[governance] JPA - final draft for comments
carlos a. afonso
ca at rits.org.br
Thu Jun 4 07:18:35 EDT 2009
I agree with the text with the modification proposed below by Parm.
--c.a.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Jeanette Hofmann
<jeanette at wzb.eu>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:44:09 +0530
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> I can go with the present text. However I will request the
> co-coordinator to give the following serious consideration.
>
> I feel that the strength of the opinion on this list that 'JPA
> should
> end' is so high that it is not adequately represented in the phrase
> 'Some of us believe the JPA should be ended now.....'
>
> I agree with Sivasubramanian's suggestion that a phrase like
>
> "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.
>
> In fact it may even be useful to add a phrase that "those few who
> have
> reservations on immediate ending of JPA also have it only on
> technical
> grounds, mindful of possible dangers of creating a vacuum as new
> arrangements are finalized".
>
> This will, in my view, give a clearer picture of IGC's views on JPA.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Lee W McKnight wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list