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

Thu Feb 7 22:41:42 PST 2008

Veni,

I'd have the same, very serious difficulty in accepting the following
strong utterance "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" from any one, not just you. (In my understanding, the
omission of "all" and the inclusion of the comma preceding "which" make
it all-inclusive).

Personally I'm supportive of the draft position and the stated
justification for it.   

Erkki

-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: venimarkovski at gmail.com [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com]
Puolesta Veni Markovski
Lähetetty: 8. helmikuuta 2008 2:14
Vastaanottaja: eik at iki.fi; Veni Markovski; Bill Graham; Chapter
Delegates
Aihe: Re: VS: [Chapter-delegates] [FYI] ISOC position on the ICANN
JointProject Agreement

Erkki,
Without going into details, let me point that my email does not say
"all the chapters" but rather the chapters who would not agree with
isoc.org position.
While it is important to have differences of opinions, it is also
equally important - at least for us, coming from a country where
differences in opinions usually have been punished by the oppresive
Soviet regime, to not be shut down by people who disagree with us. I
would have expected that you must be familiar with the history of the
way the Soviets were implementing the so called "people's democracy"
in Eastern Europe, and therefore I hope that your email is just a
personal note reflecting your annoyance with me, not with the
poisitons of having the Internet more independant from the
governmental control - be that of thje US government,or of any other
government.

Hope that this makes my previous mail more clear for you, and hope
that you'd appreciate the fact that we do not want to impose any
decision upon your chapter - something that we can't do either on
moral principles, or on legal ones.

By the way, in the spirit of constructiveness, would be good to hear
not the personal attacks, but rather an opinion on what we hear from
ISOC. Like we did.

Best,
 Veni

On 2/8/08, Erkki I. Kolehmainen <eik at iki.fi> wrote:
> Veni,
>
> It sounds like you believe that you are the one and only voice for all
> the chapters. Loud you are, admittedly.
>
> Erkki
>
> Erkki I. Kolehmainen
> Tilkankatu 12 A 3, FI-00300 Helsinki, Finland
> Puh. (09) 4368 2643, 0400 825 943; Tel. +358 9 4368 2643, +358 400 825
> 943
>
>
> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
> [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] Puolesta Veni
> Markovski
> Lähetetty: 7. helmikuuta 2008 20:50
> Vastaanottaja: Bill Graham; Chapter Delegates
> Aihe: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [FYI] ISOC position on the ICANN
> JointProject Agreement
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com