[governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

[Vanda Scartezini]

After some years we still don't have a effective international new model for
ICANN after September neither do we have a governments proposal for their
participation as part of the multistakeholder participation. Besides, IANA
still unders agreement till 2011 so I do agree with the idea to prorogate
the JPA at least for a half year and push to come out with real solution,
IGF should be the place to propose some alternatives but I don't see it
goint into this direction. There is a place open (www.icann.org) for
question to the board to be debated during SYDNEY meeting at the end of this
month. I encourage everyone interested in this question to do so.
 Best,

Vanda Scartezini
POLO Consultores Associados
&  IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
Mob + 5511 8181.1464


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA response - second draft for comments

Thanks everyone for the wide range of opinions and responses. Although we
seem united as regards feeling that ICANN should be improved and changed -
and in broad agreement about most of the principles - we seem a long way
away from agreement as to either WHAT we want as a model or HOW this should
be achieved.

On the WHAT front -

WE have a good set of principles and I think we will get agreement there
eventually. The next draft can include most comments made here and I think
that will look quite strong. But when we get to what the eventual model
looks like we have a wide range of opinions - no external oversight body,
governmental oversight, UN involvement, multistakeholder internal or
external oversight etc. I don't think we should attempt to define what the
model should be in the time available, nor do I think we need to.

There have also been calls for us to evaluate ICANNs current performance.
But no suggested text. I am happy for us to leave this out personally but if
someone suggests text we obviously need to consider it.

But when it comes to HOW to proceed we seem a long way from consensus and I
am not sure we are able to address this fundamental question.

It's obvious that either unconditional extension of the JPA or unconditional
cessation will not gain consensus here. Two positions have some degree of
support - either cessation with conditions or short term continuance with
conditions. I'm not sure we will get consensus on either, and there are
strong opinions on both sides.

If we cannot resolve this we can only proceed to present both points of view
to the question as regards should JPA continue. Perhaps our phrasing here is
along the lines of "irrespective of whether the JPA continues or not, we
believe that the principles outlined need to (etc etc).

That's where I read things at this stage. When time permits I'll attempt
another draft to include the many good comments made here. (unless of course
someone else feels moved to put a revised set of words forward for
consideration)

Ian Peter



 







____________________________________________________________
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