[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Carlos Afonso]

Parm, good. I just sent a note with similar concerns.

--c.a.

Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external
>> "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of
>> discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that, GAC-like,
>> sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it.
>> By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are
>> interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that
>> constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for
>> harmed parties.
>> Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can whimsically
>> overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would just serve as
>> a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already converge on
>> ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the missing link. It
>> is not policy direction that is missing, but lawful constraint.
>>   
> Milton
> 
> Any legal framework requires an institutional anchor/ system, that is
> all what is meant by accountability/ oversight mechanism. Should for
> instance Californian courts continue to adjudicate ICANN matters? Who
> makes and amends the rules/ legal framework you speak about? If we agree
> that some new mechanisms are needed here, we are agreeing enough for the
> present purpose.
> 
> parminder
> 
>>  
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:27 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, 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.
>>>>       
>>> and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).
>>>
>>>    
>>>> 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 for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
>>> is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
>>> agree on, no?
>>>
>>>    
>>>> 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
>>>>       
>>> Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
>>> but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
>>> of geolocation of ICANN Board members.
>>>
>>> Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:
>>>
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm
>>>
>>> Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
>>> EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
>>> compatriots.
>>>
>>> If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?
>>>
>>> , 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.
>>>>       
>>> We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
>>>> independent ICANN'.
>>>>       
>>> Is this the "royal we"? ;-)
>>>
>>> (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
>>>    
>>>> with industry led governance systems which is what US government
>>>> sees as
>>>> independent ICANN)
>>>>       
>>> yes, they apparently do see it this way.
>>>
>>> However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
>>> sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
>>> organisations, what we call CS orgs.
>>>
>>> In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
>>> terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".
>>>
>>> If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
>>> would be useful.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>     
>>
>>   
> 

____________________________________________________________
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