[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Ian Peter]

I think by now it must be obvious to anyone who is reading as well as
writing that there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this argument
- but also that, on both sides, people feel there is a danger for IGC to
express the other side!

Which is why I dropped the text altogether, and that still may be the only
way forward. However, for one last try to get something we are happy to say
about JPA, how does this sit.

The IGC firmly believes that 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, that ICANN is subject
to due process procedures and is accountable to all stakeholders. Therefore,
the IGC believes that merely extending the current JPA arrangement is not a
lasting viable solution.
 
Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now, as it is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved to place ICANN on
a viable long-term path forward. On the other hand, some of us believe that
a time-limited extension of the JPA might be the
most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board necessary
changes.

Irrespective of .....(etc - back to principles text here)

What do you think? Will that work, and are we better off with or without
this additional text?




On 4/06/09 4:57 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Sorry but I disagree. While I recognized that the IANA contract provides
> another leverage that could be used to get some form of external
> accountability framework established, I don't see why this implies that
> one should the JPA expire just like that. I firmly believe that external
> accountability is necessary for ICANN, and I havn't changed my mind on
> that. The fact that the US industry has other reasons to opt for an
> extension also won't change my mind.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> This is an illogical position. No meaningful changes can take place
>> before the JPA ends (in three months!). If you want the US not to let
>> go before meaningful accountability mechanisms are in place, then
>> talk about the IANA contract. That focuses people's minds.
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>>> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>> 
>>> The point is not whether or not JPA provides accountability. The
>>> point is to replace the JPA by something that promises to provide
>>> accountability - and, AFAIAC, to get this something in place before
>>> the JPA ends.
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ 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