[governance] JPA

[Ian Peter]

I think the point here is that it was for the Indians to decide, not the
colonial masters. Indians took their independence, they were never ³granted²
it and probably would have never been were it not for a strong movement.

If there is an analogy here, I think ICANN should pursue a policy of
satyagraha (non violent resistance) if the colonial powers decide to
continue the JPA. ICANN should adopt an appropriate form that brings on
board all stakeholders into such a strong coalition that eventually there
will be no choice but to change. I can see Paul Twomey in his loin cloth
already....

Ian Peter


On 26/05/09 6:19 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Ian, 
> Good post. 
> Let me briefly take up your colonialism metaphor, because it is a strong one.
> Suppose that the British empire was about to grant India its "independence"
> but it had also saddled the Indians with an incumbent governance structure and
> an entrenched governing elite that was not in line with the wishes of the
> population. If by declaring independence and gaining recognition as an
> independent entity the British were merely delivering the state apparatus into
> the hands of this illegitimate elite, would you favor immediate or delayed
> independence? Perhaps a delay might alter the conditions of independence, e.g.
> providing for more democratic processes in selecting the leaders of the
> independent government, or a better constitution?
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>  
> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  From: Ian Peter  [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 4:08  PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Willie Currie
>> Subject:  Re: [governance] JPA
>> 
>>  
>> When I hear strong and respected voices such as Willie  and APC, Bill Drake
>> and Milton Mueller arguing for a continuation of the JPA  with specific
>> conditions, it is obvious to me that it will be difficult to get  consensus
>> on a statement to the DOC review.
>> 
>> While I am inclined to  agree with many of the comments, I cannot envisage
>> that a continued JPA will  solve any of these issues, and also believe that a
>> continued JPA brings into  question ICANN¹s legitimacy in the international
>> arena.
>> 
>> So I don¹t  know. We have different opinions here on how to cure the problem.
>> So let me  say the following, speaking absolutely in a personal capacity
>> here.
>> 
>> The  colonial era existed for a long time on the belief that countries and
>> certain  races were not mature enough to self govern. I see strong echoes of
>> colonialism in suggesting that ICANN cannot solve its problems without the
>> patronism of the US Government.  I echo (as I did in Hyderabad) the  opinion
>> of Mahatma Ghandi to the British when they questioned the timing of an
>> independence movement­ we would rather have our own bad governance that your
>> good governance.
>> 
>> We have chicken and the egg here - which comes first?  While I think the
>> international treaty is a good idea, to continue a JPA until  we have one
>> lessens the chance of one evolving.
>> 
>> But if people wish,  lets continue and look for middle ground.
>> 
>> I would not argue for an  extended JPA under any conditions. I would be
>> prepared to argue for an  immediate cessation of the JPA subject to ICANN
>> agreeing to (taking up APC¹s  points)
>> 
>>    - abolish the GAC and have governments either  participate as a
>> stakeholder directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO  etc just as
>> other stakeholders do or specify the role of governments in  managing
>> critical internet resources through an international  treaty
>>  
>>> -  separate the ICANN global governance regime from national governance e.g.
>>> ccTLDs which should be handled at national level with suggested guidelines
>>> on how to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle, WSIS principles etc)
>>  
>> * an international treaty to govern the management of  critical internet
>> resources should be entered into between governments in  consultation with
>> the private sector and civil society (that would set the  principles and
>> broad parameters for ICANN as an independent international  economic
>> regulator but not interfere in its operations)
>> 
>> (and I would add embedding the principles referred  to below)
>> 
>> Is there a way forward along these lines? To me it would need  to be
>> absolutely clear that continuance of JPA until these arrangements are in
>> place is not an option.
>> 
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On  25/05/09 8:39 PM, "Willie Currie" <wcurrie at apc.org>  wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> Hi  Ian 
>>> 
>>> In APC we are exploring whether to make a submission on the JPA  expiry on
>>> the following lines:
>>> 
>>> Q1: change the principle 'private' to  'multi-stakeholder' and propose WSIS
>>> principles 
>>> Q2 say the ICANN model  is flawed as it allows for arbitrary interventions
>>> by the GAC to override  its decision-making processess as in the .xxx case,
>>> does not in its  decision-making processes comply with the standards of an
>>> economic  regulator, confuses public policy regulation with commercial
>>> activities,  lacks proper accountability whether internal or external, lacks
>>> full  international legitimacy. ICANN can be internationalised as an
>>> economic  regulator for the DNS and the JPA allowed to expire after the
>>> following  steps:
>>> - abolish the GAC and have governments either participate as a  stakeholder
>>> directly in ICANN structures e.g. the Board, GNSO etc just as  other
>>> stakeholders do or specify the role of governments in managing  critical
>>> internet resources through an international treaty
>>> - separate  the ICANN global governance regime from national governance e.g.
>>> ccTLDs  which should be handled at national level with suggested guidelines
>>> on how  to go about this (multi-stakeholder principle,WSIS principles etc)
>>> - an  international treaty to govern the management of critical internet
>>> resources  should be entered into between governments in consultation with
>>> the private  sector and civil society (that would set the principles and
>>> broad parameters  for ICANN as an independent international economic
>>> regulator but not  interfere in its operations)
>>> Qs3,4 & 5: recognise that ICANN has  made progress on meeting some of these
>>> steps but they are not sufficient in  themselves as the overall problems
>>> outlined in Q2 have not been met and  can't be met within the current
>>> governance arrangments for ICANN.
>>> Q6:   say therefore that the USG cannot let the JPA expire until
>>> theconditions outlined under Q2 have been met.
>>> 
>>> This conclusion is  somewhat surprising for us to reach as we have argued
>>> against the unilateral  control of ICANN by one government. We have also
>>> been hesitant about arguing  for an international treaty but feel the sooner
>>> we face up to this as a  reality the better. We are worried about a black
>>> swan blindsiding the system  of managing critical internet resources to the
>>> detriment of the internet as  a whole and lack confidence in letting ICANN
>>> go without there being a  legitimate accountability mechanism in place.
>>> 
>>> Willie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ian  Peter wrote:
>>>  
>>>> JPA 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> There have been suggestions on the list we  should comment on the JPA ­
>>>>> which I think would be a good idea. Below is  DOC¹s call for comments with
>>>>> some suggested IGC responses in CAPS. We  have until June 8 so we probably
>>>>> need to get something decided fairly  quickly if we are to respond.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Any suggestions or thoughts?  One thing I am suggesting below is that
>>>>> ICANN needs to embed various  principles in its operation. These are in
>>>>> by-laws but that would appear  to be easy to change. Those closer to ICANN
>>>>> might be able to suggest an  appropriate mechanism for this.
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> Ian  Peter
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> REQUEST FOR  COMMENT:
>>>>>  
>>>>>    Given the upcoming expiration of  the current JPA between the
>>>>> Department of Commerce and ICANN, NTIA  seeks comments regarding the
>>>>> progress of the transition of the  technical coordination and management
>>>>> of the Internet DNS to the  private sector, as well as the model of
>>>>> private sector leadership  and bottom-up policy development which ICANN
>>>>> represents.
>>>>>     The questions below are  intended to assist in identifying the
>>>>> issues and should not be  construed as a limitation on comments that may
>>>>> be submitted.  Comments that contain references, studies, research, and
>>>>> other  empirical data that are not widely published should include
>>>>> copies  of the referenced materials with the submitted  comments.
>>>>>     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
>>>>>  
>>>>>     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
>>>>>   
>>>>>   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?
>>>>>  
>>>>>     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?
>>>>>  
>>>>>     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.
>>>>>  
>>>>>     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
>>> 
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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/20090526/f182cd95/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