<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=KOI8-R" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="-1">As we are in disclosing mode, Veni is an employee of
ICANN ;) but it does not make his comments less relevant.</font><br>
<br>
Veni Markovski wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20080209180426.BF5DD2C4001@mxr.isoc.bg"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Lynn and Bill,
We have also some more notes, which we will be
happy to share with Bill in Delhi.
However, a point is to be made, that the
explanation you give, if it is not included in
the ISOC's position, is of little, if no, usage.
We still remember how ISOC was stating when
bidding for the .org that the money for the .org
will not be used to cover ISOC expenses, but this
was not in the contract between PIR and ICANN,
and therefore could not be checked. Correct me if
I am wrong, as I remember this statement by memory, and it may be failing me.
Based on experience, would be good if you can
include some more specifics in the ISOC position,
which should disclose that there are different
opinions among the chapters (so far, on the web
site we have seen only the ones that are
different from what ISOC suggests, but on this
list we saw at list one personal opinion
supporting your position), and ISOC does not (or
could not) have unified position, supported by
all of its members - organizational, individual and chapters.
It is also important to make sure that you
address not only the request for comments by the
NTIA, but also the response from ICANN, which you
can see here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-sene-09jan08.pdf">http://www.icann.org/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-sene-09jan08.pdf</a>
Some of us know it is a little bit strange for
ISOC to make comments on the ICANN performance, but perhaps it is good to
a) to point out that there is a strong community,
which is involved in the ICANN processes on a number of levels;
b) inform the public that all comments actually
have some impact on the ICANN policies
c) admit that ICANN has created a completely new
atmosphere, new policies, new ideas and many new
discussions, which did not exist prior ICANN
d) disclose that ISOC has - through PIR - some
contractual agreements with ICANN and the ICANN
policies might have effect on ISOC
More can be written - both on these points, and
on the concrete text, but having in mind what
Bill said, "Because of the short time remaining
before the deadline for comments, I don’t think
it will be possible to engage in discussion on
the chapter delegates’ list." I am no feeling
confident our contribution will be used at all,
or will be "given to the ISOC staff for
consideration", which in some other cases have
meant sending it directly to the folder with deleted items.
I hope you will accept our small contribution
positively, as it is intended to be.
best,
Veni
At 00:21 08.02.2008 +0100, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">All,
We note and congratulate ICANN on all the
progress they have made recently - however, it is
just that - recent - and all good processes need
time to settle in. Hence our belief that ICANN
needs to complete the JPA. We are all very
anxious to see ICANN move to a full private
sector management model, AND we need to be
certain ICANN and their processes are as robust
and stable as they need to be. They carry a
very important set of responsibilities.
Also, by way of background (as some seem to think
this is a new position), this position is
basically the same position ISOC has held for
several years. Progress in ICANN had been slow,
it is now getting faster (and this is good). It
needs time to prove itself.
It is important to remember that the Joint
Project Agreement (JPA) does not govern/affect
what we all really care about - the root - as
that is under a separate agreement. This is an
area that still needs development from both the
US Government perspective and ICANN's, and is not
part of this review nor the JPA.
ICANN's plans with respect to their eventual
model post USG oversight is not known, although
it has been an ongoing discussion for several
years. This is an area in need of significant
further discussion within the community and is
where we can all add a lot of value. The
endpoint model should be known/agreed -
preferably we're moving towards something rather
than simply away from something.
These are the points we are trying to call
everyone's attention to, and would appreciate
hearing your comments on. The discussions on
these will be with us for a long time.
Hope this helps,
Lynn
(replying for Bill who is traveling most of the next day or two)
At 12:20 AM +0530 2/8/08, Veni Markovski wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Bill,
We are disappointed that ISOC wants the JPA comtinued.
We are working on our own submission, but it is very muchb in support
of Peter Dengate Thrush letter to the NTIA, which can be found on the
ICANN site.
Hope to see you in Delhi, but given the fact that you're sending
ISOC's position a week before the deadline, which gives little, if
any, space for improvement, I hope you'll make it clear that this is
the position of ISOC - Reston, and has not been supported by the
chapters, which are not co-signing it.
Best,
Veni
On 2/7/08, Bill Graham <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:graham@isoc.org"><graham@isoc.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Dear Colleagues,
In advance of the ICANN meeting in Delhi next week, I would like to
share with you an overview of the comments ISOC is planning to submit
to the United States Department of Commerce Notice of Inquiry on the
mid-term review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between DoC and
ICANN. This position is based on ISOC principles and builds on past
submissions. We continue to support a transition to a private sector
model for administration of the domain name system, and we continue to
be supportive of ICANN's efforts as they evolve to this model.
When the JPA was created in September 2006 it had two parts:
· the agreement itself and
· an annex written by the ICANN Board.
The annex contained 10 commitments that the Board voluntarily made to
the US government. The present mid-term review was also promised in
the JPA.
Some, including ICANN itself, seem to think it is possible that the
JPA could be terminated at the mid-term. Others see obstacles -
political and otherwise. - Irrespective of whether early termination
is possible. For three major reasons, ISOC's position is that the JPA
should continue until its end in 2009 so that ICANN can prepare itself
for private sector management. Briefly those reasons are:
(1) ICANN has done a lot in the first half of the JPA with respect to
advancing work on the JPA responsibilities in areas such as
transparency, to making progress in other key areas such as IDNs, and
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""> > working to improve stability and security. The next 18 months will be
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> an opportunity to put these into operation and ensure that the new
mechanisms are adequate to meet community expectations. This is
essential for the stability of the organization post-JPA, and is
central to strong engaged community support - a central tenet of the
private sector model envisaged for ICANN.
(2) ICANN needs to develop a vision or plan for what it will look
like and how it will work without the US government oversight. This
will need community support and buy-in and must be developed within
ICANN's processes, following principles of openness, transparency and
accountability. The community needs to understand how ICANN plans to
operate and evolve in the absence of the USG oversight role. That
needs to be elaborated & test-driven over the next year(s) in order to
be credible, to gain support, and before various constituencies should
be comfortable with ending the JPA.
(3) In the 2006 DoC proceedings, both ISOC and IAB strongly expressed
the need for all parties to recognize that the protocol parameter
function carried out by ICANN is on behalf of and performed fully
under the IETF's direction. ICANN's responsibilities for these
assignments is therefore different from ICANN's other responsibilities
within the IANA function. In the next 18 months, concrete steps must
be taken to recognize this, and to ensure that the IETF's protocol
parameter needs will continue to be met to its satisfaction,
regardless of any changes that may be made in ICANN's relationship
with the DoC.
The deadline for making the formal submission to the US government is
February 15, and this summary of our position is provided as
background for our discussions during the ICANN meeting. I am aware
that some Chapters and individual members have already made
submissions to the DoC - some not entirely agreement with the position
we are planning to put forward. I think it will be important for ISOC
members speaking publicly in Delhi to identify themselves and make it
clear that they speak on their own or their Chapter's behalf. If you
do not agree with the formal ISOC position outlined above, I would
also encourage you to state that as well. Because of the short time
remaining before the deadline for comments, I don't think it will be
possible to engage in discussion on the chapter delegates' list. But
I look forward to meeting many of you at ICANN and welcome any
comments you may want to email me off list at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:graham@isoc.org">graham@isoc.org</a>.
Best wishes
Bill
========================
Bill Graham
Global Strategic Engagement
The Internet Society
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:graham@isoc.org">graham@isoc.org</a>
tel +1.613.231.8543
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates">http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates">http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates">http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Franck Martin
ICT Specialist
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:franck@sopac.org">franck@sopac.org</a>
SOPAC, Fiji
GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320
"Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard
</pre>
</body>
</html>