[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[sayo.phet at gmail.com]

Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>

Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:41:10 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA response - second draft for comments


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