[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Mon Jun 1 07:21:30 EDT 2009

Agree with Parminder here about JPA extension. Don't say that. I'm in DC right now, and you couldn't do a worse job of misreading the atmospherics here than to call for JPA extensions. The issue is ICANN accountability and subjection to laws that keep it accountable and the future of the IANA contract, not JPA.

________________________________
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:22 AM
To: Ian Peter
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

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><mailto: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> <http://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/f143f133/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