[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Meryem Marzouki]

Hi all,

Le 29 mai 09 à 14:39, William Drake a écrit :

> On May 29, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Among whom would the binding conditions be agreed?  In what form?   
> How would their implementation be monitored and assessed?  What  
> consequences would flow from failure to implement?  And so  
> on...we're not going to get consensus on a statement that's based  
> on abstractions and leaps of faith.  What's really needed is some  
> serious brainstorming on 3.0 architectural options that are  
> responsive to what goes on within the organization and to the  
> growing intergovernmental machinations outside of it (witness this  
> week's CSTD meeting etc).

These are indeed the main issues. And we all know that whatever the  
form used to put it, simply asking for JPA to be ended subject to  
ICANN agreeing to certain binding conditions is strictly - though  
hypocritically - equivalent to asking for JPA to be pursued, at least  
for another decade.

> Can we do this before June 8?

Of course not: it took a decade to some people on this list to simply  
understand that even unilateral control exercised by the US Gov on  
ICANN would be preferable to a totally free (i.e. uncontrollable)  
ICANN..

The only realistic proposal I can see at this step, and before an IGC  
statement be submitted, would be to put a condition on the content of  
the extended JPA, not on ICANN itself (since that would lead to  
nowhere) but rather on the USG. i.e. we should rather try to pressure  
the USG, with the hope that the new administration might be listening  
-- and that other governments might help with such pressure -- in  
order to have the renewed JPA:

- Be valid for one year only, with possible further extensions  
(between ICANN and USG only or ICANN, USG and other entities) decided  
yearly
- Be re-examined yearly, on the basis of the discussions following a  
mandatory yearly report, made jointly by ICANN and the USG, to other  
governments as  well as to civil society and business sector (to all  
stakeholders, if some prefer).

We should mention both the IGF and the WSIS Forum as the place/ 
institution to have this report presented and discussed, preceeded by  
a public online consultation where anyone may send written comments  
on the report. WSIS Forum in spring and IGF at the end of the year  
are two good periods for discussion, with e.g. a half-day session  
dedicated to this discussion.
At the same time, we should suggest to set a reasonable time limit,  
e.g. 5 years, to discuss and build a transnational mechanism to  
fulfill the necessary conditions for an acceptable ICANN.

This is what I propose as main changes to the suggested IGC statement.

Besides these changes, not only I agree with Parminder that: "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'.", but also I  
think we should add to the answer to Q1 a 5th principle, which is:  
"decision driven by the public interest".

Best,
Meryem
--
Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org
IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris

____________________________________________________________
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