[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Wed Jun 3 08:08:49 EDT 2009

Hello Ian,

I would rather agree with William Drake's view that the draft should not be
tossed at this stage. What is missing is a powerful statement from IGC that
the JPA should not continue. What is also missing is the assertion that
ICANN as an organization has the capability to be independant. The draft
could be modified with the missing positve statements and could go as the
IGC input.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:

> Not the JPA, Jeanette, but we did discuss (and keep discussing) the set of
> chains which bind ICANN to the USA government, of which the JPA is an
> obvious one. So we of course discussed the JPA as part of that "barrier".
>
> My view continues the same -- the IGC should call for an immediate end to
> the JPA and gthe establishment of a transition agreement to formulate the
> termination as soon as possible of the other bindings (in particular the
> IANA function which holds the root zone file hostage to the USDoC) and the
> process to actual internationalization -- this agreement would constitute a
> multistakeholder group (including UN agencies, of course) to prepare this
> formulation -- no particular stakeholder would have any golden rule or
> special privileges on it.
>
> We did not build anything to offer in terms of what this pluralist group
> should be or how it could work, with which capacity etc, but we could try.
> In my view, this would be a working group with five govs, five private
> sector, five non-profits, some UN agencies (ITU, WIPO comes to mind
> immediately), and a suitable set of specialists (legal, technical) who would
> act as resource persons, plus reps from the current ICANN Board -- striving
> for balanced representation in regional and interest group terms.
>
> If we have to include in our statement that the JPA should be extended or
> continued in any form, I insist after September we risk even be regarded as
> that civil society group which is to the right of the Obama
> administration... So we better then strike the whole thing out as Ian
> suggests.
>
> --c.a.
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> Parminder, from my memory Jeanette and others objected to the first
>> paragraph you suggest Milton objected to aspects of the second.
>>
>> Eg...
>>
>> Jeanette -
>>
>>
>> łfrom what I remember, we have never discussed the JPA as "a barrier to
>> effective global co-operation in Internet governance" and I don't think
>> it is adequate to assume a widespread concern about it. If there is
>> widespread concern it relates to the unilateral control over CIR. So, I
>> would prefer if we could skip that paragraph.˛
>>
>> Milton -
>>
>> łIąm in DC right now, and you couldnąt 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.˛
>>
>>
>> So I donąt think that suggested change can be included in a consensus
>>
>> statement
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/06/09 8:16 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>  I understand that Ian has basically dropped the response to question 6 in
>>> the
>>> draft statement which was
>>>
>>> " 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."
>>>
>>> I agree with Bill's comments on this that the last sentence above be cut
>>> and
>>> the following sentence be added in the end.
>>>
>>> ""Others of us believe that the JPA should be retained for now but be
>>> replaced
>>> as soon feasible by a new global, multistakeholder framework for
>>> accountability, the development of which should commence in early 2010."
>>>
>>> With these changes the text should be fine with me for an IGC statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>> William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ian,
>>>>   Looking over the recent comments, I'm not clear on why you think they
>>>> require
>>>> gutting the statement and simply endorsing generic principles that
>>>> already
>>>> apply to varying degrees.  The prior text, if amended to take on board
>>>> some
>>>> tweaks that were suggested, seemed fairly balanced and accommodative of
>>>> the
>>>> various views expressed.
>>>>
>>>>   Why are we tossing the work that was done?
>>>>
>>>>   Best,
>>>>
>>>>   Bill
>>>>
>>>>     On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>   Folks, having read the various responses, I think our only path
>>>>> forward is
>>>>> a much reduced response which concentrates on principles. So at this
>>>>> stage
>>>>> what I would propose for a consensus call in 24 hours or so is what
>>>>> follows.
>>>>> I would be happy however for someone else to suggest a wider ranging
>>>>> draft
>>>>> covering additional points, but I have come to the conclusion that
>>>>> anything
>>>>> we are likely to agree on at this stage would only take emphasis away
>>>>> from
>>>>> the main points we want to make.
>>>>>  I have dropped all references to models and the varying arguments as
>>>>> to
>>>>> whether the JPA should continue or not. I do suggest that people make
>>>>> individual submissions to cover their concerns in this area. For IGC as
>>>>> a
>>>>> whole, I think we have to aim for something much simpler.
>>>>>  My new suggested draft follows. Let me know what you think of this
>>>>> approach,
>>>>> and of course any suggested improvements in wording.
>>>>>  Ian Peter
>>>>>     The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil
>>>>> society and
>>>>> non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the
>>>>> UNąs
>>>>> 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> .
>>>>>  We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN,
>>>>> and
>>>>> respectfully submit as  follows.
>>>>>  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.  Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe
>>>>> that certain
>>>>> principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANNąs 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 propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>>>> łmultistakeholder management˛, in line 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 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.
>>>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>         ***********************************************************
>>>>>  William J. Drake
>>>>>  Senior Associate
>>>>>  Centre for International Governance
>>>>>  Graduate Institute of International and
>>>>>    Development Studies
>>>>>  Geneva, Switzerland
>>>>>  william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>>>>   www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>>>> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
>>>>>   ***********************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090603/2bd7e55a/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