[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Parminder]

Ian

I thought that we would go for a compromise of the kind that will call 
for end of JPA but mention that this should be accompanied by clear 
commitment by all parties to begin a process of due internationalization 
of oversight of ICANN, and submit to the outcomes of the same.

While it may be a difficult be clear about how the above is possible, we 
can leave that vague in the statement. However the above formulation 
should partly satisfy both sides - those who want JPA to end and those 
who want it to be extended temporarily till alternative 
internationalised arrangements are worked out ( with due 
multistakeholder elements etc). I thought these were the two principal 
sides of the discussion which took place on this list a few days ago. 
The present formulation is too much on the side of those who just want 
JPA to end. Vague mentions of some binding principles means little; of 
course everyone is ready to adopt some binding principles when one is 
not clear what they are. For many of us an external accountability/ 
oversight mechanism other than US gov-centred one is an absolute 
non-negotiable.

Two more things;

We should *not add* multistakeholder principle to private sector 
leadership but ask for the term 'private sector' to be *replaced* by 
'multi-stakeholder system'. Also we need to clearly mention that we are 
not for an industry-led ICANN but for a multi-stakeholder system. To 
mention this is absolutely necessary because one of the questions 
clearly mentions the term 'industry led'.

Second thing: we should mention explicitly that WSIS principles should 
be explicitly included in the principles agreed to for ICANN 
constitution. These principles are agreed to by the whole world 
community. And as was discussed in open consultations and MAG meeting 
WSIS principles are not just about democratic, multilateral, 
transparent, multistakeholder IG etc (para 29 of Tunis agenda) also the 
people-centric, development-oriented and inclusive aspects of IG (para 31).

I hope this is helpful.

Parminder

Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Anriette,
>
> I still believe that the JPA can be ended, subject to ICANN agreeing to
> certain binding conditions. That I think is a far preferable arrangement if
> it can happen.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> On 29/05/09 5:36 PM, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> McTim.. that is exactly the question:
>>     
>>> between ICANN and ????
>>>
>>>       
>> It is because of those ???? that some of us believe that a temporary
>> extension of the JPA is needed - merely until the ???? can be replaced
>> with something relatively tangible and accessible.
>>
>> Anriette
>>     
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090529/d026b5fa/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