[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Yehuda Katz]

Dear Ian,

I see that I am somewhat in the Minority in regards to extending the JPA.

Among the posting I have read through, not one has offered any evidence or
proof of assurances that ICANN will follow any practice or suggestion once it
has freed itself from the Department of Commerce's Internet Oversight Committee
(JPA & MoU). Nor has anyone offered any 'Mechanism-of-Assurance(s)' that ICANN
will proportidly follow. 

A review of past call(s) for "Structural Reform" has shown that, not only had
the proposals fallen on deaf-ears but have also been abandoned or reformulated
so much that they no longer resemble their original intent.

For example, in regards to an attempt of "Oversite", the 'Generic Top Level
Domain Memorandum of Understanding | http://www.gtld-mou.org/  
and it's Policy Oversight Committee | http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/faq.html#1.4

The gTLD-MoU now provides that the POC consists of  twelve members appointed as
follows:
 
IANA
ISOC
Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”)
Council of Registrars (“CORE”)
International Trademark Association (“INTA”)
World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”)
International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”)
Representative of the Depository of the Memorandum of Understanding on the
Generic Top Level Domain Name 
Space of the Internet Domain Name System (“gTLD-MoU”) (the ITU)

Now-these! were Heavyweight Contenders - R.I.P AUG 12, 1999. 

ICANN has no MoU with these Contenders that incorporates the desires expressed
in your current daft letter.

Reforms, how many reform attempts have we seen? 

Icann-at-Large, Icann-atLarge II, WSIS, IGF I/II/III, and Danny Younger (The
One-Man Reform Machine). All of these attempts called upon ICANN to make
reforms, either by Mandate or Forum Conclusion, only one, Danny
Younger had succeeded in bring about the reform via ICANN's ALAC (At-Large
Advisory Committee), with regards to Register's Domain Registrations Practices,
too which the net result is ICANN's Help Desk InterNIC Complaint Form |
http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi

I recall a paper of Hans & Milton April 2005
What to Do About ICANN: A Proposal for Structural Reform |
http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/igp-icannreform.pdf

Wherein it depicts three types of accountability.

Top-Down
Bottom-Up
Peer-to-Peer

In the Conclusion "... National governments would benefit from shifting from an
advisory role to an oversight role. Internet users and diverse stakeholders
would benefit from direct and equitable participation in policymaking bodies.
Developing countries would benefit from leveraging their established expertise
in ITU processes. All Internet users would benefit from market discipline of
coordinated competition between regulatory entities. ..."

Milton?: 'National governments would benefit from shifting from an advisory
role to an oversight role' In four years, your comments of late ... have gone
180. (New & Improved - Reformulated)
Have you've become the Esther Dyson of 'International Internet Globalization'.

I love you Man :-)

-

Anyway my point in the beginning is of Minority Interests, Yes I support
extending the JPA (for a limited time). I feel strongly that Government
Oversite (USG, be that as it may) provides assurances that safeguard multistake
holder interest within ICANN processes. In particualry when there is a
Minority-Interest. 

MoU's, Agreements, Treaties, and such don't operate in way that Court's and
their Opinions do. They* don't provide for a Decenting Opinion (a Minority
Interest).

Modern Democratic Governments protect these Minority Interest with systematic
provisions (provided by their Constitutions).

For that alone, I would hope that you would see clear the reasoning to wit, of
your original statements in regards to 'question 6'.

JPA - " A bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush"
-
* MoU's, Agreements, Treaties____________________________________________________________
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