[Chapter-delegates] [FYI] ISOC position on the ICANN Joint Project Agreement

[Lynn St.Amour]

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:
>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 <graham at isoc.org> wrote:
>>  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
>  > working to improve stability and security.  The next 18 months will be
>>  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 graham at isoc.org.
>>
>>  Best wishes
>>
>>  Bill
>>  ========================
>>  Bill Graham
>>  Global Strategic Engagement
>>  The Internet Society
>>  graham at isoc.org
>>  tel +1.613.231.8543
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Chapter-delegates mailing list
>Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates