[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Carlos Afonso]

I agree, MM.

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Bill
> JPA does not provide accountability. So ending it does not lose us any accountability. 
> JPA is significant only insofar as ICANN wants out of it enough to institute reforms demanded by the community. 
> There is a significant class of stakeholder (mostly US intellectual property and domain name industry) who wants to extended forever. 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
> Cc: Ian Peter; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Carlos Afonso 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".
> 
> Chains which some in the USG would be happy to be free of, but I guess
> let's not confuse the narrative...
>> 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.
> 
> So immediate end coupled with an immediate process that would yield
> immediate results?  Or do you mean that ICANN should just be free in
> the wild for however many months or years it takes to figure out an
> accountability system, and then be forced to give up that independence
> and brought under 'oversight'?  Unless the framework is pretty anodyne
> and results from a truly magical moment of harmonic convergence in
> which all divided interests are simply put aside, this sounds like a
> recipe for some very serious conflict.
> 
> The point of people who are skeptical of immediate cessation is, let's
> phase things, end it if/when we have something better in place rather
> than a void, and start dialogue on that ASAP. The prospects for
> success would be very long either way, but they are probably much
> longer for post hoc rather than ex ante agreement.
> 
> That said, barring a major push back in Congress, probably what we'll
> get is no JPA and ICANN with no strings attached.  Just remember if it
> happens, you effectively asked for it :-)
> 
> Will be interesting to see what happens in the House hearings
> tomorrow....
> 
>> 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.
> 
> So now it is "left" to want immediate termination and hence an ICANN
> run by business without constraint for however long, and "right" to
> live with the least bad of currently available options until there's
> something better?  We are really through the lexical looking glass
> here...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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