[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[William Drake]

Hi

Characterizing one position as majority and another as minority is not  
productive, especially when this has been mostly a discussion among  
just a handful of people.  We don't actually know what the other @ 200  
caucus members believe, and probably lots are as uncertain about the  
tactical merits of alternative time tables as those who have spoken.  
Who knows, there may be people here who'd favor extending the JPA  
without tying that to establishment of an alternative accountability  
framework, and there are undoubtedly people who are for immediate  
ICANN independence with no strings attached (e.g. McTim if I  
understand correctly).  So please let's not get into privileging one  
formulation over another.

Ian, could you resend the complete text with the compromise language  
inserted and the other tweaks suggested?

A related suggestion: before this is sent off to NTIA, how about if we  
see if the members of NCUC can quickly agree to co-sign?  A position  
statement from two CS coalitions, one of them active within ICANN,  
would seem a bit more notable, no?  While there's some overlap between  
the 50 orgs + individuals in NCUC and the IGC membership, I don't  
think that's an problem with respect to simply endorsing a statement...

Bill



On Jun 4, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Parminder,
>
> sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails,  
> particularly to:
>
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion  
> is in favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to  
> Shiva's language)
>
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>
> I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing  
> consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
>
> In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as  
> Wolfgang likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right  
> strategy is under such circumstances. While we have similar goals,  
> we are all guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each  
> other seriously so that we can respect when and where we come to  
> different conclusions.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>> Jeanette
>> The remark
>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that  
>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it.  
>> See the emails below.
>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving  
>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I  
>> am not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up  
>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's  
>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>> parminder
>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some  
>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with  
>>> your position.
>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate  
>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much  
>>> more consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people  
>>> than those speaking up here.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that  
>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>
>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until  
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe  
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a  
>>>>>> transition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean  
>>>>> we
>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated  
>>>>> guesses on
>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations"  
>>>>> go...
>>>>>
>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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

***********************************************************
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
***********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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