[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Lee W McKnight]

likewise, fine by me
________________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:51 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: AW: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments

I dod not much contribute to the debate but I can live with the latest version. It has my support.

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Gesendet: Mi 03.06.2009 23:03
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Betreff: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments



Hi Ian, I fully support this new version.
jeanette

Ian Peter 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
____________________________________________________________
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