[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Ian,

thank you for this very good draft!
The only serious problem I see with the draft concerns the principles 
you list at the end. The wording in this section seems very much in line 
with the  original Memorandum of Understanding. The way I read this 
section, it is not clear whether ICANN's structure and processes 
presently meet these principles or not. However, I think the message we 
want to convey is that ICANN has to change significantly before the JPA 
can end.

One further comment. I think we should try to be more specific with 
regard to "appropriate accountability mechanisms". As a minimum, we 
should say that we expect _external_ forms of accountability towards a 
body that is independent of ICANN.

Thanks again, jeanette

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 
> UN’s 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 
> UN’s 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 ICANN’s 
> 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 ICANN’s 
> 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