[governance] RE: JPA

[Ian Peter]

Thanks Milton a few points below


On 25/05/09 1:11 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 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 ³private² be replaced by ³multistakeholder.²
>> In the context of early ICANN, ³private² back then meant ³nongovernmental,²
>> but now it is often interpreted by certain groups as ³business² or
>> ³commercial sector-led.²
>> 
>> IP: Agreed, lets include that change
>>  
>>     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 don¹t 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. 
>> 
>> IP: which point I think is made in the answer to 1 above ­ bottom up
>> co-ordination, multistakeholder etc. But we can clarify here as well. I don¹t
>> think we need to examine alternative models in this particular response ­ the
>> real question here is should JPA continue or not. And indeed your comments
>> below come to the heart of this. ICANN is imperfect ­ but a decade of JPAs
>> haven't solved that nor will another decade of JPAs.
>>   
>>   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?
>> MM: 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.
>> 
>> IP: Do we really want to include text to this effect?
>>  
>>     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.
>> 
>> IP: But a decade of JPAs havent solved that nor will another decade of JPAs.
>> Milton, have you suggested text here? As there will be no consensus here to
>> continue the JPA, can we agree the JPA should cease? Or is there a specific
>> measure we want to propose that expresses concerns in a way that makes it
>> clear the JPA should not continue? Or should we remain silent? This is the
>> real crux of this process...
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>     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?
>>  
>  
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090525/937eba69/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