
> [On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly
> believes
> that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting
> viable solution.
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
> on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
> that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> development
> of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
> transparent and inclusive process.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


____________________________________________________________
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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 07:51:49 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:21:49 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest
 version (McTim's changes)
Message-ID: <4A2906D5.2040106@gmail.com>

Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.

More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation.

____________________________________________________________
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


From wcurrie at apc.org  Fri Jun  5 08:43:54 2009
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:43:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <1244195566.4026.333.camel@anriette-laptop>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <1244195566.4026.333.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <4A29130A.1040504@apc.org>

Yes, with bracketed text.

Thanks for your patient coordination on this one, Ian.

Willie
>   

____________________________________________________________
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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Jun  5 08:46:56 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:46:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
Message-ID: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>

This doesn't sound promising from the perspective of immediate  
terminators.  Shared concerns, different conclusions.


http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/internet-group-skewered-by-hou.php


THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009

Internet Group Skewered By Lawmakers

A chorus of House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee  
members today called for an extension of the U.S. government's formal  
oversight agreement with the nonprofit that administers the Internet  
domain name system, citing concerns about the 11-year-old  
organization's transparency, accountability, budget processes, and  
stakeholder affairs. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and  
Numbers remains "far from a model of effective and sustainable self- 
governance" and it would be unwise to shrink the federal government's  
role amid increased cyber attacks and rapid Internet innovation,  
Rep.John Dingell, D-Mich., said at a hearing. Subcommittee ranking  
member Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., Mike Doyle, D-Pa., John Shimkus, R-Ill.,  
and Lee Terry, R-Neb., each backed the extension of a joint project  
agreement between ICANN and the National Telecommunications and  
Information Administration.

"ICANN seems better at furthering its own interests than those of the  
millions of Internet users it's supposed to look out for," Doyle said.  
Terry and others emphasized the issue is a matter of national security  
and must be examined carefully." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said ICANN  
does not have the independent, authoritative governance structure to  
keep other governments from abusing their power to interfere with  
Internet governance and citizens' use of the platform. Subcommittee  
Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., is reportedly drafting a letter to NTIA  
with the backing of Stearns and Energy and Commerce ranking member Joe  
Barton that recommends a one-year extension of the agreement. Boucher  
told Tech Daily Dose after the hearing that he had not made a firm  
decision on how to proceed but would be doing so in the near future.

ICANN President Paul Twomey insisted his group has improved its  
operation and has "passed the test" proposed in its original 1998  
arrangement with NTIA that a multi-stakeholder, private sector led  
could perform a narrow technical function. He also pointed out that a  
separate NTIA-ICANN deal pertaining to the global coordination of the  
domain name system's backbone and IP address allocation, which is the  
"key instrument of oversight," will not sunset. Twomey also warned  
that any temporary extension of the JPA will send a signal  
internationally that the U.S. government does not have faith in  
ICANN's industry driven model. For years, some foreign governments and  
stakeholders have called for alternatives to the existing governance  
structure like oversight by the United Nations or other international  
bodies.

Christine Jones, general counsel for Web hosting company GoDaddy, said  
ICANN has made great progress toward achieving the goals laid out as  
part of its formation but has "not yet achieved the competition or  
bottom-up representation called for" in its bylaws. Her company  
believes the JPA must not only be extended but also revised to include  
openness and transparency as overall guiding principles, she said.  
NTIA Associate Administrator Fiona Alexander told the subcommittee  
that regardless of whether the JPA is terminated, modified, or  
extended, her agency will be active as part of ICANN's Governmental  
Advisory Committee and by filing comments in various public  
consultations.

Twomey also pledged not to move forward on ICANN's introduction of new  
top-level domains, such as .biz, .info, and .us, until fraud-related  
fears by brand owners are addressed. ICANN plans to begin accepting  
applications for new domains in early 2010, which could bring in an  
initial $90 million for ICANN plus steep renewal fees. As a result,  
businesses and consumers will face higher Internet-related costs,  
Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch said. "ICANN has  
acknowledged concerns but has not adequately addressed them," she  
said, suggesting the group commission an impartial study of the domain  
name marketplace to gauge whether there is a need for hundreds of new  
domains and whether proposed changes would guard against cyber- 
squatting, fraud, and confusion.



____________________________________________________________
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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 08:47:48 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:17:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <4A29130A.1040504@apc.org>
References: <C64E9030.2B80%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <C1412106-A586-4696-A98D-4F46D66869C3@ciroap.org>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EBFE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <1244195566.4026.333.camel@anriette-laptop> <4A29130A.1040504@apc.org>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906050547h44b87e77hd25bfc3ceed2f61a@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, without bracketed text

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy



On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Willie Currie <wcurrie at apc.org> wrote:

> Yes, with bracketed text.
>
> Thanks for your patient coordination on this one, Ian.
>
> Willie
>
>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090605/26411e6c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Fri Jun  5 09:35:20 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:35:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]>

All:

The bottom of the web  page:


http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74


contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of the 
entire hearing.

I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the amount 
of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of understanding of 
opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent and perceptive things 
that were said.

3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but the 
video contains interesting body language that a transcript would not 
convey.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





At 2:46 PM +0200 6/5/09, William Drake wrote:
>This doesn't sound promising from the perspective of immediate 
>terminators.  Shared concerns, different conclusions.
>
>
>http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/internet-group-skewered-by-hou.php
>
>
>THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009
>
>Internet Group Skewered By Lawmakers
>
>A chorus of House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee 
>members today called for an extension of the U.S. government's 
>formal oversight agreement with the nonprofit that administers the 
>Internet domain name system, citing concerns about the 11-year-old 
>organization's transparency, accountability, budget processes, and 
>stakeholder affairs. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
>Numbers remains "far from a model of effective and sustainable 
>self-governance" and it would be unwise to shrink the federal 
>government's role amid increased cyber attacks and rapid Internet 
>innovation, Rep.John Dingell, D-Mich., said at a hearing. 
>Subcommittee ranking member Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., Mike Doyle, 
>D-Pa., John Shimkus, R-Ill., and Lee Terry, R-Neb., each backed the 
>extension of a joint project agreement between ICANN and the 
>National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
>
>"ICANN seems better at furthering its own interests than those of 
>the millions of Internet users it's supposed to look out for," Doyle 
>said. Terry and others emphasized the issue is a matter of national 
>security and must be examined carefully." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., 
>said ICANN does not have the independent, authoritative governance 
>structure to keep other governments from abusing their power to 
>interfere with Internet governance and citizens' use of the 
>platform. Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., is reportedly 
>drafting a letter to NTIA with the backing of Stearns and Energy and 
>Commerce ranking member Joe Barton that recommends a one-year 
>extension of the agreement. Boucher told Tech Daily Dose after the 
>hearing that he had not made a firm decision on how to proceed but 
>would be doing so in the near future.
>
>ICANN President Paul Twomey insisted his group has improved its 
>operation and has "passed the test" proposed in its original 1998 
>arrangement with NTIA that a multi-stakeholder, private sector led 
>could perform a narrow technical function. He also pointed out that 
>a separate NTIA-ICANN deal pertaining to the global coordination of 
>the domain name system's backbone and IP address allocation, which 
>is the "key instrument of oversight," will not sunset. Twomey also 
>warned that any temporary extension of the JPA will send a signal 
>internationally that the U.S. government does not have faith in 
>ICANN's industry driven model. For years, some foreign governments 
>and stakeholders have called for alternatives to the existing 
>governance structure like oversight by the United Nations or other 
>international bodies.
>
>Christine Jones, general counsel for Web hosting company GoDaddy, 
>said ICANN has made great progress toward achieving the goals laid 
>out as part of its formation but has "not yet achieved the 
>competition or bottom-up representation called for" in its bylaws. 
>Her company believes the JPA must not only be extended but also 
>revised to include openness and transparency as overall guiding 
>principles, she said. NTIA Associate Administrator Fiona Alexander 
>told the subcommittee that regardless of whether the JPA is 
>terminated, modified, or extended, her agency will be active as part 
>of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee and by filing comments in 
>various public consultations.
>
>Twomey also pledged not to move forward on ICANN's introduction of 
>new top-level domains, such as .biz, .info, and .us, until 
>fraud-related fears by brand owners are addressed. ICANN plans to 
>begin accepting applications for new domains in early 2010, which 
>could bring in an initial $90 million for ICANN plus steep renewal 
>fees. As a result, businesses and consumers will face higher 
>Internet-related costs, Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah 
>Deutsch said. "ICANN has acknowledged concerns but has not 
>adequately addressed them," she said, suggesting the group 
>commission an impartial study of the domain name marketplace to 
>gauge whether there is a need for hundreds of new domains and 
>whether proposed changes would guard against cyber-squatting, fraud, 
>and confusion.
>
____________________________________________________________
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


From wcurrie at apc.org  Fri Jun  5 11:34:01 2009
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:34:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]>
References: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]>
Message-ID: <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>

Hi George

Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms crossed...

I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on ICANN's 
surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil and is using 
it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. So Stearns was 
asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its fee structures, esp 
as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil next year. Asked about 
this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy Institute said that this was 
related to the problem of accountability as ICANN is only accontable to 
itself.

Willie

 George Sadowsky wrote:
> All:
>
> The bottom of the web  page:
>
>
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74 
>
>
>
> contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of the 
> entire hearing.
>
> I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the amount 
> of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of understanding of 
> opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent and perceptive things 
> that were said.
>
> 3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but the 
> video contains interesting body language that a transcript would not 
> convey.
>
> George
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 11:41:42 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:41:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A2906D5.2040106@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>

Clearly this is not a consensus position as it doesn't, as Ginger points
out, respond (or include) my (or Garth's) comments.

Before I go further it would be useful to hear from others in the group
concerning those comments.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
(McTim's changes)


Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review
Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein
made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in
the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation of the principle of
mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the
developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an
exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of
discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.

More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
remote participation.

____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 11:56:37 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:56:37 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] IP and the Working Group on the Right to
 Development
Message-ID: <3AC88A362276425BBBA75C03792BF1DB@userPC>


I think this may be of interest...

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org]
On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:28 PM
To: NLS IP; Commons Law; A2K Discussion List
Subject: [A2k] IP and the Working Group on the Right to Development


Dear All,
The Working Group on the Right to Development, a body established by the UN
Commission on Human Rights in1998 and whose mandate was continued by the UN
Human Rights Council, is looking at the WHO's IGWG and Wipo's Development
Agenda.  The IP-Watch report talks of the body working towards a better
balance between the "needs of industry and the needs of public policy".  Do
people on this list believe that such a distinction is valid?  Can't it be
argued that 'IP maximalism' harms industry too, while benefiting a few
monopolists / established players?

Regards,
Pranesh

Experts Aim To Balance Intellectual Property Rights And Human Rights

By Kaitlin Mara on 15 May 2009 @ 6:05 pm

The United Nations human rights framework is being brought to bear on
intellectual property law, in the hopes that the weight of expert voices in
human rights can lead IP regimes toward a better balance between the needs
of industry and the needs of public policy.

The Working Group on the Right to Development, an intergovernmental
political body, in August 2008 took on the task of examining two
intellectual property-related development partnerships that could influence
the work of policymakers in at least two UN institutions.

The two partnerships are: the World Health Organization (WHO)
Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property (IGWG), and the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Development Agenda.

The examination is being carried out by a high level-task force, a small
team of technical experts that acts at the behest of the working group. The
task force was created with the intention of moving right to development
discussions beyond political declarations from the working group into
concrete progress. The task force held its annual meeting from 1-9 April.
The task force secretary is Shyami Puvimanasinghe, from the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The coordinator of the unit on
the Right to Development at OHCHR is Goro Onojima.

The task force has completed an initial review of the IGWG process, which
included an independent consultation paper (IPW, United Nations, 3 April
2009 [1]), though it has plans to make a ‘return visit’ in the future to
check on ongoing work.

Analysis of the Development Agenda is still in the planning phases. The task
force is tracking preparations for a conference on IP and global challenges
being hosted by WIPO 13-14 July, to see if attending the conference will be
useful for its mandate. But to represent the right to development there, the
task force must wait for a mandate from the working group, which meets for
one week starting 22 June.

IP and human rights usually operate on different levels - an IP right is a
temporary monopoly; a human right is seen as something universal and
never-ending - but they can come into conflict.

The critical point with intellectual property rights and human rights,
according to Stephen Marks, a public health professor at Harvard University
who also chairs the high level task force, lies in resolving the
longstanding tension between these two kinds of rights.

For example, if patent limits access to new technologies it could be
construed to be an obstacle for the realisation of the human right to
benefit from scientific progress, said Marks. At the same time, IP has a
valuable function in stimulating innovation that leads to that scientific
progress, he added.

Defining Development: Human Rights Criteria

The high level task force is comprised of five experts, currently: Marks,
the chair; Nico Schrijver of Leiden University (Netherlands) Grotius Centre
for International Legal Studies; Sakiko Fukuda-Parr of the New School (US);
Raymond Atuguba of the Law Faculty at the University of Ghana; and Flavia
Piovesan of the Faculty of Law at Pontifical Catholic University of São
Paolo (Brazil). It also includes international agency observers from the UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Bank, the UN Development
Programme, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
(UNESCO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade
Organization (WTO).

It carries out its reviews of development partnerships using a set of
criteria [2] [doc, Annex II] for evaluating partnerships.

The criteria analyse: structural framework, for example whether a
partnership’s institutions contribute to “an enabling environment for
sustainable development” or promote good governance; process, for example
the promotion of gender equality or provisions for meaningful stakeholder
consultation; and outcome, e.g. whether the partnership achieves
“improvement in the well-being of populations and all individuals” in
accordance with the declaration on the right to development.

The task force also has a mandate to draw up a set of “operational
sub-criteria” [3] [pdf] that would include more specific, concrete
provisions. The work of the task force is submitted to the Working Group on
the Right to Development, which takes recommendations from the task force
but is not bound by them in making decisions.

The criteria are not yet finalised, and information gleaned from the process
of analysing partnerships is being used to refine them. The exercise has a
deadline of 2010 to come up with a set of final criteria. Future work past
the 2010 deadline is an area of contention.

A 2007 working group report [4] [pdf] said that future work might “take
various forms, including guidelines on the implementation of the right to
development, and evolve into a basis for consideration of an international
legal standard of a binding nature, through a collaborative process of
engagement.”

If a legal convention on the right to development were to be formed, the
high level task force would likely become the drafting body for
international legislation, as it is the expert body on the issue, according
to a source familiar with the negotiations.

Susan Mathews, who was previously the secretary of the working group, said
there are several potential outcomes of this evaluation process. After the
working group presents programmes of developmental assistance and other
partnerships to the Human Rights Council, the council adopts resolutions
endorsing the findings of the working group, providing it legal backing.

Alternatively, the criteria of the working group could be adopted as a soft
law mechanism, providing guidelines for implementation and perhaps more
flexibility than international law as presently interpreted would allow, she
said. At the same time, any set of criteria needs to have a practical
application.

“It is not clear what the future beyond the third phase due to be concluded
in 2010 will be, and how the working group will continue its work and
whether the task force will continue in this form or take another. However,
it is essential that the work done till that date is carried on in some form
or it will not have a sustainable, lasting impact or value,” Mathews
explained.

Sources said that a group of countries from the global South referred to as
the Non-Aligned Movement [5] and the Group of African countries would like
to see a binding international agreement, in recognition of international
obligations and responsibilities pertaining to the right to development. For
countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, the right to development has a
distinct “international dimension.”  With regard to the right to development
acquiring legal character, developing countries are the primary actors
making the push.

Industrialised countries, by contrast, prefer the right to development to
fall under the auspices of national governments, and thus have called for
more tempered language regarding binding legal norms, according to sources.

The human rights paradigm and its values have already begun to shift the
world of intellectual property in the health sector, said Marks. The 2001
WTO Doha Declaration on Public Health, which outlines flexibilities in
intellectual property rights trade rules that can be used to better serve
public health needs, as well as the so-called “paragraph 6” solution which
provides further flexibilities aimed at serving countries that lack the
manufacturing capacity to produce needed medicines, are both examples of
this shift, he added.

The June meeting of the working group will indicate the next steps on the
intersection of IP and public interest goals for the human rights experts.
Categories: English, Features, Human Rights, IP Policies, Patent Policy,
Public Health, Themes, United Nations, Venues, WHO

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/05/15/experts-aim-to-balance-intellectua
l-property-rights-and-human-rights/

URLs in this post:

[1] IPW, United Nations, 3 April 2009:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/04/03/high-level-task-force-on-human-rig
hts-turns-eye-to-health-and-ip/

[2] set of criteria:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/development/groups/docs/reportHLTF2008.
doc

[3] has a mandate to draw up a set of “operational sub-criteria”:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/9session/A.HRC.9.17.pdf

[4] 2007 working group report:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/development/docs/WGreport2007.pdf

[5] Non-Aligned Movement: http://canada.cubanoal.cu/ingles/index.html

--
Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k


!DSPAM:2676,4a28f40a25634361168727!

____________________________________________________________
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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 12:15:04 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:45:04 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>
References: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A294488.8020905@gmail.com>

Can you suggest an alternate wording? Now you have had time to think 
about it :)

gurstein wrote:
> Clearly this is not a consensus position as it doesn't, as Ginger points
> out, respond (or include) my (or Garth's) comments.
>
> Before I go further it would be useful to hear from others in the group
> concerning those comments.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review
> Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein
> made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in
> the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation of the principle of
> mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the
> developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an
> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of
> discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.
>
> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
> remote participation.
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 12:50:26 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:50:26 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A2906D5.2040106@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91893869DB464548BC4949A4CEB392A8@userPC>

Okay, here it is...

MBG


The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that at
least from the perspective of civil society. this principle has not been
fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial
interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of
reasons not been engaged in this process.  

And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to
peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those
working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a
primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF
process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multi-stakeholder
principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by
the broader base of possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they
might be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to
creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead
of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
(McTim's changes)


Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review
Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein
made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in
the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation of the principle of
mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the
developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an
exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of
discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.

More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
remote participation.

____________________________________________________________
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


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Fri Jun  5 12:54:21 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:54:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>
References: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]> <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>
Message-ID: <p062007a2c64efa6b8edf@[10.0.1.3]>

Hi, Willie,

I thought that Congressman Stearns' comments were a mixture of the 
most perceptive and the most uninformed (a curious mixture) of the 
group.  He did not understand the difference between the ongoing fees 
and the proposed fees for top-level new gTLDs.  He also did not 
understand that non-profits in general are strongly encouraged to 
have reserves equivalent to a year's worth of operating expenses.  He 
also did not understand the limits of ICANN's mandate.

But his drilling down in the financial information, on Twomey's 
salary, on this strange contract with an Australian company (of which 
I have been informed that Ira Magaziner is a partner) that Twomey 
claimed that the Board approved,  on the alternative uses of funds 
that ICANN could chose, and in particular why there weren't more 
funds dedicated to security and stability --- hey, what does that say 
about the community's priorities  (!!!)   ---  was masterful.  In 
fact, I think that the congressional staffs generally did a good job 
in preparing questions.  The conversation was blunt and revealing, 
with a minimum of political correctness, a model for learning that I 
like very much.

It was an unfortunate hearing for ICANN.  The mood of the Congress is 
such that the JPA is likely to be continued in some form or other. 
Also, I think that NTIA came out of the process somewhat bloodied, so 
that perhaps the next version of the JPA could be with another office 
in our government.

Given also the presumed imminent change of ICANN's CEO, this is a 
very interesting time for ICANN and for those related aspects of 
Internet governance as well.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


At 11:34 AM -0400 6/5/09, Willie Currie wrote:
>Hi George
>
>Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms crossed...
>
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on 
>ICANN's surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil 
>and is using it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. 
>So Stearns was asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its 
>fee structures, esp as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil 
>next year. Asked about this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy 
>Institute said that this was related to the problem of 
>accountability as ICANN is only accontable to itself.
>
>Willie
>
>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>All:
>>
>>The bottom of the web  page:
>>
>>
>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74
>>
>>
>>contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of 
>>the entire hearing.
>>
>>I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the 
>>amount of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of 
>>understanding of opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent 
>>and perceptive things that were said.
>>
>>3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but 
>>the video contains interesting body language that a transcript 
>>would not convey.
>>
>>George
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

____________________________________________________________
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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Jun  5 12:57:51 2009
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:57:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>
References: <B489E1CD-86BD-4C24-8FA2-7B28959F6E73@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <p06200795c64ece2e3055@[10.0.1.3]> <4A293AE9.2070803@apc.org>
Message-ID: <cj+Ntt6P6UKKFAyu@perry.co.uk>

In message <4A293AE9.2070803 at apc.org>, at 11:34:01 on Fri, 5 Jun 2009, 
Willie Currie <wcurrie at apc.org> writes
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on ICANN's 
>surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil and is using 
>it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. So Stearns was 
>asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its fee structures, esp 
>as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil next year.

That seemed to me to be one of the bigger misunderstandings.

It was stated quite clearly that as a not-for-profit the best practice 
is to have approximately one year's "normal" turnover in reserve. That's 
a simple fact - I've seen the same in many other not-for-profits.

And separately, that the new GTLD process was supposed to be revenue 
neutral, just covering its costs, not subsidised from other revenues but 
neither contributing to the surplus. So the surplus they were aiming for 
(approx $50m) reflects the turnover *apart* from new GTLDs, and the $90m 
is the estimated cost of running the new GTLD scheme.

Now, you can argue about any of those numbers being out by plus/minus, 
(or even whether the new GTD project is a good idea at all) but that's 
my understanding of the accounting framework.

[If, once it ever gets going, the new GTLD process turns out not to be 
revenue neutral as intended, then there will no doubt be an enquiry into 
why that happened].
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 13:13:42 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:13:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <p062007a2c64efa6b8edf@[10.0.1.3]>
Message-ID: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>

George,

Was the company that you refer to in which Magaziner was involved called
Westlake--an NZ company BTW, not AU?

I'm not sure if I communicated this to you at the time, but with the
colleagues with whom I had done the evaluation of UNESCO's Information for
All (IFAP) Programme we bid on the ALAC evaluation and the whole process was
incredibly murky and clearly rigged to have Westlake do the contract... (The
MD of Westlake had social and business ties with Twomey...

I objected at the time but it got lost in the ICANN morass...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:54 AM
To: Willie Currie; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] US Congress & the JPA


Hi, Willie,

I thought that Congressman Stearns' comments were a mixture of the 
most perceptive and the most uninformed (a curious mixture) of the 
group.  He did not understand the difference between the ongoing fees 
and the proposed fees for top-level new gTLDs.  He also did not 
understand that non-profits in general are strongly encouraged to 
have reserves equivalent to a year's worth of operating expenses.  He 
also did not understand the limits of ICANN's mandate.

But his drilling down in the financial information, on Twomey's 
salary, on this strange contract with an Australian company (of which 
I have been informed that Ira Magaziner is a partner) that Twomey 
claimed that the Board approved,  on the alternative uses of funds 
that ICANN could chose, and in particular why there weren't more 
funds dedicated to security and stability --- hey, what does that say 
about the community's priorities  (!!!)   ---  was masterful.  In 
fact, I think that the congressional staffs generally did a good job 
in preparing questions.  The conversation was blunt and revealing, 
with a minimum of political correctness, a model for learning that I 
like very much.

It was an unfortunate hearing for ICANN.  The mood of the Congress is 
such that the JPA is likely to be continued in some form or other. 
Also, I think that NTIA came out of the process somewhat bloodied, so 
that perhaps the next version of the JPA could be with another office 
in our government.

Given also the presumed imminent change of ICANN's CEO, this is a 
very interesting time for ICANN and for those related aspects of 
Internet governance as well.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


At 11:34 AM -0400 6/5/09, Willie Currie wrote:
>Hi George
>
>Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms 
>crossed...
>
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on
>ICANN's surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil 
>and is using it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. 
>So Stearns was asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its 
>fee structures, esp as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil 
>next year. Asked about this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy 
>Institute said that this was related to the problem of 
>accountability as ICANN is only accontable to itself.
>
>Willie
>
>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>All:
>>
>>The bottom of the web  page:
>>
>>
>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti
>>cle&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-t
>>he-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134
>>:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74
>>
>>
>>contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of
>>the entire hearing.
>>
>>I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the
>>amount of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of 
>>understanding of opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent 
>>and perceptive things that were said.
>>
>>3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but
>>the video contains interesting body language that a transcript 
>>would not convey.
>>
>>George
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>~~

____________________________________________________________
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


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Fri Jun  5 13:28:15 2009
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:28:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
References: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
Message-ID: <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@[10.0.1.3]>

Mike,

Yesterday Twomey said it's an Australian company, and that is what I 
had heard earlier.

George

At 10:13 AM -0700 6/5/09, gurstein wrote:
>George,
>
>Was the company that you refer to in which Magaziner was involved called
>Westlake--an NZ company BTW, not AU?
>
>I'm not sure if I communicated this to you at the time, but with the
>colleagues with whom I had done the evaluation of UNESCO's Information for
>All (IFAP) Programme we bid on the ALAC evaluation and the whole process was
>incredibly murky and clearly rigged to have Westlake do the contract... (The
>MD of Westlake had social and business ties with Twomey...
>
>I objected at the time but it got lost in the ICANN morass...
>
>M
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:54 AM
>To: Willie Currie; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: Re: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
>
>
>Hi, Willie,
>
>I thought that Congressman Stearns' comments were a mixture of the
>most perceptive and the most uninformed (a curious mixture) of the
>group.  He did not understand the difference between the ongoing fees
>and the proposed fees for top-level new gTLDs.  He also did not
>understand that non-profits in general are strongly encouraged to
>have reserves equivalent to a year's worth of operating expenses.  He
>also did not understand the limits of ICANN's mandate.
>
>But his drilling down in the financial information, on Twomey's
>salary, on this strange contract with an Australian company (of which
>I have been informed that Ira Magaziner is a partner) that Twomey
>claimed that the Board approved,  on the alternative uses of funds
>that ICANN could chose, and in particular why there weren't more
>funds dedicated to security and stability --- hey, what does that say
>about the community's priorities  (!!!)   ---  was masterful.  In
>fact, I think that the congressional staffs generally did a good job
>in preparing questions.  The conversation was blunt and revealing,
>with a minimum of political correctness, a model for learning that I
>like very much.
>
>It was an unfortunate hearing for ICANN.  The mood of the Congress is
>such that the JPA is likely to be continued in some form or other.
>Also, I think that NTIA came out of the process somewhat bloodied, so
>that perhaps the next version of the JPA could be with another office
>in our government.
>
>Given also the presumed imminent change of ICANN's CEO, this is a
>very interesting time for ICANN and for those related aspects of
>Internet governance as well.
>
>George
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>At 11:34 AM -0400 6/5/09, Willie Currie wrote:
>>Hi George
>>
>>Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms
>>crossed...
>>
>>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on
>>ICANN's surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil
>>and is using it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil.
>>So Stearns was asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its
>>fee structures, esp as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil
>>next year. Asked about this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy
>>Institute said that this was related to the problem of
>>accountability as ICANN is only accontable to itself.
>>
>>Willie
>>
>>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>>All:
>>>
>>>The bottom of the web  page:
>>>
>>>
>>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti
>>>cle&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-t
>>>he-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134
>>>:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74
>>>
>>>
>>>contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of
>>>the entire hearing.
>>>
>>>I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the
>>>amount of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of
>>>understanding of opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent
>  >>and perceptive things that were said.
>>>
>>>3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but
>>>the video contains interesting body language that a transcript
>>>would not convey.
>>>
>>>George
>>>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>~~
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 13:30:32 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:30:32 -0700
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
Message-ID: <7AABFC3A7DE94A0C8059F89ECD57AF80@userPC>

Whoops ;-(

M

-----Original Message-----
From: gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:14 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'George Sadowsky'
Subject: RE: [governance] US Congress & the JPA


George,

Was the company that you refer to in which Magaziner was involved called
Westlake--an NZ company BTW, not AU?

I'm not sure if I communicated this to you at the time, but with the
colleagues with whom I had done the evaluation of UNESCO's Information for
All (IFAP) Programme we bid on the ALAC evaluation and the whole process was
incredibly murky and clearly rigged to have Westlake do the contract... (The
MD of Westlake had social and business ties with Twomey...

I objected at the time but it got lost in the ICANN morass...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:54 AM
To: Willie Currie; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] US Congress & the JPA


Hi, Willie,

I thought that Congressman Stearns' comments were a mixture of the 
most perceptive and the most uninformed (a curious mixture) of the 
group.  He did not understand the difference between the ongoing fees 
and the proposed fees for top-level new gTLDs.  He also did not 
understand that non-profits in general are strongly encouraged to 
have reserves equivalent to a year's worth of operating expenses.  He 
also did not understand the limits of ICANN's mandate.

But his drilling down in the financial information, on Twomey's 
salary, on this strange contract with an Australian company (of which 
I have been informed that Ira Magaziner is a partner) that Twomey 
claimed that the Board approved,  on the alternative uses of funds 
that ICANN could chose, and in particular why there weren't more 
funds dedicated to security and stability --- hey, what does that say 
about the community's priorities  (!!!)   ---  was masterful.  In 
fact, I think that the congressional staffs generally did a good job 
in preparing questions.  The conversation was blunt and revealing, 
with a minimum of political correctness, a model for learning that I 
like very much.

It was an unfortunate hearing for ICANN.  The mood of the Congress is 
such that the JPA is likely to be continued in some form or other. 
Also, I think that NTIA came out of the process somewhat bloodied, so 
that perhaps the next version of the JPA could be with another office 
in our government.

Given also the presumed imminent change of ICANN's CEO, this is a 
very interesting time for ICANN and for those related aspects of 
Internet governance as well.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


At 11:34 AM -0400 6/5/09, Willie Currie wrote:
>Hi George
>
>Very defensive  body language from Paul Twomey, with his arms
>crossed...
>
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on ICANN's 
>surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil and is using 
>it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. So Stearns was 
>asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its fee structures, esp 
>as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil next year. Asked about 
>this, Dr Lenard of the Technology Policy Institute said that this was 
>related to the problem of accountability as ICANN is only accontable to 
>itself.
>
>Willie
>
>George Sadowsky wrote:
>>All:
>>
>>The bottom of the web  page:
>>
>>
>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti
>>cle&id=1642:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-t
>>he-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-icann&catid=134
>>:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74
>>
>>
>>contains pointers  to both streaming and downloadable versions of the 
>>entire hearing.
>>
>>I found the hearing quite revealing, for its content, for the amount 
>>of misunderstanding of basic facts, for the lack of understanding of 
>>opposing viewpoints, and for some very coherent and perceptive things 
>>that were said.
>>
>>3 hours, 1.5 gigabytes.  I don't know if a transcript exists, but the 
>>video contains interesting body language that a transcript would not 
>>convey.
>>
>>George
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>~~

____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 13:36:24 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:36:24 +0300
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@10.0.1.3>
References: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
	 <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@10.0.1.3>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906051036n5db4b486p190d87fea852c7cf@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/09, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
> Mike,
>
>  Yesterday Twomey said it's an Australian company, and that is what I had
> heard earlier.

it's in the annual report or the budget, one of the latest docs
anyway.  I can't recall the name, but it's Ozzie fer sure mate!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 14:22:08 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:52:08 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <91893869DB464548BC4949A4CEB392A8@userPC>
References: <91893869DB464548BC4949A4CEB392A8@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A296250.6040708@gmail.com>

How about this compromise between the two versions?

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been
fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial
interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of
reasons not been engaged in this process.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation including, but not limited to, greater use of Remote Participation.





gurstein wrote:
> Okay, here it is...
>
> MBG
>
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that at
> least from the perspective of civil society. this principle has not been
> fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial
> interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of
> reasons not been engaged in this process.  
>
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
> poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to
> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,
> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of
> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those
> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a
> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
> Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF
> process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multi-stakeholder
> principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by
> the broader base of possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they
> might be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to
> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead
> of discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review
> Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein
> made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in
> the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation of the principle of
> mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the
> developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an
> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of
> discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.
>
> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
> remote participation.
>
>
>   

____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 15:11:42 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:11:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A296250.6040708@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>

Ginger,

I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it seems to
me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is capitalized)
as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in the way
I am suggesting...

So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, greater use
of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
particular areas of concern such as for example the disability communities,
indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." or there
should be no examples.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:22 AM
To: gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
(McTim's changes)


How about this compromise between the two versions?

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that from
the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in
the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not
been engaged in this process.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow and
broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the
IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of
participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the inclusion of
the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by
decisions instead of discussion.







gurstein wrote:
> Okay, here it is...
>
> MBG
>
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle 
> of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
> that at least from the perspective of civil society. this principle 
> has not been fully implemented since many of those with an active, 
> even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet 
> have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
>
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures 
> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of 
> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized 
> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and 
> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in 
> support of broad based economic and social development.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and 
> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in 
> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
> and with the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
> participation.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF 
> Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael 
> Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or 
> included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your 
> silence for assent?
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful 
> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until 
> the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and 
> broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the 
> IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the 
> counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
> participation.
>
> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current 
> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but 
> not limited to, remote participation.
>
>
>   

____________________________________________________________
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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 15:46:55 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:16:55 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>

To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the 
UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of 
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that 
from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been  
fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety 
of reasons not been engaged in this process.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental 
forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.


gurstein wrote:
> Ginger,
>
> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it seems to
> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is capitalized)
> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in the way
> I am suggesting...
>
> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, greater use
> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability communities,
> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." or there
> should be no examples.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:22 AM
> To: gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that from
> the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
> implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in
> the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not
> been engaged in this process.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow and
> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the
> IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of
> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the inclusion of
> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by
> decisions instead of discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> gurstein wrote:
>   
>> Okay, here it is...
>>
>> MBG
>>
>>
>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
>> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
>> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle 
>> of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
>> that at least from the perspective of civil society. this principle 
>> has not been fully implemented since many of those with an active, 
>> even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet 
>> have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
>>
>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
>> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
>> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
>> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures 
>> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of 
>> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized 
>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and 
>> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in 
>> support of broad based economic and social development.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and 
>> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in 
>> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
>> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
>> and with the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>> participation.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
>> (McTim's changes)
>>
>>
>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF 
>> Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael 
>> Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or 
>> included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your 
>> silence for assent?
>>
>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
>> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
>> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful 
>> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until 
>> the present.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and 
>> broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the 
>> IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the 
>> counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>> participation.
>>
>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current 
>> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
>> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but 
>> not limited to, remote participation.
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 16:42:00 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (gurstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:42:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D1E353FED9F4899A202D4BD7DB0413E@userPC>

Hi Ginger,

I'm "satisficed" with this...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 12:47 PM
To: gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
(McTim's changes)


To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the 
UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of 
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that 
from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been  
fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety 
of reasons not been engaged in this process.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental 
forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.


gurstein wrote:
> Ginger,
>
> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
> seems to me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
> capitalized) as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my 
> mind "remote participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden 
> the base of inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of 
> participation in the way I am suggesting...
>
> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
> greater use of remote participation and specific outreach to 
> constituencies with particular areas of concern such as for example 
> the disability communities, indigenous peoples, ICT for Development 
> grassroots practitioners." or there should be no examples.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:22 AM
> To: gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle 
> of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
> that from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not 
> been fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a 
> crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for 
> a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
> in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see 
> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively 
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> gurstein wrote:
>   
>> Okay, here it is...
>>
>> MBG
>>
>>
>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
>> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
>> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle 
>> of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
>> that at least from the perspective of civil society. this principle 
>> has not been fully implemented since many of those with an active, 
>> even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet 
>> have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
>>
>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people
>> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
>> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
>> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures 
>> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of 
>> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized 
>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and 
>> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in 
>> support of broad based economic and social development.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
>> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in 
>> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
>> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
>> and with the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>> participation.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version 
>> (McTim's changes)
>>
>>
>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF 
>> Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael 
>> Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or 
>> included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your 
>> silence for assent?
>>
>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
>> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
>> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful 
>> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until 
>> the present.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
>> broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the 
>> IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the 
>> counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>> participation.
>>
>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current
>> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
>> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but 
>> not limited to, remote participation.
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>   

____________________________________________________________
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


From garth.graham at telus.net  Fri Jun  5 16:51:36 2009
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:51:36 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>
References: <9782B1353745479690709B2055171DBD@userPC>
Message-ID: <3DC1835C-C925-4C60-8539-EF10633D42B9@telus.net>

On 5-Jun-09, at 8:41 AM, gurstein wrote:

> Clearly this is not a consensus position as it doesn't, as Ginger  
> points out, respond (or include) my (or Garth's) comments.

Rather than repeat myself (although what I've been saying is quite  
scattered across several threads), here's wording to initiate  
discussion of an issue of basic definition  that a revised draft  
might include:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
> .......

> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been  
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome  
> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and  
> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its  
> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism  
> from 2006 until the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow  
> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in  
> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the  
> mutltistakeholder principle.

Okay to there,  Then say ....

However, the IGC is concerned about two essential issues:

1. The lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and  
the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum  
driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near- 
unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the  
review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive  
participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review  
of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to  
foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country  
voices through, but not limited to, remote participation.

2. The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens  
understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance,  
particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.

Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration  
and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe  
that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition  
of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather than a matter  
negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society,  
“in their respective roles,”  if roles and identities are agreed to  
be self-determined then the definition must become: "The development  
and application by anyone of shared principles, norms, rules,  
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution  
and use of the Internet."

GG
  ____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Jun  5 17:38:40 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:38:40 +1000
Subject: [governance] JPA near final with bracketed text
In-Reply-To: <4A29130A.1040504@apc.org>
Message-ID: <C64FCD80.2C26%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>



Clearly the bracketed text should stay. I'll do up the final statement
shortly. Thanks everyone who responded.



____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Jun  5 17:54:35 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:54:35 +1000
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
Message-ID: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
statement ­ if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
in the next 48 hours.

At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.

Thank you everyone for your participation!

DRAFT FOLLOWS


The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
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 www.igcaucus.org.
 
We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
security. 
 
On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
viable solution.

 Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.

Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
transparent and inclusive process.

Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
principles which follow. 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:
 
·      bottom up co-ordination

 
·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
interests and Internet users

 
·      ensuring the stability of the Internet

 
·      transparency

 
·      appropriate accountability mechanisms

 
·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent

 
·      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
management, 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 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.   



Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
Caucus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/58c7d937/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From dcogburn at syr.edu  Fri Jun  5 18:10:47 2009
From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:10:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <26DAC921-1704-4EC0-9F4A-662295E7D2A6@syr.edu>

Yes

Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn
Syracuse University
http://cotelco.syr.edu

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:

Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised in the next 48 hours.

At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.

Thank you everyone for your participation!

DRAFT FOLLOWS


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 www.igcaucus.org<http://www.igcaucus.org>.

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.

In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva 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.

On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.

 Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.

Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.

Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the principles which follow. 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:

•      bottom up co-ordination


•      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users


•      ensuring the stability of the Internet


•      transparency


•      appropriate accountability mechanisms


•      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent


•      decision making driven by the public interest

We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder management, 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 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.



Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance Caucus
<message-footer.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090605/17a88484/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 18:49:14 2009
From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
Message-ID: <768069.65652.qm@web45205.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Yes for me 

--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu> wrote:

From: Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu>
Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 3:10 PM

Yes

Dr. Derrick L. CogburnSyracuse Universityhttp://cotelco.syr.edu
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:


Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised in the next 48 hours.



At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.



Thank you everyone for your participation!



DRAFT FOLLOWS





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 www.igcaucus.org.

 

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.



In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva 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. 

 

On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting viable solution..



 Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.



Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.



Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the principles which follow. 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:

 

·      bottom up co-ordination



 

·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society interests and Internet users



 

·      ensuring the stability of the Internet



 

·      transparency



 

·      appropriate accountability mechanisms



 

·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent



 

·      decision making driven by the public interest



We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder management, 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 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.   







Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance Caucus





<message-footer.txt>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

____________________________________________________________
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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090605/b34f052a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From hindenburgo at gmail.com  Fri Jun  5 19:56:06 2009
From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:56:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <768069.65652.qm@web45205.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <768069.65652.qm@web45205.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3ef75b780906051656m66cc837aqd3f16f41a41b965b@mail.gmail.com>

No for me!

2009/6/5 Dina <dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com>

> Yes for me
>
> --- On *Fri, 6/5/09, Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu>
> Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
> To: "governance at lists..cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Ian Peter"
> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 3:10 PM
>
>
> Yes
>
> Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn
> Syracuse University
> http://cotelco.syr.edu
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<http://mc/compose?to=ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
> by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
> statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
> is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
> am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
> in the next 48 hours.
>
> At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
> emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
> clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>
> Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open,
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
> principles which follow. 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:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> multistakeholder management, 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 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.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> Caucus
>
> <message-footer.txt>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://mc/compose?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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090605/d56675d1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From nhklein at gmx.net  Fri Jun  5 22:48:18 2009
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:48:18 +0700
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <200906060948.18151.nhklein@gmx.net>

Agreed,

Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh/Cambodia


On Saturday, 6 June 2009 04:54:35 Ian Peter wrote:
[snip]
> The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
> co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> security.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open,
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
> principles which follow. 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:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
> ·      transparency
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> multistakeholder management, 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 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.
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> Caucus



-- 
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit 
The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.

This is the latest weekly editorial:

Law Enforcement, Follow-Up 
http://tinyurl.com/l823fr
(To read it, click on the line above.)

And here is something new every day:
http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com

PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9


____________________________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jun  5 23:35:52 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:05:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] Obama on US unilateralism
Message-ID: <4A29E418.8030209@itforchange.net>

I am pleasantly surprised that any US President, even Obama, could say this

 >Mr. Obama advocated universal disarmament, acknowledging the argument 
that there should be no double standards regarding possession of atomic
 > weapons. "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold 
nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment 
to seek >a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." (from his 
address at Cairo University)

Makes one really wonder how would he justify continued US unilateralism 
vis a vis IG issues, if he indeed does not make amends. Can he, 
correspondingly, for a start, at least assert 'America's commitment to 
seek a world in which no one nation holds any unilateral control over 
the global public resource that the Internet is', which will be the 
reversal of Bush administration's 'US's historic role' policy and 
world-view.

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/5685cc29/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 01:12:24 2009
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:42:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <200906060948.18151.nhklein@gmx.net>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	 <200906060948.18151.nhklein@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <fecfce260906052212qd421a72x1bffa81376032884@mail.gmail.com>

No.


On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:

> Agreed,
>
> Norbert Klein
> Phnom Penh/Cambodia
>
>
> On Saturday, 6 June 2009 04:54:35 Ian Peter wrote:
> [snip]
> > The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
> > non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
> > 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 www.igcaucus.org.
> >
> > We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> > Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
> >
> > In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> > principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> > according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
> > people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
> > Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of
> global
> > co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
> > security.
> >
> > On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly
> believes
> > that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
> > procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> > believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
> lasting
> > viable solution.
> >
> >  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> > mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN
> on
> > a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe
> that
> > a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> > ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
> >
> > Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> > it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> > development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open,
> > multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
> >
> > Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> > certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s
> operation.
> > We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to
> perpetuate
> > in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism,
> the
> > principles which follow. 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:
> >
> > ·      bottom up co-ordination
> >
> > ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> > interests and Internet users
> >
> > ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
> >
> > ·      transparency
> >
> > ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
> >
> > ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> > model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and
> transparent
> >
> > ·      decision making driven by the public interest
> >
> > We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> > multistakeholder management, 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 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.
> >
> > Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> > Caucus
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit
> The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.
>
> This is the latest weekly editorial:
>
> Law Enforcement, Follow-Up
> http://tinyurl.com/l823fr
> (To read it, click on the line above.)
>
> And here is something new every day:
> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
>
> PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/0c9b7bad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat Jun  6 02:08:05 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Fri,  5 Jun 2009 23:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1244268293.94268.554@lists.cpsr.org>

YES

Slight change in english dialect:
>... to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.

can be shorten too
... to ensure that ICANN takes on necessary changes.
____________________________________________________________
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


From qshatti at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 05:44:02 2009
From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:44:02 +0300
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <609019df0906060244va6ae203t46766f6794f35e73@mail.gmail.com>

YES.

and thanks for a balanced statement.

Qusai

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
> by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
> statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
> is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
> am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
> in the next 48 hours.
>
> At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
> emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
> clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>
> Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
> development of which should commence as soon as possible in an open,
> multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
> principles which follow. 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:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
> model which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
> multistakeholder management, 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 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.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> Caucus
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/a3520521/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From email at hakik.org  Sat Jun  6 07:31:32 2009
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:31:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <20090606113230.A18146A41D@smtp1.electricembers.net>

YES for me and looking forward to their realizations.

Best regards,
Hakikur Rahman

At 10:54 PM 6/5/2009, Ian Peter wrote:
>Below is the final statement we propose to send 
>to DOC (and need to submit by June 8). Please 
>indicate YES or NO as regards your support for 
>this statement – if you have already indicated 
>in the previous draft a YES, there is no need to 
>vote again (in the interests of email flow). At 
>this stage I am assuming we have a consensus for 
>this unless strong objections are raised in the next 48 hours.
>
>At this stage no amendments can be accepted 
>which changes the meaning or emphasis of the 
>text. However we can certainly consider simple 
>changes that clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>
>Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
>DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
>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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
>We are thankful for the opportunity to comment 
>on the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, 
>and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
>In responding to your call for comments, we are 
>mindful of the WSIS principles, which " 
>recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
>according to the Geneva 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.
>
>On your question as regards the future of the 
>JPA - The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is 
>subject to due process procedures and is 
>accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the 
>IGC believes that merely extending the current 
>JPA arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended 
> now, as it is an ineffective mechanism to deal 
> with the problems that must be resolved to 
> place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. 
> On the other hand, some of us believe that a 
> time-limited extension of the JPA might be the 
> most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
>Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends 
>however, the IGC believes that it should be 
>replaced by a new global accountability 
>framework, the development of which should 
>commence as soon as possible in an open, 
>multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
>Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues 
>or not, we believe that certain principles 
>outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s 
>operation. We believe these should be covered by 
>an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its 
>constitution, by laws, or some similar 
>accountability mechanism, the principles which 
>follow. 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:
>
>·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
>·      balanced multi stakeholder 
>representation, including civil society interests and Internet users
>
>
>·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
>·      transparency
>
>
>·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
>·      continuing evolution of an effective and 
>appropriate governance model which is 
>multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
>·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
>We also propose to replace "private sector 
>management" with multistakeholder management, 
>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 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.
>
>
>
>Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for 
>the Internet Governance Caucus
>____________________________________________________________
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/d2e17e1e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sat Jun  6 08:03:16 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:03:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <D9C7B05C-8B3D-4816-AEB0-9B0F33CCC25C@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ian,

I liked it better before, but yes.

Thanks,

Bill


On Jun 5, 2009, at 11:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to  
> submit by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support  
> for this statement – if you have already indicated in the previous  
> draft a YES, there is no need to vote again (in the interests of  
> email flow). At this stage I am assuming we have a consensus for  
> this unless strong objections are raised in the next 48 hours.
>
> At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the  
> meaning or emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider  
> simple changes that clarify the expression if you feel strongly  
> about them.
>
> Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project  
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS  
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out  
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly  
> believes that 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, that ICANN is subject  
> to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders.  
> Therefore, the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA  
> arrangement is not a lasting viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an  
> ineffective mechanism to deal with the problems that must be  
> resolved to place ICANN on a viable long-term path forward. On the  
> other hand, some of us believe that a time-limited extension of the  
> JPA might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take  
> on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes  
> that it should be replaced by a new global accountability framework,  
> the development of which should commence as soon as possible in an  
> open, multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe  
> that certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in  
> ICANN’s operation. We believe these should be covered by an  
> undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or  
> some similar accountability mechanism, the principles which follow.  
> 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:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil  
> society interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate  
> governance model which is multilateral, multistakeholder,  
> democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with  
> multistakeholder management, 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 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.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet  
> Governance Caucus
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/35323c20/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sat Jun  6 08:14:13 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:14:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
 (latest version (McTim's changes)
In-Reply-To: <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and  
others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's  
earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief  
beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of  
experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and  
this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?)  
fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.

Best,

Bill

On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been  
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome  
> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and  
> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance  
> of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the  
> present. We feel however, that from the perspective of civil  
> society, this principle has not been  fully implemented since many  
> of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and  
> deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been  
> engaged in this process.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both  
> narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders  
> involved in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues  
> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is  
> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of  
> possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might  
> be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to  
> create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions  
> instead of discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near- 
> unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the  
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive  
> participation.
>
>
> gurstein wrote:
>> Ginger,
>>
>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it  
>> seems to
>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is  
>> capitalized)
>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in  
>> the way
>> I am suggesting...
>>
>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to,  
>> greater use
>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability  
>> communities,
>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners."  
>> or there
>> should be no examples.
>>
>> MBG
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05,  
>> 2009 11:22 AM
>> To: gurstein
>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest  
>> version
>> (McTim's changes)
>>
>>
>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>
>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been  
>> actively
>> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the  
>> UN WSIS
>> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN  
>> Internet
>> Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
>> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however,  
>> that from
>> the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
>> implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial  
>> interest in
>> the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of  
>> reasons not
>> been engaged in this process.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both  
>> narrow and
>> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved  
>> in the
>> IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
>> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about  
>> the lack of
>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the  
>> inclusion of
>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with  
>> the
>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum  
>> driven by
>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>
>>> MBG
>>>
>>>
>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has  
>>> been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the  
>>> outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and  
>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance  
>>> of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the  
>>> present. We feel however, that at least from the perspective of  
>>> civil society. this principle has not been fully implemented since  
>>> many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the  
>>> health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of  
>>> reasons not been engaged in this process.
>>>
>>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,  
>>> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who  
>>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those  
>>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance  
>>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to  
>>> alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to  
>>> specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those  
>>> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the  
>>> Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic  
>>> and social development.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow  
>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders  
>>> involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues  
>>> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is  
>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of  
>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be  
>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to  
>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by  
>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with  
>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that  
>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive  
>>> participation.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest  
>>> version
>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>
>>>
>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for  
>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the  
>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim.  
>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been  
>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up,  
>>> may we take your silence for assent?
>>>
>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has  
>>> been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the  
>>> outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and  
>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its  
>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism  
>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow  
>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved  
>>> in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on  
>>> the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned  
>>> about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF  
>>> and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively  
>>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with  
>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that  
>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive  
>>> participation.
>>>
>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current  
>>> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more  
>>> active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices  
>>> through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat Jun  6 09:18:27 2009
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sat,  6 Jun 2009 06:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for
In-Reply-To: A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch
Message-ID: <sympa.1244293709.90904.542@lists.cpsr.org>

Bill,

>With the IGF up for renewal and China and others pressing to kill it, ...

I promise you the IGF will not die, true UN funding may cease, but the IGF will
continue.  Who knows maybe it will be picked up by ICANN itself.

If the UN sheds-off the IGF (mainly to reduce cost), there will always be an
online home for the IGF.

Getting rid of the UN would be like getting rid of the JPA, The IGF would be
free of that constraint (i.e.: China et. al.  etc...).
____________________________________________________________
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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Jun  6 10:48:25 2009
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:48:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A2A81B9.9030109@wzb.eu>

Hi,

I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as it 
focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.

The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter 
part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this context:

However, the IGC is concerned about the
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders,
the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see
addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

jeanette



William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and 
> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and 
> this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) fault.  
> I don't see how this is helpful.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> 
>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>
>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
>> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
>> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle 
>> of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
>> that from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not 
>> been  fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a 
>> crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for 
>> a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
>> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
>> in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
>> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see 
>> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively 
>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>> participation.
>>
>>
>> gurstein wrote:
>>> Ginger,
>>>
>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
>>> seems to
>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>> capitalized)
>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in 
>>> the way
>>> I am suggesting...
>>>
>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
>>> greater use
>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>> communities,
>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." or 
>>> there
>>> should be no examples.
>>>
>>> MBG
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 
>>> 2009 11:22 AM
>>> To: gurstein
>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>> version
>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>
>>>
>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>
>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>>> actively
>>> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN 
>>> WSIS
>>> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
>>> Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
>>> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
>>> that from
>>> the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
>>> implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
>>> interest in
>>> the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of 
>>> reasons not
>>> been engaged in this process.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
>>> and
>>> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in 
>>> the
>>> IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
>>> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>>> lack of
>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>> inclusion of
>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>> driven by
>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>
>>>> MBG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>>>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
>>>> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance 
>>>> of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the 
>>>> present. We feel however, that at least from the perspective of 
>>>> civil society. this principle has not been fully implemented since 
>>>> many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health 
>>>> and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not 
>>>> been engaged in this process.
>>>>
>>>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, 
>>>> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who 
>>>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those 
>>>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance 
>>>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to 
>>>> alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to 
>>>> specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working 
>>>> as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a 
>>>> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social 
>>>> development.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders 
>>>> involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues 
>>>> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is 
>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions 
>>>> instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>>>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>> participation.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF 
>>>> Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. 
>>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been 
>>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may 
>>>> we take your silence for assent?
>>>>
>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>>>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
>>>> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its 
>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in 
>>>> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>>>> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>>>> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the 
>>>> counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>>>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>> participation.
>>>>
>>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current 
>>>> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
>>>> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but 
>>>> not limited to, remote participation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
____________________________________________________________
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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 14:52:07 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:22:07 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>

Ok, obviously the statement is not clear, as it should not be having 
these reactions.

I see this statement as 100% overwhelmingly supportive of the IGF 
process, so much so that we do not feel a review is necessary, but that 
we can go right on to trying to continually improve. The IGC has 
indicated in an earlier statement that:

"The process of consultations should especially keep in mind 
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, 
such as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil 
society. Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues 
like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be 
specifically approached."

The response to this in the May OC was that we cannot include people who 
know nothing about the IGF process in the review of the IGF process. But 
the IGC did agree on the above quoted statement, which leads me to the 
conclusion that lesser heard voices with lower participation are a 
concern for the IGC. Giving those groups a voice in the IGF process in 
fact, seems to me to be a primary concern.

Bill (Drake) could you please clarify your position for me? I re-read 
your email and the statement, and I still see the proposed new statement 
as supportive of the IGF, and as dealing with a very important point 
about the future possibilities of the IGF. Sorry to be dense. What am I 
missing?





William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and 
> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and 
> this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) 
> fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>
>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
>> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of 
>> the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We 
>> feel however, that from the perspective of civil society, this 
>> principle has not been  fully implemented since many of those with an 
>> active, even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the 
>> Internet have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
>>
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
>> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders 
>> involved in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues 
>> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is 
>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>> possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create 
>> an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of 
>> discussion.
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>> participation.
>>
>>
>> gurstein wrote:
>>> Ginger,
>>>
>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
>>> seems to
>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>> capitalized)
>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in 
>>> the way
>>> I am suggesting...
>>>
>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
>>> greater use
>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>> communities,
>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." 
>>> or there
>>> should be no examples.
>>>
>>> MBG
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 
>>> 2009 11:22 AM
>>> To: gurstein
>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>> version
>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>
>>>
>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>
>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>>> actively
>>> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN 
>>> WSIS
>>> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN 
>>> Internet
>>> Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
>>> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
>>> that from
>>> the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
>>> implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
>>> interest in
>>> the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of 
>>> reasons not
>>> been engaged in this process.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both 
>>> narrow and
>>> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
>>> in the
>>> IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
>>> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
>>> lack of
>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>> inclusion of
>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>> driven by
>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>
>>>> MBG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>>>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
>>>> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance 
>>>> of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the 
>>>> present. We feel however, that at least from the perspective of 
>>>> civil society. this principle has not been fully implemented since 
>>>> many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health 
>>>> and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not 
>>>> been engaged in this process.
>>>>
>>>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, 
>>>> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who 
>>>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those 
>>>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance 
>>>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to 
>>>> alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to 
>>>> specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working 
>>>> as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a 
>>>> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social 
>>>> development.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders 
>>>> involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues 
>>>> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is 
>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions 
>>>> instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>> participation.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the 
>>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. 
>>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been 
>>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may 
>>>> we take your silence for assent?
>>>>
>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>>>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
>>>> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its 
>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in 
>>>> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
>>>> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about 
>>>> the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and 
>>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental 
>>>> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>> participation.
>>>>
>>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current 
>>>> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
>>>> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, 
>>>> but not limited to, remote participation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 14:56:10 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:26:10 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2A81B9.9030109@wzb.eu>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A2A81B9.9030109@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4A2ABBCA.1050701@gmail.com>

Hi Jeanette. I will deal specifically with the paragraph you note:

We are trying to say two things:

1. We are concerned about the yet "unheard voices" that should be 
included in the IGF process. Right now, perhaps several tens of 
thousands of people, out of the world's populations, are actively 
involved in the IGF process. Many groups are not represented, and one of 
our goals should be to include more minority groups.

2. We are concerned about the proposal to turn the IGF into an purely 
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussions.

Can you rephrase the paragraph so that it is clearer, or explain your 
objections?

Thanks! Best,
Ginger



Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as 
> it focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.
>
> The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter 
> part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this 
> context:
>
> However, the IGC is concerned about the
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders,
> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see
> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and 
>> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
>> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
>> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
>> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and 
>> this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) 
>> fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>>
>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
>>> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance 
>>> of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the 
>>> present. We feel however, that from the perspective of civil 
>>> society, this principle has not been  fully implemented since many 
>>> of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and 
>>> deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been 
>>> engaged in this process.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both 
>>> narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders 
>>> involved in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues 
>>> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is 
>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>> possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might 
>>> be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>> create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions 
>>> instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>> participation.
>>>
>>>
>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
>>>> seems to
>>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>>> capitalized)
>>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in 
>>>> the way
>>>> I am suggesting...
>>>>
>>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
>>>> greater use
>>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>>> communities,
>>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." 
>>>> or there
>>>> should be no examples.
>>>>
>>>> MBG
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 
>>>> 2009 11:22 AM
>>>> To: gurstein
>>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>> version
>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>>
>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>>>> actively
>>>> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the 
>>>> UN WSIS
>>>> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN 
>>>> Internet
>>>> Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
>>>> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
>>>> that from
>>>> the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
>>>> implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
>>>> interest in
>>>> the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of 
>>>> reasons not
>>>> been engaged in this process.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both 
>>>> narrow and
>>>> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
>>>> in the
>>>> IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
>>>> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about 
>>>> the lack of
>>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>>> inclusion of
>>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
>>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>> driven by
>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>>
>>>>> MBG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has 
>>>>> been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the 
>>>>> outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance 
>>>>> of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the 
>>>>> present. We feel however, that at least from the perspective of 
>>>>> civil society. this principle has not been fully implemented since 
>>>>> many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the 
>>>>> health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of 
>>>>> reasons not been engaged in this process.
>>>>>
>>>>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, 
>>>>> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who 
>>>>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those 
>>>>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance 
>>>>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to 
>>>>> alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to 
>>>>> specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those 
>>>>> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the 
>>>>> Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic 
>>>>> and social development.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders 
>>>>> involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues 
>>>>> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is 
>>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by 
>>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>>> participation.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
>>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the 
>>>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. 
>>>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been 
>>>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, 
>>>>> may we take your silence for assent?
>>>>>
>>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has 
>>>>> been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the 
>>>>> outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its 
>>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved 
>>>>> in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on 
>>>>> the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned 
>>>>> about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF 
>>>>> and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>>>>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>>> participation.
>>>>>
>>>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current 
>>>>> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
>>>>> active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices 
>>>>> through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 15:05:16 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:05:16 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2ABBCA.1050701@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EC745CE88CAC492CB6833D663D1DFBBA@userPC>

As a corollary to your point #1 below could I add that we are also concerned
that the additional issues those unheard voices might identify are
introduced into the discussion--although this latter point perhaps need not
be included in the statement.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:56 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: William Drake
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus


Hi Jeanette. I will deal specifically with the paragraph you note:

We are trying to say two things:

1. We are concerned about the yet "unheard voices" that should be 
included in the IGF process. Right now, perhaps several tens of 
thousands of people, out of the world's populations, are actively 
involved in the IGF process. Many groups are not represented, and one of 
our goals should be to include more minority groups.

2. We are concerned about the proposal to turn the IGF into an purely 
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussions.

Can you rephrase the paragraph so that it is clearer, or explain your 
objections?

Thanks! Best,
Ginger



Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as
> it focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.
>
> The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter
> part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this 
> context:
>
> However, the IGC is concerned about the
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see 
> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively 
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and
>> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
>> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
>> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
>> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and 
>> this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) 
>> fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>>
>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
>>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
>>> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance 
>>> of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the 
>>> present. We feel however, that from the perspective of civil 
>>> society, this principle has not been  fully implemented since many 
>>> of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and 
>>> deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been 
>>> engaged in this process.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both
>>> narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders 
>>> involved in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues 
>>> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is 
>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>> possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that they might 
>>> be concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>> create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions 
>>> instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>>> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>> participation.
>>>
>>>
>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it
>>>> seems to
>>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>>> capitalized)
>>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in 
>>>> the way
>>>> I am suggesting...
>>>>
>>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to,
>>>> greater use
>>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>>> communities,
>>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." 
>>>> or there
>>>> should be no examples.
>>>>
>>>> MBG
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05,
>>>> 2009 11:22 AM
>>>> To: gurstein
>>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>> version
>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>>
>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
>>>> actively
>>>> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the 
>>>> UN WSIS
>>>> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN 
>>>> Internet
>>>> Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
>>>> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
>>>> that from
>>>> the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
>>>> implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
>>>> interest in
>>>> the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of 
>>>> reasons not
>>>> been engaged in this process.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both
>>>> narrow and
>>>> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
>>>> in the
>>>> IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
>>>> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about 
>>>> the lack of
>>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>>> inclusion of
>>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
>>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>> driven by
>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>>
>>>>> MBG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has
>>>>> been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the 
>>>>> outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance 
>>>>> of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the 
>>>>> present. We feel however, that at least from the perspective of 
>>>>> civil society. this principle has not been fully implemented since 
>>>>> many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the 
>>>>> health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of 
>>>>> reasons not been engaged in this process.
>>>>>
>>>>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,
>>>>> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who 
>>>>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those 
>>>>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance 
>>>>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to 
>>>>> alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to 
>>>>> specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those 
>>>>> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the 
>>>>> Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic 
>>>>> and social development.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow
>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders 
>>>>> involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues 
>>>>> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is 
>>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by 
>>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>>> participation.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>>> version (McTim's changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
>>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the 
>>>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. 
>>>>> Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been 
>>>>> discussed or included in the statement. If you do not speak up, 
>>>>> may we take your silence for assent?
>>>>>
>>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has
>>>>> been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the 
>>>>> outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its 
>>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow
>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved 
>>>>> in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on 
>>>>> the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned 
>>>>> about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF 
>>>>> and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>>>>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>>> participation.
>>>>>
>>>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current
>>>>> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more 
>>>>> active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices 
>>>>> through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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


From raquelgatto at uol.com.br  Sat Jun  6 15:40:43 2009
From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:40:43 -0300
Subject: [governance] Reminder - IV GigaNet Annual Symposium, Egypt (CFP) -
 Deadline: June 30 -
In-Reply-To: <49f3ae267a482_442f1555555879b4663@weasel3.tmail>
References: <49f3ae267a482_442f1555555879b4663@weasel3.tmail>
Message-ID: <18EEE79913754418A874BAF6889AA0F8@Raquelnote>

(Sorry for cross-posting but might be of interested to some of you...)

Dear Colleagues,

The Giganet Program Committee is pleased to announce that keynote speakers for the Symposium have been confirmed as a joint presentation named "Beyond Denial: Introducing the Next Generation of Internet Controls" from Ronald J. Deibert, Professor and Director, The Citizen Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto and Rafal Rohozinski: CEO at Psiphon inc, Principal and CEO at The SecDev Group, Ottawa, Canada. 

Please also remind that the deadline for submitting abstracts of research papers to IV Giganet Annual Symposium is June 30. The updated version of CFP is attached and online at:  http://giganet.igloogroups.org/2009annual/cfpdraft3p


Looking forward to receiving your contributions!

Best Regards,

Raquel Gatto
GigaNet Program Committee Chair

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: raquelgatto 
  Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:43 PM
  Subject: [governance] IV GigaNet Annual Symposium, Egypt - Call for Papers




  (Sorry for cross-posting but might be of interested to some of you...)

  Dear All,

  On behalf of the Program Committee, we are pleased to announce the Call for Papers to the IV Annual Giganet Sympoium which will take place on November 14, 2009 - one day before the IV UN Internet Governance Forum, in Sharm-El Sheik, Egypt.

  Based on the successful experiences in Greece (2006), Brazil (2007) and India (2008), we seek quality scholar's submissions to value our event. The deadline for submitting abstracts is June 30.

  Please find below and enclosed the CFP in pdf version, which is also available at:

  http://giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/4thgiganet/giganetcal

  If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact me immediately.

  Hope to receive your contributions soon!

  Best Regards,

  Raquel Gatto

  GigaNet Program Committee Chair



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ____________________________________________________________
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/1d59683f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Giganet - Call for Papers 2009 version 2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 81608 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090606/1d59683f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Jun  6 15:48:29 2009
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 01:18:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
 Against VeriSign
Message-ID: <1244317710.19968.2.camel@spica>

From:
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20090605_appeals_court_revives_cfit_anti_trust_suit_against_verisign/>

Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit Against VeriSign
Jun 05, 2009 4:19 PM PDT

By John Levine

Back in 2005 an organization called the Coalition for Internet
Transparency (CFIT) burst upon the scene at the Vancouver ICANN meeting,
and filed an anti-trust suit against VeriSign for their monopoly control
of the .COM registry and of the market in expiring .COM domains. They
didn't do very well in the trial court, which granted Verisign's motion
to dismiss the case. But yesterday the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial
court and put the suit back on track.

In the decision [PDF], a three judge panel told the district court that
the suit has enough basis to proceed. CFIT claims that VeriSign engaged
in a variety of predatory conduct including financial pressure,
astroturf lobbying, and vexatious lawsuits to get ICANN to renew
the .COM agreement on very favorable terms, including what is in
practice eternal renewal of the contract with annual price increases. As
part of that process, VeriSign settled the suit, paid ICANN several
million dollars, and promised never to lobby against ICANN again.

In the 20 page decision, the appeals court basically said that CFIT's
claims about the .COM renewal, the domain market, and the expiring
domain market were plausible, crediting a brief from the Internet
Commerce Association for explaining the expiring domain market to them.
They note that an earlier case from 2001 that didn't find a separate
market in expiring domains appears no longer relevant, since the domain
market has evolved a lot since then.

CFIT made similar claims about the .NET market, which the appeals court
found less persuasive, so they instructed the trial court to look at
them again and decide whether they should be dismissed or continue. But
the case with respect to .COM definitely is going ahead.

This suit could have a huge effect on the domain market, since there
were credible bidders who said they could run the .COM registry for $3
per name, under half of what VeriSign charges. It is also a huge
embarassment for ICANN, since it shows them to be inept, corrupt, or
both when managing the .COM domain which, due to its dominance, is the
most important thing they do. In the original version of the suit ICANN
was a defendant, but they were dropped a few years ago so now they're
just an uncomfortable observer.

Perversely, if CFIT gets its way, ICANN could come out ahead. They get a
fixed 20 cents per domain, unrelated to the $6.42 that VeriSign
currently charges. If the price were to drop to $3, ICANN would still
get their 20 cents, and presumably if the price were a lot lower,
there'd be a lot more registrations.

CFIT's attorney is Bret Fausett, who's been an active ICANN observer
just about since the beginning, and gets great credit for this
surprising reversal. CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about as
opaque an organization as there is, having a broken web site and no
other public presence I can find. A 2005 article in The Register by
Kieren McCarthy (back when he was a journalist) claims it's funded by
Rob Hall, founder of momentous.ca/pool.com, a large registrar that does
a lot of business with domain speculators and provides a popular domain
sniping service to grab expiring domains. Although I am not a great fan
of the speculators, I'm no fan of VeriSign either, and I look forward to
the progress of this suit, not the least for the interesting documents
that are likely to appear in the discovery stage. 

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/21853132/attachment.sig>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 16:25:01 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 23:25:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit 
In-Reply-To: <1244317710.19968.2.camel@spica>
References: <1244317710.19968.2.camel@spica>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906061325s71294a04q135ac6e6559ad2e7@mail.gmail.com>

All,

If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.

Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.

If you feel you must, then at the very least,
make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On 6/6/09, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> From:
>  <http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20090605_appeals_court_revives_cfit_anti_trust_suit_against_verisign/>
>
>  Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit Against VeriSign
>  Jun 05, 2009 4:19 PM PDT
>
>  By John Levine
>
>  Back in 2005 an organization called the Coalition for Internet
>  Transparency (CFIT) burst upon the scene at the Vancouver ICANN meeting,
>  and filed an anti-trust suit against VeriSign for their monopoly control
>  of the .COM registry and of the market in expiring .COM domains. They
>  didn't do very well in the trial court, which granted Verisign's motion
>  to dismiss the case. But yesterday the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial
>  court and put the suit back on track.
>
>  In the decision [PDF], a three judge panel told the district court that
>  the suit has enough basis to proceed. CFIT claims that VeriSign engaged
>  in a variety of predatory conduct including financial pressure,
>  astroturf lobbying, and vexatious lawsuits to get ICANN to renew
>  the .COM agreement on very favorable terms, including what is in
>  practice eternal renewal of the contract with annual price increases. As
>  part of that process, VeriSign settled the suit, paid ICANN several
>  million dollars, and promised never to lobby against ICANN again.
>
>  In the 20 page decision, the appeals court basically said that CFIT's
>  claims about the .COM renewal, the domain market, and the expiring
>  domain market were plausible, crediting a brief from the Internet
>  Commerce Association for explaining the expiring domain market to them.
>  They note that an earlier case from 2001 that didn't find a separate
>  market in expiring domains appears no longer relevant, since the domain
>  market has evolved a lot since then.
>
>  CFIT made similar claims about the .NET market, which the appeals court
>  found less persuasive, so they instructed the trial court to look at
>  them again and decide whether they should be dismissed or continue. But
>  the case with respect to .COM definitely is going ahead.
>
>  This suit could have a huge effect on the domain market, since there
>  were credible bidders who said they could run the .COM registry for $3
>  per name, under half of what VeriSign charges. It is also a huge
>  embarassment for ICANN, since it shows them to be inept, corrupt, or
>  both when managing the .COM domain which, due to its dominance, is the
>  most important thing they do. In the original version of the suit ICANN
>  was a defendant, but they were dropped a few years ago so now they're
>  just an uncomfortable observer.
>
>  Perversely, if CFIT gets its way, ICANN could come out ahead. They get a
>  fixed 20 cents per domain, unrelated to the $6.42 that VeriSign
>  currently charges. If the price were to drop to $3, ICANN would still
>  get their 20 cents, and presumably if the price were a lot lower,
>  there'd be a lot more registrations.
>
>  CFIT's attorney is Bret Fausett, who's been an active ICANN observer
>  just about since the beginning, and gets great credit for this
>  surprising reversal. CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about as
>  opaque an organization as there is, having a broken web site and no
>  other public presence I can find. A 2005 article in The Register by
>  Kieren McCarthy (back when he was a journalist) claims it's funded by
>  Rob Hall, founder of momentous.ca/pool.com, a large registrar that does
>  a lot of business with domain speculators and provides a popular domain
>  sniping service to grab expiring domains. Although I am not a great fan
>  of the speculators, I'm no fan of VeriSign either, and I look forward to
>  the progress of this suit, not the least for the interesting documents
>  that are likely to appear in the discovery stage.
>
>
>  --
>  Pranesh Prakash
>  Programme Manager
>  Centre for Internet and Society
>  W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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


From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Jun  6 16:53:06 2009
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:23:06 +0530
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906061325s71294a04q135ac6e6559ad2e7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1244317710.19968.2.camel@spica> <f65fb55e0906061325s71294a04q135ac6e6559ad2e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A2AD732.8030103@cis-india.org>

McTim wrote:
> All,
> 
> If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.
> 
> Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.
> 
> If you feel you must, then at the very least,
> make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.
> 

Sorry about that.  In the past there has been much talk on this list
about ICANN's monopoly, and Wolfgang Kleinwächter recently posted[1] an
article in which the VeriSign-ICANN dispute was mentioned.  I thought
that this would be a useful follow-up of the FYI-kind (since the
VeriSign-ICANN settlement has a direct impact on this antitrust case
against VeriSign).  Do people on this list have any thoughts about this
case?  I'd be most interested in knowing.

[1] <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-05/msg00087.html>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/25e0eedb/attachment.sig>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Jun  6 17:00:25 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:00:25 +1000
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <4A2AD732.8030103@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi, 

I welcome posts that I might have read elsewhere if people think the subject
is worth discussing here.

 


On 7/06/09 6:53 AM, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

> McTim wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.
>> 
>> Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.
>> 
>> If you feel you must, then at the very least,
>> make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.
>> 
> 
> Sorry about that.  In the past there has been much talk on this list
> about ICANN's monopoly, and Wolfgang Kleinwächter recently posted[1] an
> article in which the VeriSign-ICANN dispute was mentioned.  I thought
> that this would be a useful follow-up of the FYI-kind (since the
> VeriSign-ICANN settlement has a direct impact on this antitrust case
> against VeriSign).  Do people on this list have any thoughts about this
> case?  I'd be most interested in knowing.
> 
> [1] <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-05/msg00087.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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 17:13:24 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:13:24 +0500
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906061413v269d84b8ud0a5cead44c07496@mail.gmail.com>

Yes from me again.

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
> by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
> statement – if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
> is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
> am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
> in the next 48 hours.
>
> At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
> emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
> clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>
> Thank you everyone for your participation!
>
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>
> 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 www.igcaucus.org.
>
> We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
> Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>
> In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
> principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
> according to the Geneva 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.
>
> On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
> that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
> procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
> believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
> viable solution.
>
>  Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
> mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
> a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
> a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
> ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
> should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
> of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
> transparent and inclusive process.
>
> Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
> certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN’s operation.
> We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
> in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
> principles which follow. 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:
>
> ·      bottom up co-ordination
>
>
> ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
> interests and Internet users
>
>
> ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>
>
> ·      transparency
>
>
> ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>
>
> ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
> which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>
>
> ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>
> We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
> management, 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 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.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
> Caucus
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
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


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Sat Jun  6 17:14:41 2009
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:14:41 -0700
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <83A1A214-EAAD-4E87-ABFB-EEA816815923@internet.law.pro>

Take a look at the decision itself (short URL at http://bret.net/COMAntitrust 
  ), which contains some nice wording about ICANN.

"[T]the Supreme Court has held that an entity may be prosecuted for...  
improper coercion of a standards-setting body. ...CFIT has essentially  
alleged that ICANN is a private standards-setting body.... ICANN  
administers the DNS and is responsible for entering into agreements  
with registry operators like VeriSign. According to the complaint,  
ICANN’s mission includes a commitment to promoting competition for the  
contracts. ....We hold, therefore, that ....CFIT has adequately  
alleged that VeriSign’s improper coercion of ICANN and attempts to  
control ICANN’s operations in its own favor violated [U.S. Antitrust  
Laws]."

There's a nice citation to a Michael Froomkin article in the middle of  
that quote in the opinion. Personally I think this ruling strengthens  
ICANN, and ICANN's independence, as it plainly says that if you abuse  
the ICANN process to gain an anti-competitive advantage, you run afoul  
of U.S. laws.

      -- 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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 17:40:52 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:40:52 +0500
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1244293709.90904.542@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1244293709.90904.542@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <701af9f70906061440p2d27e9eby8f1cef484361729f@mail.gmail.com>

True, the IGF as an open dialogue forum for Internet Governance is yet
to mature as a stage for international cooperation for compliance and
that gives it uniqueness to be continued. I am sure that if the UN
gives it up, the EU is already geared to do something in the sphere of
Internet Internet Governance. This is a mutlistakeholder process and
if one multilateral process falls out of place, there are other
systems in place to take over this important arena of Internet
affairs.

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Yehuda Katz<yehudakatz at mailinator.com> wrote:
> Bill,
>
>>With the IGF up for renewal and China and others pressing to kill it, ...
>
> I promise you the IGF will not die, true UN funding may cease, but the IGF will
> continue.  Who knows maybe it will be picked up by ICANN itself.
>
> If the UN sheds-off the IGF (mainly to reduce cost), there will always be an
> online home for the IGF.
>
> Getting rid of the UN would be like getting rid of the JPA, The IGF would be
> free of that constraint (i.e.: China et. al.  etc...).
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 17:47:35 2009
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:47:35 -0700
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906061325s71294a04q135ac6e6559ad2e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A90AE4F4E1D44AE18BE255505A097D92@userPC>

Hi,

I'm not sure that I agree... For those of us without a professional interest
in the subject matter here (and other things to be doing) the occasional
background piece or reference or URL for providing context can be extremely
valuable--the piece that Pranesh sent along certainly would, to my mind, fit
within that category. 

Especially in light of current/recent discussons.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:25 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pranesh Prakash
Subject: Re: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit 


All,

If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.

Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.

If you feel you must, then at the very least,
make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On 6/6/09, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> From:  
> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20090605_appeals_court_revives_cf
> it_anti_trust_suit_against_verisign/>
>
>  Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit Against VeriSign  Jun 
> 05, 2009 4:19 PM PDT
>
>  By John Levine
>
>  Back in 2005 an organization called the Coalition for Internet  
> Transparency (CFIT) burst upon the scene at the Vancouver ICANN 
> meeting,  and filed an anti-trust suit against VeriSign for their 
> monopoly control  of the .COM registry and of the market in expiring 
> .COM domains. They  didn't do very well in the trial court, which 
> granted Verisign's motion  to dismiss the case. But yesterday the 
> Ninth Circuit reversed the trial  court and put the suit back on 
> track.
>
>  In the decision [PDF], a three judge panel told the district court 
> that  the suit has enough basis to proceed. CFIT claims that VeriSign 
> engaged  in a variety of predatory conduct including financial 
> pressure,  astroturf lobbying, and vexatious lawsuits to get ICANN to 
> renew  the .COM agreement on very favorable terms, including what is 
> in  practice eternal renewal of the contract with annual price 
> increases. As  part of that process, VeriSign settled the suit, paid 
> ICANN several  million dollars, and promised never to lobby against 
> ICANN again.
>
>  In the 20 page decision, the appeals court basically said that CFIT's  
> claims about the .COM renewal, the domain market, and the expiring  
> domain market were plausible, crediting a brief from the Internet  
> Commerce Association for explaining the expiring domain market to 
> them.  They note that an earlier case from 2001 that didn't find a 
> separate  market in expiring domains appears no longer relevant, since 
> the domain  market has evolved a lot since then.
>
>  CFIT made similar claims about the .NET market, which the appeals 
> court  found less persuasive, so they instructed the trial court to 
> look at  them again and decide whether they should be dismissed or 
> continue. But  the case with respect to .COM definitely is going 
> ahead.
>
>  This suit could have a huge effect on the domain market, since there  
> were credible bidders who said they could run the .COM registry for $3  
> per name, under half of what VeriSign charges. It is also a huge  
> embarassment for ICANN, since it shows them to be inept, corrupt, or  
> both when managing the .COM domain which, due to its dominance, is the  
> most important thing they do. In the original version of the suit 
> ICANN  was a defendant, but they were dropped a few years ago so now 
> they're  just an uncomfortable observer.
>
>  Perversely, if CFIT gets its way, ICANN could come out ahead. They 
> get a  fixed 20 cents per domain, unrelated to the $6.42 that VeriSign  
> currently charges. If the price were to drop to $3, ICANN would still  
> get their 20 cents, and presumably if the price were a lot lower,  
> there'd be a lot more registrations.
>
>  CFIT's attorney is Bret Fausett, who's been an active ICANN observer  
> just about since the beginning, and gets great credit for this  
> surprising reversal. CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about as  
> opaque an organization as there is, having a broken web site and no  
> other public presence I can find. A 2005 article in The Register by  
> Kieren McCarthy (back when he was a journalist) claims it's funded by  
> Rob Hall, founder of momentous.ca/pool.com, a large registrar that 
> does  a lot of business with domain speculators and provides a popular 
> domain  sniping service to grab expiring domains. Although I am not a 
> great fan  of the speculators, I'm no fan of VeriSign either, and I 
> look forward to  the progress of this suit, not the least for the 
> interesting documents  that are likely to appear in the discovery 
> stage.
>
>
>  --
>  Pranesh Prakash
>  Programme Manager
>  Centre for Internet and Society
>  W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jun  7 01:12:51 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:42:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <A90AE4F4E1D44AE18BE255505A097D92@userPC>
References: <A90AE4F4E1D44AE18BE255505A097D92@userPC>
Message-ID: <4A2B4C53.9030505@itforchange.net>

I agree. Pranesh's posting was quite relevant. We also need to be less 
rude to new (active) members, participating on the list.

parminder



Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure that I agree... For those of us without a professional interest
> in the subject matter here (and other things to be doing) the occasional
> background piece or reference or URL for providing context can be extremely
> valuable--the piece that Pranesh sent along certainly would, to my mind, fit
> within that category. 
>
> Especially in light of current/recent discussons.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:25 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pranesh Prakash
> Subject: Re: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit 
>
>
> All,
>
> If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.
>
> Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.
>
> If you feel you must, then at the very least,
> make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/126e048a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jun  7 01:29:35 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:59:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2ABBCA.1050701@gmail.com>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A2A81B9.9030109@wzb.eu> <4A2ABBCA.1050701@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A2B503F.2050204@itforchange.net>

Ginger

Thanks for taking the initiative on this. As you will expect I am very 
supportive of the issues that the current statement takes up. I think 
IGF review should  be focusing on two things.

One, on ensuring substantive 'inclusive' participation, as opposed to 
just formal (which IGF's present architecture mostly ensures). This 
point is very well brought out by the present draft statement, and I 
very much agree with the detail it has gone into in this respect.

Secondly, the public policy impact, especially at global level, that IGF 
has made. This, in my opinion, was the purpose of creating the IGF - to 
help develop global IG policies and institutions. The review should 
obviously focus on this raison de' etre of the IGF. 'Participation' is 
meaningless without a context  of 'for what purpose' and  'towards what 
end'.

It will be good to go through numerous statements on the IGF that the 
IGC has developed, including the recent one specifically on the subject 
of review, and pull out all key points from these. I think the current 
context and opportunity is to get as much of our perspective as possible 
into the synthesis paper on the comments on the subject of IGF review 
which will be presented to the IGF at its annual meeting. Our effort 
should be directed by this imperative. And since there is time till 15th 
July to give our comments to be included in this synthesis paper, we can 
pull out important elements from our earlier submissions, as well have  
a good discussion on the subject on the list.

Thanks.

parminder




Ginger Paque wrote:
> Hi Jeanette. I will deal specifically with the paragraph you note:
>
> We are trying to say two things:
>
> 1. We are concerned about the yet "unheard voices" that should be 
> included in the IGF process. Right now, perhaps several tens of 
> thousands of people, out of the world's populations, are actively 
> involved in the IGF process. Many groups are not represented, and one 
> of our goals should be to include more minority groups.
>
> 2. We are concerned about the proposal to turn the IGF into an purely 
> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussions.
>
> Can you rephrase the paragraph so that it is clearer, or explain your 
> objections?
>
> Thanks! Best,
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as 
>> it focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.
>>
>> The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter 
>> part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this 
>> context:
>>
>> However, the IGC is concerned about the
>> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders,
>> the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see
>> addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively
>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>> William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and 
>>> others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's 
>>> earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief 
>>> beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of 
>>> experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating 
>>> and this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) 
>>> fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>
>>>> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>>>>
>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
>>>> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
>>>> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance 
>>>> of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the 
>>>> present. We feel however, that from the perspective of civil 
>>>> society, this principle has not been  fully implemented since many 
>>>> of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and 
>>>> deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been 
>>>> engaged in this process.
>>>>
>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both 
>>>> narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among those 
>>>> stakeholders involved in the IGF process, by providing workshops 
>>>> and dialogues based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, 
>>>> the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the broader 
>>>> base of possible stakeholders, the inclusion of the issues that 
>>>> they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the 
>>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>> participation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>>> Ginger,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it 
>>>>> seems to
>>>>> me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is 
>>>>> capitalized)
>>>>> as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
>>>>> participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
>>>>> inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation 
>>>>> in the way
>>>>> I am suggesting...
>>>>>
>>>>> So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, 
>>>>> greater use
>>>>> of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
>>>>> particular areas of concern such as for example the disability 
>>>>> communities,
>>>>> indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." 
>>>>> or there
>>>>> should be no examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> MBG
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 
>>>>> 05, 2009 11:22 AM
>>>>> To: gurstein
>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
>>>>> Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>>> version
>>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about this compromise between the two versions?
>>>>>
>>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has 
>>>>> been actively
>>>>> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the 
>>>>> UN WSIS
>>>>> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN 
>>>>> Internet
>>>>> Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
>>>>> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
>>>>> that from
>>>>> the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
>>>>> implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
>>>>> interest in
>>>>> the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of 
>>>>> reasons not
>>>>> been engaged in this process.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both 
>>>>> narrow and
>>>>> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
>>>>> in the
>>>>> IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
>>>>> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about 
>>>>> the lack of
>>>>> participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
>>>>> inclusion of
>>>>> the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with 
>>>>> the
>>>>> counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum 
>>>>> driven by
>>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> gurstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, here it is...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MBG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has 
>>>>>> been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the 
>>>>>> outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on 
>>>>>> acceptance of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 
>>>>>> until the present. We feel however, that at least from the 
>>>>>> perspective of civil society. this principle has not been fully 
>>>>>> implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
>>>>>> interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a 
>>>>>> variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, 
>>>>>> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who 
>>>>>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those 
>>>>>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance 
>>>>>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to 
>>>>>> alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to 
>>>>>> specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those 
>>>>>> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the 
>>>>>> Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic 
>>>>>> and social development.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders 
>>>>>> involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues 
>>>>>> based on the multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is 
>>>>>> concerned about the lack of participation by the broader base of 
>>>>>> possible stakeholders, inclusion of the issues that they might be 
>>>>>> concerned to see addressed, and with the counter-proposal to 
>>>>>> creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by 
>>>>>> decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>>>> participation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
>>>>>> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest 
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> (McTim's changes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
>>>>>> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the 
>>>>>> IGF Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by 
>>>>>> McTim. Michael Gurstein made some very good comments which have 
>>>>>> not been discussed or included in the statement. If you do not 
>>>>>> speak up, may we take your silence for assent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has 
>>>>>> been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the 
>>>>>> outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and 
>>>>>> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its 
>>>>>> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism 
>>>>>> from 2006 until the present.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>>>>> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved 
>>>>>> in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on 
>>>>>> the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned 
>>>>>> about the lack of participation by the developing world in the 
>>>>>> IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively 
>>>>>> intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>>>>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that 
>>>>>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>>>>> participation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the 
>>>>>> current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster 
>>>>>> more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country 
>>>>>> voices through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/2d85b800/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jun  7 02:35:00 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:05:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] JPA
Message-ID: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>

IT for Change is planning to submit to the following comments on JPA.

These comments are premised on our belief that what we are looking for 
here is a *major* political decision from the highest level of the US 
government, and not  merely an administrative change. Therefore, the 
principal appeal we make has to be strongly political, pitched to the 
highest principles of fairness and justice, and of globally democratic 
governance for global issues. The best way to do so is to remind the US 
government of its commitments at the WSIS, and point out how these 
commitments call for specific actions by the US government as the JPA 
comes to an end. It is accordingly also important to connect the 
post-JPA arrangement to the corresponding elements in the Tunis Agenda 
that all have agreed to  -  the 'enhanced cooperation' framework. We are 
a bit surprised as to why the comments of even the actors who are 
opposed to JPA as well as to a free-float ICANN are not focusing on the 
obvious space that has some (significant) existing recognition and 
legitimacy, and was always meant as an exercise, inter alia, to create 
post-JPA oversight mechanisms.

Text of the proposed statement

Speaking as a civil society organization from a developing country, we 
are impressed by the stance taken by the present US administration on 
issues related to perceptions as well as facts of US hegemony in various 
global affairs. The most recent pronouncement by President Obama in his 
address at the Cairo University attests to this refreshing approach 
which promises a new role for the US in managing our collective global 
affairs, and a new perception of the US among other countries and people.

"No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear 
weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek 
a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons."

It is, in this context, important that the US government recognizes that 
a unilateral control of critical Internet resources exercised by the US 
is not tenable, and greatly contributes to the 'hegemonistic' image of 
the US, and its pursuance of what President Obama rightly called as 
'double standards'. The outcome documents of the World Summit on the 
Information Society (WSIS), to which US government is a signatory, 
recognized this as the application of 'principle of universality' for 
Internet governance. The summit asserted that that 'all governments 
should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet 
governance'. 'The international management of the Internet should be 
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of 
governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
organizations'.

The WSIS also called for a process of 'enhanced cooperation' to be 
initiated, inter alia, to deal with the issue of legitimate oversight 
mechanisms for critical Interent resources. This process should have 
been initiated by the UN Secretary General in early 2006. Apparently, it 
is difficult to get on with this process without some clear helpful 
signs from the US government which holds the oversight power at present, 
including through the JPA. It will be most befitting the new approach of 
Obama administration for it to signal its desire to begin the process of 
'enhanced cooperation' towards developing legitimate oversight 
mechanisms as per WSIS principles, and in a manner that address the 
legitimate interests of all countries and people, including of the US.

As for the possibility of allowing ICANN to subsist without any 
oversight mechanism, we are strongly against any industry-led regulatory 
system which, in our view, is an oxymoron. The limits of self-regulation 
in areas of key public interest have been shown by the recent banking 
fiasco which is bringing untold miseries all over the world. We are 
therefore of the firm view that ICANN does require external oversight.

The best way forward therefore is to annul the current JPA, and enter 
into a new trilateral agreement between ICANN, US and the UN system to 
start a process towards 'development of globally-applicable principles 
on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management 
of critical Internet resources' (as agreed at the WSIS) and also 
developing appropriate institutional mechanisms of oversight over ICANN, 
in its tasks of technical management of CIRs. This process, as called 
for by the WSIS, should be, to repeat, 'multilateral, transparent and 
democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private 
sector, civil society and international organizations'.


(text ends)


parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/cdefea7e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun Jun  7 02:50:23 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:50:23 +0900
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0906051036n5db4b486p190d87fea852c7cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>	
 <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@10.0.1.3>
 <f65fb55e0906051036n5db4b486p190d87fea852c7cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240800c6511145cee0@[192.168.1.86]>

>On 6/5/09, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
>>  Mike,
>>
>>   Yesterday Twomey said it's an Australian company, and that is what I had
>>  heard earlier.
>
>it's in the annual report or the budget, one of the latest docs
>anyway.  I can't recall the name, but it's Ozzie fer sure mate!


Twomey and Magaziner have been involved in a consulting company for 
many years -- ArgoPacific. Magaziner  lead e-commerce policy for the 
US, Twomey the same for AU govt.  So... "Argo P at cific is a high level 
international consulting firm specialising in the Internet and 
digital economy sectors" (cute use of @ mark...)

Australian registered.  Known about, no secret. It was Twomey's 
employer when he left the Australian govt (some might remember he 
stayed on as GAC chair as a kind of honorary Ambassador even thou 
private sector.)

ICANN has been clear about the "surplus" in it's budget.  It's trying 
to build a half-year operational reserve.  Seems a good idea to me.

Adam



>--
>Cheers,
>
>McTim
>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>____________________________________________________________
>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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun Jun  7 04:17:31 2009
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 17:17:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70906061413v269d84b8ud0a5cead44c07496@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C64FD13B.2C29%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <701af9f70906061413v269d84b8ud0a5cead44c07496@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240806c65127710119@[192.168.1.86]>

Yes from me too.

Sorry for silence during the comment period. 
Might have been helpful to say in the intro about 
the IGC that many members are are active 
participants and volunteers in the ICANN process.

Adam


>Yes from me again.
>
>On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>  Below is the final statement we propose to send to DOC (and need to submit
>>  by June 8). Please indicate YES or NO as regards your support for this
>>  statement ­ if you have already indicated in the previous draft a YES, there
>>  is no need to vote again (in the interests of email flow). At this stage I
>>  am assuming we have a consensus for this unless strong objections are raised
>>  in the next 48 hours.
>>
>>  At this stage no amendments can be accepted which changes the meaning or
>>  emphasis of the text. However we can certainly consider simple changes that
>>  clarify the expression if you feel strongly about them.
>>
>>  Thank you everyone for your participation!
>>
>>  DRAFT FOLLOWS
>>
>>
>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>  non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>  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 www.igcaucus.org.
>>
>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
>>  Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>>
>>  In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>  principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>  according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>  people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>  Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>  co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>  security.
>>
>>  On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
>>  that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
>>  procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
>>  believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
>>  viable solution.
>>
>>   Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>>  mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>>  a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>>  a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
>>  ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>>
>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that it
>>  should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the development
>>  of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
>>  transparent and inclusive process.
>>
>>  Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
>>  certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
>>  We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
>>  in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
>>  principles which follow. 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:
>>
>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>
>>
>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>  interests and Internet users
>>
>  >
>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>
>>
>>  ·      transparency
>>
>>
>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>
>>
>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
>>  which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>
>>
>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>
>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with multistakeholder
>>  management, 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 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
>>  Caucus
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Regards.
>--------------------------
>Fouad Bajwa
>@skBajwa
>Answering all your technology questions
>http://www.askbajwa.com
>http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>____________________________________________________________
>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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Jun  7 04:52:36 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:52:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
In-Reply-To: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C6511609.2CA2%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <E21B746A-A55A-4496-92AD-262D9F243AC4@graduateinstitute.ch>


On Jun 6, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> I welcome posts that I might have read elsewhere if people think the  
> subject
> is worth discussing here.

Of course.  Thanks for bring it to our attention Pranesh.  Don't be so  
cranky McTim, just use the delete key.

On Jun 6, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> Personally I think this ruling strengthens ICANN, and ICANN's  
> independence, as it plainly says that if you abuse the ICANN process  
> to gain an anti-competitive advantage, you run afoul of U.S. laws.

Congrats Bret on getting VeriSign in the dock.

Raises again the interesting question of the costs/benefits of being  
under US law and what the alternatives might be.  While ICANN's not  
going anywhere, it's at least interesting to consider from a  
institutional design standpoint.

Bill
  
____________________________________________________________
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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Jun  7 05:20:09 2009
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:20:09 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
References: <63AA69B6043A4032855BC197A034FFB8@userPC>
 <p062007a8c64f060d48cb@10.0.1.3>
 <f65fb55e0906051036n5db4b486p190d87fea852c7cf@mail.gmail.com>
 <p06240800c6511145cee0@[192.168.1.86]>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719120@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

The whole hearing was an astonishing piece of ignorance by some US congress members and some US industry representatives with regard to legitimate interests of stakeholders and nations around the world. Look into the references of the study of the Technology Policy Institute (Lenard/White) - which was obviously the main source for members of the committee - and you get a clue what you can expect if these groups will get decision making power over the future of Internet Governance ;-(((.    If this happens we will see another round of a global ideological battles over the future of the Internet with numerous unitended side effects, very counterproducitve both to the globnal Internet community and the US itself. The global view was totally ouf of the radar of the majority of the committee members and some of the panelists. What a gulf between the open eyes of the elected president and the narrow view of these group of people. 
 
Wolfgang
 
____________________________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jun  7 05:22:15 2009
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:52:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
Message-ID: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>

Hi All

I see that 15th is the last date for final workshop proposals and 30th 
for speakers. IGC has two workshop proposals and we will need to work on 
this. Best to get working groups made for each. This is how it worked 
the last time.

Meanwhile there is a proposal in the program paper that some workshops 
that are sufficiently representative will be given longer time period - 
3 hours, with a view of possibly seeking some useful convergences of 
views. The precise language of the program paper is

"Merged workshops will be given the opportunity to bring their findings 
to the attention of the related main session. If sufficiently 
representative, merged workshops will be given three hour slots with the 
aim of providing an opportunity to identify a range of best practices."

I wonder if we can try and propose merger of our network neutrality 
workshop with another one on the same subject, and apply for a 3 hour 
slot. We can point to the fact that in at least one country (Norway) all 
stakeholders have been able to agree to set of NN principles, and it is 
worth making such efforts at the global level. At the least we can try 
to agree to some  basic set of principles that flow flow from the 
defining characteristics of 'openness' and 'neutrality' of the Internet.

In order to give our best to leverage the new format opened up, perhaps 
as a back up (since we have no proposed workshop on this subject) we can 
seek a 3 hour workshop on developing principles and best practices in IG 
in the area of disability rights - this would perhaps also complement 
the current work in WIPO on copyright exception for the disabled.

On  a different note, we should also put in a request for a booth in the 
IGF village for the IGC, last date fro which is 30th June. We took one 
in Hyderabad, but it was not advertised among members and did not get 
used. Such a booth is  a good meeting point for the caucus

parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/a9cf6871/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Jun  7 05:52:52 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:52:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ginger

On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Bill (Drake) could you please clarify your position for me? I re- 
> read your email and the statement, and I still see the proposed new  
> statement as supportive of the IGF, and as dealing with a very  
> important point about the future possibilities of the IGF. Sorry to  
> be dense. What am I missing?

I don't know.  But given the IGC's historical and current relationship  
to the IGF, one would like to think that an IGC statement about  
renewal could do more to reflect on the experience and make a case for  
why it's been innovative and important and merits support.  Merely  
stating at the end that

>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with  
>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue

Is pretty underwhelming, especially when there are a number of  
important actors saying its value and effectiveness are not at all  
obvious.  I suspect it'll be renewed but could get bloodied a bit  
along the way, e.g. in ECOSOC, in ways that could affect the  
trajectory, so it'd be nice to be providing solid argumentation in  
support.

Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic  
criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed  
reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault--- 
the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point  
to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You  
can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/ 
global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be  
trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.  
as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of  
marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something  
concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not  
blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap  
shot as a main thrust.

It'd read differently in a broader and balanced statement about IGF's  
contributions to global understanding, dialogue etc on IG.  In this  
context, concluding with some points about things that the  
international community needs to address going forward would seem  
apt.  We could say something constructive about much more needing to  
be done to promote inclusion, we could raise the long standing  
concerns of some/many/all (unclear) of us that IGF should be more than  
an annual conference and have more capacity to actually deliver on the  
mandate, etc.  As with the JPA discussion, some structured debate and  
consensus building here on a more substantial text would seem doable,  
we have until July 15 to submit.  Why we should rush to agree on a  
short and inadequately worded statement that concentrates on a generic  
shortcoming of all policy processes is beyond me.

Hope that is clearer,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jun  7 06:00:51 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 13:00:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>
	 <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
	 <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>
	 <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906070300o1eb7576dq6a20e82d0d92891e@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/7/09, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
<snip>
 Why we should rush to
> agree on a short and inadequately worded statement that concentrates on a
> generic shortcoming of all policy processes is beyond me.

Agree with all of the above.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Jun  7 06:02:33 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:02:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Parminder,

On Jun 7, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Parminder wrote:
> I wonder if we can try and propose merger of our network neutrality  
> workshop with another one on the same subject, and apply for a 3  
> hour slot. We can point to the fact that in at least one country  
> (Norway) all stakeholders have been able to agree to set of NN  
> principles, and it is worth making such efforts at the global level.  
> At the least we can try to agree to some  basic set of principles  
> that flow flow from the defining characteristics of 'openness' and  
> 'neutrality' of the Internet.

I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and  
placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it is  
part and parcel.  The issue is the telcos/manufacturers/ministries  
plans for the future of information infrastructure and the Internet by  
extension.

On Jun 7, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
> It will be good to go through numerous statements on the IGF that  
> the IGC has developed, including the recent one specifically on the  
> subject of review, and pull out all key points from these. I think  
> the current context and opportunity is to get as much of our  
> perspective as possible into the synthesis paper on the comments on  
> the subject of IGF review which will be presented to the IGF at its  
> annual meeting. Our effort should be directed by this imperative.  
> And since there is time till 15th July to give our comments to be  
> included in this synthesis paper, we can pull out important elements  
> from our earlier submissions, as well have  a good discussion on the  
> subject on the list.

Saw this after replying to Ginger.  We agree again :-)  We have a  
month, let's do it right.

Best,

Bill



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/b18dec87/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun Jun  7 08:58:35 2009
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 17:58:35 +0500
Subject: [governance] Updating Wikipedia.org section on Internet Governance
 Forum
Message-ID: <701af9f70906070558m2ef101f3xadc9f4838d04bbb4@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
I wanted to invite more colleagues to join in updating the Internet
Governance Forum section on Wikipedia.org. The URL is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum

Information about the Hyderabad meeting, IGF review etc have to be added.
-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
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


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Jun  7 10:49:28 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:49:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
 <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it is part and parcel.

It is???? I hope not. That's a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/a5c1d80a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Jun  7 11:22:51 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:22:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC>
 <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com>
 <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com>
 <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E39@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> 
> Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic
> criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed
> reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault---
> the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point
> to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You
> can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/
> global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be
> trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.
> as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of
> marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something
> concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not
> blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap
> shot as a main thrust.


Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen.

____________________________________________________________
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


From charityg at diplomacy.edu  Sun Jun  7 11:58:00 2009
From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:58:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] Updating Wikipedia.org section on Internet 
In-Reply-To: <701af9f70906070558m2ef101f3xadc9f4838d04bbb4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <701af9f70906070558m2ef101f3xadc9f4838d04bbb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad14556f0906070858h2b093ba0l7780ad30298e1ce3@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the reminder, Fouad. It is actually up for some updates - just
the Hyderabad part. A few of us have started it before the Hyderabad meeting
so those parts prior to the Hyderabad are updated. I think the contents for
"III IGF Hyderabad 2008" have to be added.  I took the initiative and I have
placed the heading "III IGF Hyderabad 2008" so anyone can add some
information they want to from there.  The "Closing Session" (for the IGF Rio
2007) prior to the "III IGF Hyderabad 2008" have to be completed, too.
Maybe some can add a few lines there since I lack some information on that.

Rafik Dammak can also help with some information on the wikipedia
entry/update on the IGF. Thanks again.

Regards,
Charity

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I wanted to invite more colleagues to join in updating the Internet
> Governance Forum section on Wikipedia.org. The URL is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum
>
> Information about the Hyderabad meeting, IGF review etc have to be added.
> --
>
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> @skBajwa
> Answering all your technology questions
> http://www.askbajwa.com
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/0b4070f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jun  7 12:09:38 2009
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:39:38 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E39@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <483345BE1DE445EBA8E628B240C8395A@userPC> <4A29762F.8020005@gmail.com> <A5B00B71-D7A3-42F2-A072-98A1E526A805@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A2ABAD7.5030203@gmail.com> <052A9516-BD60-4784-B8D7-D427DCB25596@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E39@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4A2BE642.1080906@gmail.com>

Milton said:

"Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen."

Milton, I indeed think that we are "simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen".

This is not a new position for the IGC, as one of our previous IGF Review statements says:

"In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in
mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at
present, including constituencies in developing counties including
those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG
issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also
be especially reached out to."

However, since that is not clear to everyone, I propose continuing from basically the same text as before, but in a different order (below). I also think, as indirectly suggested by Jeanette, that the 2 points (inclusion and intergovernmental organization) should be separated for emphasis and clarity, so I have also separated that point as well.

I ask that those who would like to include other points please post text for discussion and inclusion.

Re-organizeded version (previous version below):

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome 
of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its implementation of the principle of multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present. 

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not yet been fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process. The IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by a broader base of possible stakeholders and the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed.

We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion, particularly given the success of the multistakeholder organization thus far.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation.



Previous statement:

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the 
UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of 
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that 
from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been  
fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety 
of reasons not been engaged in this process.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental 
forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation.



Milton L Mueller wrote:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>
>> Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic
>> criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed
>> reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault---
>> the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point
>> to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You
>> can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/
>> global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be
>> trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.
>> as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of
>> marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something
>> concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not
>> blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap
>> shot as a main thrust.
>>     
>
>
> Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen.
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Jun  7 12:38:15 2009
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 18:38:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net> <298012EA-285C-4EB4-A7E0-F12B4F5EDB06@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7E34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <8DCCC5C8-7956-409F-B9D2-EBD55AC0E727@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Milton,

On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> I agree.  We might want to consider widening the lens an little and  
> placing NN in the context of the whole NGN trajectory, of which it  
> is part and parcel.
>
> It is???? I hope not. That’s a peculiarly Geneva-centric view of NN
>

Are you saying that carriers around the world are not in fact making  
the investments and pursuing the strategies they say they are--- 
replacing PSTNs with IP core and access nets, trying to move to QOS  
and differentiation, etc?  Or that because they adopt the standards  
and coordinate on the policies in Geneva, it doesn't matter that they  
are doing these things? Or that because in Geneva they use terminology  
they may not use as much in the US, it doesn't matter that they are  
doing these things? Or that taking note of the global trends is  
suspect if one is based in Geneva?  Or...?  Perhaps a peculiarly US- 
centric view of NN at work here...:-)

But forget the term, forget the ITU.  The question is, in the IGF  
context, would it be optimal to continue talking about NN as a stand- 
alone issue, or might it be useful to view it as part of a larger set  
of dynamics in the telecom industry that could affect the net going  
forward?

Cheers,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/b6b82d05/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From kpeters at tldainc.org  Sun Jun  7 12:39:23 2009
From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:39:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
Message-ID: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/ec4079af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From muguet at mdpi.net  Sun Jun  7 12:54:36 2009
From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:54:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <4A2BF0CC.7030401@mdpi.net>

Dear Karl
>
>     There is no reason for the EU or the Arab League or Latin America 
> or China to care what a mess ICANN makes! They should make competitive 
> systems,
It is exactly what my proposal is all about, open the competition  to 
Namespaces services...
http://net4d.org

    * Competitive Governance Arrangements for Namespace Services
      <http://net4d.org/DOCS/muguet-eu-internet-hearing.html>   PDF file
      <http://net4d.org/DOCS/muguet-eu-internet-hearing.pdf> a written
      contribution to the EU Commission hearing on future Internet
      Governance arrangement
      <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm>
      ( Deadline 29 May 2009 )

    * Opening to competition the namespace infrastructure
      <http://net4d.org/net4d-geneva-may09.html> ( WSIS Forum, 20 May
      2009, Geneva )

strangely enough my contribution to the EU hearing is still not listed
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/submissions/index_en.htm
/Last updated: 03.6.2009/
>  Then, you would be REAL stakeholder and not just an unhappy user group.
Exactly, the Governance caucus should mature a little bit,
and cease to behave as user group,  be fair to all possibilities,
and at least quote the possibility of openning the competition
 through technical means like my proposal.

Best regards

Francis
>  
> -Karl E. Peters
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: AW: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
>     From: "Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"
>     <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>     Date: Sun, June 07, 2009 5:20 am
>     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
>     The whole hearing was an astonishing piece of ignorance by some US
>     congress members and some US industry representatives with regard
>     to legitimate interests of stakeholders and nations around the
>     world. Look into the references of the study of the Technology
>     Policy Institute (Lenard/White) - which was obviously the main
>     source for members of the committee - and you get a clue what you
>     can expect if these groups will get decision making power over the
>     future of Internet Governance ;-(((. If this happens we will see
>     another round of a global ideological battles over the future of
>     the Internet with numerous unitended side effects, very
>     counterproducitve both to the globnal Internet community and the
>     US itself. The global view was totally ouf of the radar of the
>     majority of the committee members and some of the panelists. What
>     a gulf between the open eyes of the elected president and the
>     narrow view of these group of people.
>
>     Wolfgang
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
>


-- 

------------------------------------------------------ 
Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D 

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net

Département des Systèmes d'Information 
http://syinf.unige.ch
Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales
Universite de Genève http://www.unige.ch
CUI, Bâtiment A
7 route de Drize
1227 Carouge

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair 
Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web
Info. Net. Govermance  :  http://www.wsis-gov.org  web

NET4D : http://www.net4D.org 
UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org 
WTIS : http://www.wtis.org   REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org
------------------------------------------------------ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/099f63a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pdfIconMini.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 149 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090607/099f63a6/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jun  7 14:26:01 2009
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 21:26:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] US Congress & the JPA
In-Reply-To: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20090607093923.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.d45e653be4.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0906071126h1e2fc22an5aa15e557f5f2d9b@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Karl,

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Karl E. Peters<kpeters at tldainc.org> wrote:
> All,  (Please hear me out before you delete!)

Now this is more like it, a real heart felt piece of opinion, not
content copied from elsewhere!

<snip>
> and responsible internet body? If each major population that has a stake in
> the internet actually invested in it, they would have what they want with
> FAR less trouble.

I have what I want, thanks very much.

Then, you would be REAL stakeholder and not just an
> unhappy user group.

speak for yourself. I am a real stakeholder, I have a real voice in
making the policies I am interested in.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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


From anriette at apc.org  Sun Jun  7 15:50:51 2009
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:50:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] JPA
In-Reply-To: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>
References: <4A2B5F94.6080705@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop>

Thanks for sending this Parminder. 

When you talk about the 'UN system' entering into an agreement with the
US and ICANN, which part of it did you have in mind?

And, on a related thought, I wonder if the ITU will be submitting
comment to the NTIA? 

Anriette

On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 12:05 +0530, Parminder wrote:
> IT for Change is planning to submit to the following comments on JPA. 
> 
> These comments are premised on our belief that what we are looking for
> here is a *major* political decision from the highest level of the US
> government, and not  merely an administrative change. Therefore, the
> principal appeal we make has to be strongly political, pitched to the
> highest principles of fairness and justice, and of globally democratic
> governance for global issues. The best way to do so is to remind the
> US government of its commitments at the WSIS, and point out how these
> commitments call for specific actions by the US government as the JPA
> comes to an end. It is accordingly also important to connect the
> post-JPA arrangement to the corresponding elements in the Tunis Agenda
> that all have agreed to  -  the 'enhanced cooperation' framework. We
> are a bit surprised as to why the comments of even the actors who are
> opposed to JPA as well as to a free-float ICANN are not focusing on
> the obvious space that has some (significant) existing recognition and
> legitimacy, and was always meant as an exercise, inter alia, to create
> post-JPA oversight mechanisms.
> 
> Text of the proposed statement
> 
> Speaking as a civil society organization from a developing country, we
> are impressed by the stance taken by the present US administration on
> issues related to perceptions as well as facts of US hegemony in
> various global affairs. The most recent pronouncement by President
> Obama in his address at the Cairo University attests to this
> refreshing approach which promises a new role for the US in managing
> our collective global affairs, and a new perception of the US among
> other countries and people. 
> 
> “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear
> weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to
> seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”
> 
> It is, in this context, important that the US government recognizes
> that a unilateral control of critical Internet resources exercised by
> the US is not tenable, and greatly contributes to the 'hegemonistic'
> image of the US, and its pursuance of what President Obama rightly
> called as 'double standards'. The outcome documents of the World
> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to which US government is a
> signatory, recognized this as the application of 'principle of
> universality' for Internet governance. The summit asserted that that
> 'all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for
> international Internet governance'. 'The international management of
> the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic,with
> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
> and international organizations'.
> 
> The WSIS also called for a process of 'enhanced cooperation' to be
> initiated, inter alia, to deal with the issue of legitimate oversight
> mechanisms for critical Interent resources. This process should have
> been initiated by the UN Secretary General in early 2006. Apparently,
> it is difficult to get on with this process without some clear helpful
> signs from the US government which holds the oversight power at
> present, including through the JPA. It will be most befitting the new
> approach of Obama administration for it to signal its desire to begin
> the process of 'enhanced cooperation' towards developing legitimate
> oversight mechanisms as per WSIS principles, and in a manner that
> address the legitimate interests of all countries and people,
> including of the US. 
> 
> As for the possibility of allowing ICANN to subsist without any
> oversight mechanism, we are strongly against any industry-led
> regulatory system which, in our view, is an oxymoron. The limits of
> self-regulation in areas of key public interest have been shown by the
> recent banking fiasco which is bringing untold miseries all over the
> world. We are therefore of the firm view that ICANN does require
> external oversight. 
> 
> The best way forward therefore is to annul the current JPA, and enter
> into a new trilateral agreement between ICANN, US and the UN system to
> start a process towards 'development of globally-applicable principles
> on public policy issues associated with the coordination and
> management of critical Internet resources'(as agreed at the WSIS) and
> also developing appropriate institutional mechanisms of oversight over
> ICANN, in its tasks of technical management of CIRs. This process, as
> called for by the WSIS, should be, to repeat, 'multilateral,
> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments,
> the private sector, civil society and international organizations'.
> 
> 
> (text ends)
> 
> 
> parminder 
> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jun  7 17:02:05 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:02:05 +1000
Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - JPA statement
In-Reply-To: <p06240806c65127710119@[192.168.1.86]>
Message-ID: <C65267ED.2D27%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Thanks everyone

While respecting that two members voted against this statement, sufficient
support has been given for it to be adopted. I will be posting the statement
as below today.



>>> 
>>>  The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
>>>  non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
>>>  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 www.igcaucus.org.
>>> 
>>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the Joint Project
>>>  Agreement (JPA) with ICANN, and  respectfully submit as  follows.
>>> 
>>>  In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
>>>  principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
>>>  according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
>>>  people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
>>>  Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
>>>  co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
>>>  security.
>>> 
>>>  On your question as regards the future of the JPA - The IGC firmly believes
>>>  that 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, that ICANN is subject to due process
>>>  procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore, the IGC
>>>  believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a lasting
>>>  viable solution.
>>> 
>>>   Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
>>>  mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
>>>  a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
>>>  a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the most effective means to
>>>  ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary changes.
>>> 
>>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>>> it
>>>  should be replaced by a new global accountability framework, the
>>> development
>>>  of which should commence as soon as possible in an open, multistakeholder,
>>>  transparent and inclusive process.
>>> 
>>>  Also irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
>>>  certain principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
>>>  We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
>>>  in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism, the
>>>  principles which follow. 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:
>>> 
>>>  ·      bottom up co-ordination
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
>>>  interests and Internet users
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      ensuring the stability of the Internet
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      transparency
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      appropriate accountability mechanisms
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance
>>> model
>>>  which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ·      decision making driven by the public interest
>>> 
>>>  We also propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>> multistakeholder
>>>  management, 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 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators, for the Internet Governance
>>>  Caucus
>>> 


____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jun  7 17:46:54 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:46:54 +1000
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4A2BE642.1080906@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C652726E.2D33%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Ginger, 

Perhaps right after the opening paragraph we should add something like "IGC
is firmly of the view that IGF should continue, and congratulates the
Secretariat for its work to date".

(simply so no-one can pick up the statement and use our suggestions as an
argument that somehow we believe IGF is ineffective or should be abandoned)



On 8/06/09 2:09 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Milton said:
> 
> "Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of
> the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or
> are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included
> -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could
> happen."
> 
> Milton, I indeed think that we are "simply pointing out that it would be nice
> to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF
> should continue so that could happen".
> 
> This is not a new position for the IGC, as one of our previous IGF Review
> statements says:
> 
> "In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in
> mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at
> present, including constituencies in developing counties including
> those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG
> issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also
> be especially reached out to."
> 
> However, since that is not clear to everyone, I propose continuing from
> basically the same text as before, but in a different order (below). I also
> think, as indirectly suggested by Jeanette, that the 2 points (inclusion and
> intergovernmental organization) should be separated for emphasis and clarity,
> so I have also separated that point as well.
> 
> I ask that those who would like to include other points please post text for
> discussion and inclusion.
> 
> Re-organizeded version (previous version below):
> 
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome
> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its implementation of the principle of
> multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.
> 
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow
> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the
> IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
> multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective of
> civil society, this principle has not yet been fully implemented since many of
> those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of
> the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
> The IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by a broader base of
> possible stakeholders and the inclusion of the issues that they might be
> concerned to see addressed.
> 
> We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an
> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion,
> particularly given the success of the multistakeholder organization thus far.
> 
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
> participation.
> 
> 
> 
> Previous statement:
> 
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the
> UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that
> from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been
> fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial
> interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety
> of reasons not been engaged in this process.
> 
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow
> and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved
> in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the
> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed,
> and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental
> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
> 
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
> participation.
> 
> 
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>   
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>> 
>>> Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic
>>> criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed
>>> reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault---
>>> the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point
>>> to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You
>>> can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/
>>> global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be
>>> trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.
>>> as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of
>>> marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something
>>> concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not
>>> blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap
>>> shot as a main thrust.
>>>     
>> 
>> 
>> Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of
>> the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal?
>> Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people
>> included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that
>> could happen.
>> 
>> 
>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jun  7 18:09:20 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:09:20 +1000
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <4A2B86C7.5090401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C65277B0.2D37%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

The clear merge here is with workshop proposal 184 on the same subject (net
neutrality) from Diplo Foundation (Vladimir Radunovic).
Ginger, given your associations there, can you approach them and see if they
are willing to merge? WE need to submit by June 15 so I guess this is fairly
urgent.


On 7/06/09 7:22 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Hi All
> 
> I see that 15th is the last date for final workshop proposals and 30th for
> speakers. IGC has two workshop proposals and we will need to work on this.
> Best to get working groups made for each. This is how it worked the last time.
> 
> Meanwhile there is a proposal in the program paper that some workshops that
> are sufficiently representative will be given longer time period - 3 hours,
> with a view of possibly seeking some useful convergences of views. The precise
> language of the program paper is
> 
> "Merged workshops will be given the opportunity to bring their findings to the
> attention of the related main session. If sufficiently representative, merged
> workshops will be given three hour slots with the aim of providing an
> opportunity to identify a range of best practices."
> 
> I wonder if we can try and propose merger of our network neutrality workshop
> with another one on the same subject, and apply for a 3 hour slot. We can
> point to the fact that in at least one country (Norway) all stakeholders have
> been able to agree to set of NN principles, and it is worth making such
> efforts at the global level. At the least we can try to agree to some  basic
> set of principles that flow flow from the defining characteristics of
> 'openness' and 'neutrality' of the Internet.
> 
> In order to give our best to leverage the new format opened up, perhaps as a
> back up (since we have no proposed workshop on this subject) we can seek a 3
> hour workshop on developing principles and best practices in IG in the area of
> disability rights - this would perhaps also complement the current work in
> WIPO on copyright exception for the disabled.
> 
> On  a different note, we should also put in a request for a booth in the IGF
> village for the IGC, last date fro which is 30th June. We took one in
> Hyderabad, but it was not advertised among members and did not get used. Such
> a booth is  a good meeting point for the caucus
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/43de2c9c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jun  7 18:20:34 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:20:34 +1000
Subject: [governance] Workshop on Transnationalization of Internet
 Governance - The way forward from here (workshop 196)
Message-ID: <C6527A52.2D3B%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Folks we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small
working group to run this workshop.

Details of our previous submission are below. We are lacking any suggestions
to date of co-organizers, potential speakers etc, so I believe we have to
improve that this week.

I don¹t see a natural merge for this workshop.

Can I have suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this, and also a
few volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or offlist,
whichever you prefer

Current proposal is below.

Ian Peter


Title: Transnationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from
 
Concise Description:
The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain
historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities
around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the
Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its
governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing
however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical
artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it
running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring
participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which
includes its transnationalization. It isimportant to analyze the needs of
evolution and transnationalization of Internet governance from various
standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here.
 
The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of
what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along
with the advantages and disadvantages of each.
 
 
Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your
workshop fall under?
Critical Internet Resources
 
Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
If so, please provide the link to the report:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72
-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-a
nd-sovereignty
 
Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
should organize it?
Internet Governance Caucus would like to organise this workshop, inviting
other players as appropriate
 
The Workshop is proposed on behalf of Internet Governance Caucus
 
Contact Person: Ian Peter
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/c0859ea8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From peter at peter-dambier.de  Sun Jun  7 18:21:24 2009
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:21:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
Message-ID: <4A2C3D64.3040905@peter-dambier.de>

Hello,

right during the eu-elections the website

piratenpartei.net

of the german pirates party gets censored by their
hoster alfahosting.info.

Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
Afraid of emails I guess.

Have a nice weekend
Peter

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jun  7 18:23:50 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:23:50 +1000
Subject: [governance] Workshop 197 - Network Neutrality - Exploring a
 global consensus on principles
Message-ID: <C6527B16.2D3E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Again we should try to improve this by June 15 and also establish a small
working group to run this workshop.

Details of our previous submission are below. Ive suggested in a separate
message we merge with Diplo workshop on the same subject. Ginger will
approach them 

We  have some suggestions for potential partners/speakers on this below. Can
we have a few volunteers to be the organising group? Either onlist or
offlist, whichever you prefer

Current proposal is below.


Title: Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles
 
Concise Description:
There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN
principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the
Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected
by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on
NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While
proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to
assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN,
especially vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN
debates.
 
Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your
workshop fall under?
Openness
 
Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
If so, please provide the link to the report:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72
-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-a
nd-sovereignty
 
Would you be the Workshop organizer? Yes
If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think
should organize it?
Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in
organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil
society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange
(India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers
Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific
countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles
that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out
additional developing country commentators in particular.
 
The Workshop is proposed on behalf of:Internet Governance Caucus
 
Contact Person: Ian Peter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090608/3d7164ff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jun  7 21:03:05 2009
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:03:05 +1000
Subject: [governance] EU-elections german pirates party censored
In-Reply-To: <4A2C3D64.3040905@peter-dambier.de>
Message-ID: <C652A069.2D50%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

According to media reports the Pirate Party has won one or two seats in EU?

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament
-090607/




According to Wikipedia, The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a
political party in Sweden. It strives to reform laws regarding copyright and
patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right
to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the transparency
of state administration.

Its formation appears to have something to do with the banning of file
sharing site, Pirate Bay?

This appears to be some sort of first for internet and governance?
Interested in reports from those who know more.





On 8/06/09 8:21 AM, "Peter Dambier" <peter at peter-dambier.de> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> right during the eu-elections the website
> 
> piratenpartei.net
> 
> of the german pirates party gets censored by their
> hoster alfahosting.info.
> 
> Interestingly enough that website is unreachable too.
> Afraid of emails I guess.
> 
> Have a nice weekend
> 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


From baptista at publicroot.org  Sun Jun  7 23:11:30 2009
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 23:11:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] Some concerns with recent comments concerning the TLDA
Message-ID: <874c02a20906072011v43cd517es8e191241abdfc766@mail.gmail.com>

Hello:

I noticed that Karl Peters the CFO at the TLDA (Top Level Domain
Association) has posted something concerning the TLDA.  I am a member of the
TLDA and have personal knowledge of the organization.

I disagree with the claims made by Mr. Peters to the governance list which
indicated the TLDA was mature.  The TLDA is only mature in one way - the
organization has been around since 1999.

http://www.icann.org/dnso/tlda.html

In the 10 years it has been in existence it has accomplished absolutely
nothing.

At this time the organizations directors are under contract to deliver on
their primary mandate as per TLDA bylaws.  The organization has till July
15th to full fill its obligations to the membership.  I'll let you know if
it does.

Until then please consider the TLDA an organization of clowns who have yet
to deliver.

I have attached below a note to Bradley Thornton, a TLDA director with my
comments concerning Karl's statement to governance for further information.

kindest regards
joe baptista

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joe Baptista <baptista at publicroot.org>
Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Subject: Some Notes for Brad Re: [Members] [FWD: RE:[governance] US Congress
& the JPA]
To: members at tldainc.org, public at tldainc.org
Cc: tlda-members at googlegroups.com


Some notes for Brad

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Bradley D. Thornton <Bradley at northtech.us>wrote:

> Hi Karl,
>
> um... You say they are notorious for, "...ignoring anything that does not
> go along with their flow..."


Sounds a lot like the TLDA today.  These days I see a similarity between
ICANN and the TLDA.  Both entrenched camps are basically composed of quasi
civil servants.  ICANN civil servants have successful backgrounds.  TLDA
civil servant don't.  Half our board is either unemployed or unemployable
and in at least one case - both.  They mean well - but competence does
matter - and we need to upgrade to be taken seriously..


>
>
> I don't have the time right now, but I've learned a few tricks here and
> there. When you get a list that exudes this level of arrogance (First of all
> they're legends in their own minds, but that's beside the point),


so are we - whats your point.


> If three or four people with the unpopular agenda join the list and begin
> to generate traffic on the topics that are part of their own agenda (Some of
> us here remember the crispy-crocketts), eventually, those arrogant list
> members can't help but take the bait and begin to respond, as they just
> can't keep themselves from wanting to be in a conversation LOL!


No - the TLDA is not ready to exclude itself from the arrogant list of
characters.  I agree there.

I suggest Brad - you listen carefully to your membership.

Before the TLDA begins making advances to the community it must get it's
house in order and produce a TapRoot.  The deadline for that is coming up on
July 15th.  Thats the agreement the board entered into.  The technical
aspects of the Taproot and all required policy to effect decisions of the
compliance committee and the publication of a recommended list of TLDs.
This must be in place as of July 15th.

I would ask that you focus on that.


>
> Like I said, I don't have the time right now, but I would really love to
> participate and help get our mission and its significance out there in a
> discussion on such a list ;)


Some other time Brad.  Right now your under obligation to produce.  And your
first deadline is July 15th.  Your next deadline is  October 15th.  Thats
when you must have in place the means to represent us at ICANN.

I will now ask the board to please have Karl Peters refrain from
representing the TLDA on any list outside the TLDA.  Karl has been involved
in some serious legal issues with the TLDA.  He has lost all our records.
He falsified our bylaws.  He broke board confidentiality and went on a libel
and slander campaign against me.  It's all in the archives.

This is not the sort of person I want representing my interests as a TLDA
member at ICANN or any governance list.  We have a president who can do a
better job of it. When it comes to piling on the bull shit in the executive
trade - he is the best at that.

I am of course the best at exposing the bullshit.  But of all the TLDA
people - Gene Marsh our el presidente - is the least dirty from the HEX
incident that has competence in the executive foyer or any TLDA issue.  Gene
knows when to keep his mouth shut.

O.K. Karl - please lay of the representation.  May I suggest that all
correspondence from you representing the TLDA be first vetted by the
president who can then send it one under his name.

Please Karl - try to comply - because it's embarrassing to see this fraud
continue.

kindest regards
joe baptista




>
>
> Karl E. Peters wrote:
>
>> This post was what I responded on the "governance" list with regard to the
>> US congress' handling of internet matters. This group is notorious for
>> ignoring anything that does not go along with their flow, but I wanted to
>> share my comments here so you could see some of the fun I have on the other
>> lists. The issues dealt with here, however, are the highest calling of a
>> body like the TLDA, and part of what we should be prepared to step up and
>> do. While we sometimes feel we are striving to grow from a little club to a
>> little larger club, there is a real place and need for some group like us.
>> We must decide if we are to step up and be that group...
>> -Karl
>>  My post follows:
>>    -------- Original Message --------
>>    Subject: