[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Wed Jun 3 10:59:14 EDT 2009 

Come to think of it, who actually does believe that the JPA should be extended? 
Of those who do, they dont support US oversight or even the JPA itself, they just want to use it as leverage to pressure ICANN to make certain reforms. 
________________________________________
From: Carlos Afonso [ca at rits.org.br]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:50 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

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 -
>
>
> ³from 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.²
>
> Milton -
>
> ³I¹m 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.²
>
>
>
> So I don¹t 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 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> .
>>>>
>>>> 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 Society². 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 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 propose to replace "private sector management" with
>>>> ³multistakeholder management², 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
____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list