[governance] JPA - final draft for comments
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Jun 1 04:21:42 EDT 2009
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list