[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Lee W McKnight]

I agree with Meryem's suggestions and the direction she suggests taking the doc.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Meryem Marzouki [marzouki at ras.eu.org]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:36 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

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
____________________________________________________________
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