[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Ian Peter]

Sorry Milton, I don¹t quite understand ­ can you point out which sentence in
the draft (or sentences) you believe we should remove? The draft is at the
bottom of this message

If it¹s the section


On 1/06/09 9:21 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Agree with Parminder here about JPA extension. Don¹t say that. I¹m in DC right
> now, and you couldn¹t 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 UN¹s 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> .
>  
> 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 Society².
> 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
> ICANN¹s 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 ICANN¹s 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/20090602/44993a91/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