[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Wed Jun 3 10:54:55 EDT 2009

Agreed. The Caucus has to make meaningful statements about the JPA otherwise you may as well not bother. 
________________________________________
From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:16 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
Cc: Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

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 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<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 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 propose to replace "private sector management" with “multistakeholder 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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto: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