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

Thu Feb 7 23:21:14 PST 2008

That's better. Now that we've cleared the miscommunications, perhaps
we can focus on ISOC input. What bothers us, in Bulgaria, is that ISOC
seems to be taking the position of the big businesses (see for example
other similar reactions at the NTIA site where the comments are).
Perhaps it is naïve, but weren't we supposed to be also users'
organization?
Isn't it strange that we receive an email with a position AFTER it is
written, and not BEFORE that, so that instead of critisizing, as we
are doing it now, and causing bad feelings, we could have been more
constructive in our contribution?
Because from what we see so far, there is a division within ISOC, but
I bet the voice of chapters that don't agree with ISOC.org position
will not be heard, as it has happened before. This is not good for
ISOC, but it is also not good for the global Internet. Such statements
are only arguments for more heating discussions at the IGF, where many
governments are critical of the JPA. Somehow I don't feel it is good
for ISOC to be associated with such positions. You say I am wrong,
but so far I see some support from other chapters, mainly from
countries in transition. It seems like we have two Internets and 2
ISOCs - one of the west/north countries, and one of the rest. Do you
like this division?

Best,
Veni
Via blackberry

On 2/8/08, Erkki I. Kolehmainen <eik at iki.fi> wrote:
> 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
>
>

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