[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Jeanette Hofmann]

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