[governance] RE: JPA

[Milton L Mueller]

My comments below

________________________________
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 LIKELY TO SEE THEM PERMENANTLY EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTIUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ICANN

MM: It has been suggested that "private" be replaced by "multistakeholder." In the context of early ICANN, "private" back then meant "nongovernmental," but now it is often interpreted by certain groups as "business" or "commercial sector-led."

    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 BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE ENSURED BY INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION.  THAT CO-OPERATION WILL BE ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION

MM: These comments don't really address the rather radical question posed: is the model the right one? What are possible alternatives? If it is the right one, is ICANN ready to execute it without US oversight? However you answer this, we must make it clear that ICANN is a governance or economic-regulatory body, not a business or an industry association, and appropriate standards should apply.

  3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA
contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific
milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these
milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be
taken to successfully address them?


    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?
ICANN still lacks adequate accountability. Its bottom up processes can be ignored, bypassed or dictated top-down by its Board, or manipulated by its policy staff. Its Independent Review Process is inadequate. Its relationship to international law ambiguous. The rights of people to challenge its actions on the basis of established law unclear.

    5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review.
That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to
increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability,
accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership,
stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced
competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns
expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been
successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the
community served in these areas?

Most of the agenda of the mid-term review was set by the IP lobby.

    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 BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS FOR THIS TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE.
MM: I am beginning to question this.

    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?

THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE CONTAINED IN ICANNS BY LAWS. THEY  NEED TO BE EMBEDDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THEY CANNOT EASILY BE CHANGED TO EXCLUDE ANY  STAKEHOLDER GROUP.

8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are
to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's
policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the
agreement. What should be included in this report?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090524/06168da6/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