[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Ian Peter]

Thanks Carlos - yes both those suggested changes should be made. Thanks!


On 29/05/09 11:41 AM, "Carlos Afonso" <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:

> My quick comments, below, which do not significantly change anything.
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Ian Peter wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Not an organization, rather a constituency or a stakeholder group? Or a
> caucus, anyway?
> 
>>  
>> 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.
> 
> The multistakholder principle evolved from within the WSIS process, not
> the IGF.
> 
>>  
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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