[governance] JPA
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed May 27 05:40:25 EDT 2009
Ian
I can go with your basic formulation for_an_IGC_statement below if we
also clearly mention that we are as much against a self-governing
industry led system for governance of any area with public interest
implications, including IG and CIR management. We can say that we see an
ICANN free from JPA only as an interim arrangement as ways and means of
its legitimate oversight are worked out. This should be through the
mentioned treaty system (the precise wording on this can be discussed
here).
I also think that suggesting an 'international judidical body' for
adjudication CIR/ related IG issues as a more urgent step would be
useful, since a full treaty process could take long time. The model and
legal basis for such a judicial or quasi-judicial body can be discussed. ,
parminder
Ian Peter wrote:
> 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 ICANN's legitimacy
> in the international arena.
>
> So I don't 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 APC's 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
> DOC's 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090527/d3912917/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