[governance] JPA - final draft for comments
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jun 4 07:17:22 EDT 2009
Anriette
Thanks for a very detailed analysis, and as you know I agree with all of
it.
Just thought will contribute two comments (Ian, this is not necessarily
to do with the text being considered.)
>I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government
>reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully
>not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the
>regulator and the regulated.
I agree that this is the principal problem with ICANN. However, such a
situation is structural with industry-led models, isnt it. It can hardly
be otherwise. It is for this reason that we should strongly oppose the
language of 'industry-led' model used in the NTIA questionnaire.
Secondly, as for your very useful presentation of possible steps towards
alternative arrangements, it is important that we reclaim the 'enhanced
cooperation' framework for this purpose. That would be the clearly the
most practical way to go forward. This framework is there, and there is
an express direction to SG to do something on it, which he has not. It
is a bit odd to mention the need for a process to start etc for an
external accountability/ oversight framework without invoking the
enhanced cooperation framework.
parminder
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Apologies for being silent on this important discussion. We are working
> on an APC submission and want it to be as consistent with the IGF one as
> possible.
>
> Our thinking from a strategic point is that yes, we really should
> emphasise that there is consensus on the JPA not being an acceptable
> arrangement. It is important that that stands out clearly in all (or
> most) submissions from civil society.
>
> Then, if there is some nuance or different suggestions as to how and
> when the JPA should be terminated, that won't matter so much as it will
> not contradict what is a very widely held position on the JPA in
> general.
>
> Some thougths on the text below from Jeanette:
>
>
>>> I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I
>>> said at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to
>>> privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or
>>> accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral
>>> control and we want to replace it by something more international -
>>> some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a
>>> multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently
>>> political point, not a technical one.
>>>
>
> I think Jeanette has a point. Personally I do think it is risky to have
> a situation where one's only recourse is the ICANN board and California
> courts. All the language in the NTIA call for comment on the JPA is
> about whether the time has come to transfer all the relevant
> responsibilities to *private* or *private sector* control. It is based
> on the assumption that industry is the primary player and should be
> driving the process. The only question that mentions stakeholder
> participation is no. 4 which refers, vaguely, to "multi-stakeholder
> model" in the text of the 2006 annex to the JPA:
>
> "4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a series
> of broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA.
> Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities set
> out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN Board
> Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12
>
> Those responsibilities included activities in the following categories:
> security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server
> security and relationships, TLD management, multi–stakeholder model,
> role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and
> corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet
> each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If
> not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served
> in these areas?"
>
> Jeanette also says:
>
>
>>> We want to get rid of unilateral
>>> control and we want to replace it by something more international -
>>> some of us think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a
>>> multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently
>>> political point, not a technical one.
>>>
>
> Is it naive to think that it could be both? That:
>
> Step 1: an international intergovernmental framework is developed WITH the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, drawing on the ICANN experience
>
> Step 2: governments agree to this framework in the form of a treaty or some other agreement
>
> Step 3: a multi-stakeholder body/process is established to to monitor implementation
>
> Step 4: the arrangement is reviewed every 5 years or so
>
> I think someone, Milton if I remember correctly, mentioned the World Comission on Dams before as an example http://www.dams.org/.
>
>
>> By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's
>> immediate termination have not done so because they per se like the
>> JPA to continue but because they want other arrangements to be
>> finalised before JPA is terminated. However, in substance, everyone
>> does want JPA to be terminated. I just want that fact to come out
>> strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.
>>
>
> Agree with Parminder on this.
>
> Having read through the inquiry call several times I feel there are
> really three primary points we want to get accross:
>
> 1) The JPA does need to end and be replaced by an arrangement which is
> constituted from the outset as international and that clearly frames the
> participation, roles and responsibilities of governments, the private
> sector, civil society, and the academic and research community.
>
> 2) The fundamental principle that underpins the JPA has been private
> sector leadership and management of DNS etc. We believe this needs to be
> reconsidered in the light of the WSIS process and WSIS principles which
> governments agreed to, and which have been broadly endorsed by business
> and civil society actors.
>
> We believe that the fundamental principles that underpin the work done
> by ICANN, and therefore its structure, should be (1) the public interest
> as opposed to the interests of specific private sector entities and (2)
> multi-stakeholder participation.
>
> 3) ICANN, in spite of the extensive efforts undertaken by ICANN staff
> and the ICANN board have not been able to successfully meet several of
> the milestones outlined in the JPA annex. Moreover, new difficulties
> have emerged in the form of... and here different submissions can
> highlight what they feel are most important.
>
> I found the comment made, I think, by one of the European government
> reps at the CSTD very powerful: that (I am paraphrasing and hopefully
> not misquoting) ICANN does not effectively distinguish between the
> regulator and the regulated.
>
> Please note that I am not making these comments as suggestions for
> amendments to the IGC submission. I think you have done a very good job
> in capturing consensus.
>
> This NTIA inquiry has been a very good thing in forcing us all to have a
> serious discussion about the JPA and ICANN.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>> However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>
>
>>> However
>>>
>>>> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is
>>>> best to make it clear. I may be wrong though on your reasons for
>>>> seeking extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
>>>>
>>>> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial
>>>> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is
>>>> that at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views
>>>> and/or action can be even more dangerous.
>>>>
>>> But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view,
>>> should take into account that different positions may reflect the
>>> openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> (Having different views is a
>>>
>>>> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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/20090604/220782d0/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list