[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Lee W McKnight]

I agree with Parminder on the need to search and replace 'private' with 'multistakeholder.' 

That should be #1 point of caucus, as a refinement/clarification of original concept, which we can claim USG always meant but those darned Clintonians misstated. So it's just fixing a typo we claim : ).

Second, for political correctness I would add something also up front on why IGC is commenting, about civil society recognizing the critical need and broad interest of all stakeholders in maintaining Critical Internet Resources ensuring Internet stability, security, and privacy blah blah.... 
________________________________________
From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:09 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

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><mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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