[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[McTim]

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