[governance] JPA

[Carlos Afonso]

The ICANN Board vision a bit more than a year ago in a formal comment on
the JPA issue posted by Mr Thrush:

"The Board of ICANN believes:
• The JPA – like the memorandums of understanding before it – has
helped ICANN to become a stable organization;
• ICANN has executed the terms of the JPA commenced in September
2006;
• ICANN is meeting its responsibilities under the JPA;
• The JPA is no longer necessary. Concluding it is the next step in
transition of the coordination of the Domain Name System (DNS) to the
private sector;
• This step will provide continuing confidence that the original vision
laid out in the White Paper is being delivered;
• Concluding the JPA will not affect existing accountabilities expressed
in the IANA contract and the United States Government’s participation
through the Governmental Advisory Committee."

The last paragraph is what led me to worry about considering all ties in
our proposal... For the ICANN Board, the IANA contract's continuation is
fine, and the statement is quite contradictory: ok for the USA to stay
in the GAC (funny...), and ok to continue under the NTIA priests' oversight.

--c.a.

Parminder wrote:
> 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
>>
>>   
> 

____________________________________________________________
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