[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello Ian

I am in, with the suggestion that para 2, "some of us believe this, some
that"  needs to changed something gentle such as "though there isn't an
absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is in favor of ending the JPA"

I don't get the impression that there is a pro-JPA opinion in this list. My
inference is that there are some concerns about ICANN's readiness. Such
concerns could be addressed perhaps by the suggestion of a transition
arrangement - an arrangement for an interim period of a year or so, when a
joint oversight team of civil society and ten or twelve governments, perhaps
even a panel of jury together overseeing the transition to ensure that ICANN
would be efficient and fair when fully independant.

There has been enough of extensions.  US Government still hesitates to end
the JPA because “doing so would cause instability in the DNS” . and it may
really be wating for institutional confidence to improve. That is a process
that does not happen overnight, and one can eternally argue that it is not
enough.

There shouldn't be any ambiguity in the IGC statement on whether or not the
JPA should be ended  Lets say that it should be ended. And perhaps suggest a
transition period of a year, with a new transition arrangement, which is
also to be a time bound arrangement.

Para 2 as it is makes the IGC look very weak.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>
> One additional add on to my last message - the following text -
>
>
> Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence in early 2010 (I would
> prefer : "as soon as possible"), in an open, transparent and inclusive
> process."
>
>
> So the newly included text would read
>
> 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 when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
> it
> should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
> framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible in
> an open, transparent and inclusive process.
>
> What do you all think ? In or out?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> On 4/06/09 5:22 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090604/6de8b81a/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