[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[McTim]

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