[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello Ian,

After going through your draft and the comments on your draft so far, I feel
that ICANN deserves some positive references which are missing in the
draft.  Is there anything said anywhere in the draft to indicate that ICANN
has handled its functions well so far, is handling its responsibilities
well, and will do so in future? That is what needs to be emphasized in the
IGC response to the JPA review questions. The JPA review questions might be
specific but the answers to the specific questions need to reflect how the
IGC feels about ICANN and its capacity to be independent. The present draft
and the comments to be incorporated do not point to such a positive
statement.

The draft tends to focus on what is wrong with ICANN rather than on what is
wrong with JPA. Different members of the caucus have differing opinions (
and in some cases different agendas ) on what ICANN should or should not do.
The focus on some finer points, such as one on GNSO, add to the confusing
opinion that ICANN is not good enough ?

some more comments inline.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

The question is whether ICANN has integrated within its existing processes
and structures,  the four core principles  (i.e.stability; competition;
private, bottom-up coordination; and representation) as articulated in the
DNS White Paper been.  Is the caucus saying Yes, or No?  It seems to imply
No, ICANN hasn't done that yet. No, ICANN hasn't made a beginning on these
principles yet. Is that what you mean?  There is no answer under this
question except "we would like to see them embedded" which implies that the
principles are not embedded yet. The rest of the response is shifted to
question no 7, where the IGC lists 'principles ... need to be embedded" and
ICANN 'should' do this, should do that...

Hasn't ICANN embedded these principles already? Isn't ICANN practicing
bottom-up coordination already? Why don't we say so? There are always some
imperfections, but if the overall tone of the response is discontent, then
the implied response is taken as "we need the JPA, now and at all times". Is
this what the IGC would like the JPA review to infer?

>
> 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.

JPA uses the words "private sector" and "industry leadership" again and
again.Transition to Network Solutions? Or transition to the telecom
industry? Even these words need to be replaced with "mutli-stakeholder
management? mutli-stakholder governance? multi-stakholder administration?
mutli-stakholder oversight?

> 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.

Evasive. The IGC does not have anything to suggest?

>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.

The response here is not direct enough. May be say that JPA is contrary to
multi-stakholder principle. It is not right that it should continue, but at
the same time, to ensure a smooth transition, suggest ways by which a NEW
ARRANGEMENT is put in place such as a "oversight transfer agreement" with
mechanisms to ensure a smooth post-transition ICANN.

>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.

So, the IGC believes that the JPA should be extended for many, many years
with annual reviews?

>
> 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.

Why these specific points? Why GNSO as a constituency singled out here and a
point made? There are several constituencies within ICANN and several tasks
to be carried out. Is the IGC Caucus seeking US Government help in handling
some specific agenda items?

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090602/63225ee7/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