[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Carlos Afonso]

Ditto.

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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