[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Ian Peter]

Here is a second draft for consideration and comments (especially comments
which propose improvements and additions to the wording). I also ask that we
realise that there are areas where we cannot agree here ­ with our short
time frame to finalise this, there is little point in proposing wordings
which you know will not be supported widely. Everyone is of course
encouraged to make individual submissions to reflect the diverse range of
viewpoints we hold when we get into the specifics here.

Anyway what follows is my best attempt to come up with something that might
be acceptable. Please lets work to improve this, I know it will be better
for the inputs members can make.

Ian Peter


The Internet Governance Caucus is a global coalition of civil society and
non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a
forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
society contributions in Internet governance processes. We have several
hundred members, with a wide spread of geographic representation; more about
our organisation can be found at www.igcaucus.org
 
We are thankful for the opportunity to comment on the JPA with ICANN , and
respectfully submit as follows
 
Your Question 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 like to see them
embedded in the constitution of an independent ICANN. To these we would add
the multistakeholder principle which has evolved from these in the UN¹s
Internet Governance Forum process which the US Government has supported, and
which is an important facet, we believe, of effective internet governance
arrangements.
 
 
Your Question  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 notes that the Internet is still in early stages of development, and is
still in the process of rapid evolution. This poses difficulties in
determining any model as the appropriate one in the longer term, and indeed
we think the imposition of a permanent model at this point of time would be
counter productive. Rather, we think the establishment of firm principles to
guide the evolution of a model is the appropriate way to proceed.

We note that within ICANN at this point of time a range of possible
solutions are under consideration by a diverse range of stakeholders. There
is a genuine widespread concern among stakeholders that this model should be
multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent. We believe such
a model should and will continually evolve out of the multistakeholder
participation in an independent ICANN.

IGC believes that the security and stability of the Internet DNS can only be
ensured by multistakeholder international and transnational co-operation.
Without this, there will be no stability and security. That co-operation
will be enhanced by a transition beyond the JPA to a situation where all
stakeholders feel that they have equitable arrangements for participation.
 
 
Your question 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?)
 
While holding some significant concerns about some aspects of ICANN¹s
operation, IGC does not believe that the JPA mechanism is appropriate to
deal with these issues. IGC therefore believes that sufficient progress has
been made in these areas for this transition to take place. However, in our
answer to question 7 below, we do clarify that our support for a transition
on September 30 2009 is subject to certain conditions and safeguards that
should be agreed to as conditions of the cessation of JPA.
 
Your question  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?
 
We have several concerns which we believe must be met as part of this
transition on September 30 2009. We believe these should be covered by an
agreement between ICANN to perpetuate in its constitution, by laws, or some
similar accountability mechanism, various principles which follow. These
principles will remain a legacy of the effective stewardship US applied to
ICANN in its early evolutionary stages, but which stewardship would become
an unnecessary tether to ICANN¹s effective development if it were to
continue.
 
The principles need to be embedded in such a way as to ensure they cannot
easily be changed to exclude any stakeholder group. They need to be flexible
enough to accommodate the changes which will occur in the Internet
environment. The principles which need to be permanently embedded are:
 
·     bottom up co-ordination

·     balanced multi stakeholder representation, including civil society
interests and Internet users

·     ensuring the stability of the Internet

·     transparency

·     appropriate accountability mechanisms

·     continuing evolution of an effective and appropriate governance model
which is multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090529/6efb019c/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