[governance] JPA

[Parminder]

Ian

I agree with your approach. Thats the best route to try for a common IGC 
position.  Parminder

Ian Peter wrote:
> Folks,  
>
> I am trying to follow all the threads here while on the road with very
> little time - I intend to come up with a new draft for discussion about 24
> hours from now.
>
> We are not going to get consensus here for either an extension of JPA or
> abandoning JPA with no conditions. That seems clear already. Therefore we
> seem to be down to arguing an immediate cessation of JPA with certain
> conditions. I would like people to consider whether that is an acceptable
> IGC position (obviously the conditions needs some discussion).
>
> I'll get to a draft in 24 hours or so, we will then have about a week to
> finalise.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> On 28/05/09 2:20 AM, "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
> <froomkin at law.miami.edu> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Wed, 27 May 2009, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Michael: I have to defer to you on the administrative law issues,
>>> obviously. If you could tell us which "several countries" are that have
>>> the strong tradition and worked out rules it would help.
>>>       
>> I don't know enough about the world's systems to give you a list.  US and
>> Canada would be on it, UK would not, is all I can really tell you.  I
>> apologize for my parochialism.
>>
>>
>>     
>>> My primary concern is with substantive constraints on what ICANN does
>>>       
>> jand what it cannot do. E.g., I would like to have a very clear, simple
>> statement that ICANN policies can be designed to regulate freedom of
>> expression concerns as expressed in Article 19, and I would also like to
>> see basic trade principles (nondiscrimination especially) somehow
>> incorporated. Since these constraints are Internet-specific in many ways I
>> can't see tying it to national law. They need to be globally applicable
>> and their relevance to the specifics of Internet governance clear.
>>     
>> I didn't follow that.  If you have rules tied to a national law with good
>> human rights, protection for freedom of speech (I hope you meant "Icann
>> policies can NOT be designed to regulate freedom of expression"???) that
>> flows right in.  There's little that is internet-specific about freedom
>> and non-discrimination.
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Milton Mueller
>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Internet Governance Project:
>>> http://internetgovernance.org
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
>>>> [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:52 AM
>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Milton L Mueller
>>>> Subject: RE: [governance] JPA
>>>>
>>>> This is why tying to a nation's law (as opposed to
>>>> 'international law') of
>>>> administrative makes sense: it's at the national level that
>>>> we have well
>>>> worked-out ideas of due process and basic rights to be heard.
>>>>
>>>> International law, which is still primarily about states and
>>>> international
>>>> organizations, does not have a body of jurisprudence that
>>>> speaks to those
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>> The US APA is one model; Canada has a different on.  The UK's
>>>> model of
>>>> administrative review, on the other hand, is relatively feeble.
>>>>
>>>> Several countries have a strong tradition, and well worked-out rules,
>>>> about procedural regularity, that is rules which police fairness,
>>>> conflicts of interest, the right to be heard, without being too
>>>> heavy-handed in their substantive review.  Those are good
>>>> models, they
>>>> took decades to develop, and one should be adopted rather
>>>> than reinvented
>>>> from the ground up.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 May 2009, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>  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. ,  
>>>>>>             
>>>>>  
>>>>> Same issue as my last message.
>>>>> What rules/law does this quasi-judicial body apply? Without
>>>>>           
>>>> that, it's useless second-guess or a
>>>>         
>>>>> dangerous political bypass mechanism.
>>>>> We've tried to skip that stage for 10- years and it hasn't
>>>>>           
>>>> worked. Let's get down to it.  
>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> --
>>>> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
>>>> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
>>>> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>>>> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>>>>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>>>>         
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090528/6035add0/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