[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Ian Peter]

Here is a new draft incorporating comments received (as best I can). As time
is running out, I would suggest that comments suggest revised wording
wherever possible.

Also please note that we will not get consensus on either a specific
oversight model or whether the JPA should be extended this week. We have to
realise we have different opinions here and see how we can move forward to
say something useful.

We have a few days for comments ­ mid week we will need to present the final
draft for a consensus call.

Ian Peter 


The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
society contributions in  Internet governance processes. We have several
hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
our coalition can be found at www.igcaucus.org.
 
In responding to your call for comments, we are mindful of the WSIS
principles, which " recognize that Internet governance, carried out
according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society². We also recognise the need for high levels of global
co-operation from all stakeholder groups to ensure Internet stability and
security. 

We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and
respectfully submit as  follows.
 
Your Question 1  (The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e.
stability; competition;  private, bottom-up coordination; and
representation) necessary for guiding the  transition to private sector
management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If so,
have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's
existing processes and  structures?)

IGC believes these principles are important, and would like to see them
embedded in the  constitution of an independent ICANN. We would propose to
replace "private sector management" with the multistakeholder principle
which has evolved from the World Summit on the Information Society and the
Internet  Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported,
and which is  an important facet, we believe, of effective internet
governance  arrangements. We also speak more about principles in answer to
your Q7 below.
 
Your  Question  2. (The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector so as
to  enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is this still
the most appropriate model to increase competition and facilitate
international  participation in the coordination and management of the DNS,
bearing in mind  the need to maintain the security and stability of the DNS?
If yes, are the processes and structures currently in place at ICANN
sufficient to enable  industry leadership and bottom-up policy making? If
not, what is the most appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure
the stability and  security of the Internet DNS?)
 
IGC notes that the Internet is still in the process of rapid evolution. This
poses difficulties in determining any model as the appropriate one in the
longer term, and indeed we think the imposition of a permanent model at this
point of time would be counter productive. Rather, we think the
establishment of firm principles to guide the evolution of a model is the
appropriate way to proceed. This should explicitly recognize that ICANN is a
global governance institution with regulatory authority over an industry
(domain name registration) and over critical resources (IP addresses, root
servers and addresses). The standards of due process, rights, and
accountability that apply to ICANN must be developed with these facts in
mind.   

Your question 6. (The JPA between the Department of  Commerce and ICANN is
an agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the  transition of the
technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in  a manner that
ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet  DNS. Has
sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place by
September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria should be
used  to make that determination?)

IGC members have differing opinions on this issue, but share a widespread
concern that the continued existence of the JPA is actually a barrier to
effective global co-operation in Internet governance. As such, it is seen as
hindering the levels of global co-operation necessary to ensure the security
and stability of the Internet. 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.  Therefore, all of us
believe the JPA should be ended as soon as is practical.

Some of us believe that time is now, and that the JPA is an ineffective
mechanism to deal with the problems that must be resolved as ICANN develops.
On the other hand, some of us believe that a short term extension of the JPA
might be the most effective means to ensure that ICANN does take on board
necessary changes. We believe that, if this extension is pursued, the JPA
should in future be reviewed (and extended if necessary) annually.

However, irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that
certain principles and actions outlined below under (7) need to be embedded
in ICANN¹s operation ­ either as conditions for immediate cessation or
conditions to be met in a short term extension of the JPA.
 
 
Your question  7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there
sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the  continued security and
stability of the Internet DNS, private sector  leadership, and that all
stakeholder interests are adequately taken into  account? If yes, what are
they? Are these safeguards mature and robust enough  to ensure protection of
stakeholder interests and the model itself in the  future? If no, what
additional safeguards should be put in  place?

Irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we believe that certain
principles outlined below need to be embedded in ICANN¹s operation.
We believe these should be covered by an undertaking by ICANN to perpetuate
in its constitution, by laws, or some similar accountability mechanism,
various principles which follow.
 
The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot
easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. The principles which
need to be permanently embedded are:
 
·      bottom up co-ordination

 
·      balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
interests and Internet users

 
·      ensuring the stability of the Internet

 
·      transparency

 
·      appropriate accountability mechanisms

 
·      continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent

 
·      decision making driven by the public interest

 
 
 
We also believe that ICANN should
 
 
1) implement its GNSO Improvements in a way that gives parity to commercial
and non-commercial stakeholders in the  GNSO, without any delays or
conditions;

2) implement an appeals mechanism  that, unlike its current Independent
Review Process, is binding on its  Board

3) formally recognize the  internationally accepted principle of freedom of
expression in its Mission and  Articles, and establish a norm that its
policies for administration of  identifiers should not be used to violate
those  principles.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090601/8b034994/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