[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[William Drake]

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