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

[Igor Mkrtumyan]

Dear all,
the opinion of small ccTLDs and chapters is not often pronounced probably 
because most of them has no lawyers able to weight up all pros and contras 
of a proposal. However I want to convey my thoughts on the question (I 
accept that they might be wrong).
I think that the end of JPA is desirable as it will end the dependance of 
ICANN from DoC (US Gov) and will stop talks about the control of ICANN by 
the US Gov. (Such an opinion is often heard on international forums). Non of 
us wants to have another government controlled ICANN instead of the existing 
one. Also do we think that JPA is the only way to influence ICANN? Can't the 
Internet community influence ICANN in other way than through DoC? For 
example, by signing a Memorandum of Agreement between ICANN and ISOC or 
regional TLD organizations where ICANN takes the responsibility to consider 
their requirements.
The criticism of the ICANN in the known cases is justified but I am not sure 
that we need JPA for the improvement. The delay of introduction of some new 
mechanisms, like e-IANA, is more a technical problem and will be solved 
sooner or later.
Best regards
Igor Mkrtumyan
ISOC-Armenia chapter
  ----- Original Message
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Veni Markovski" <veni at veni.com>
To: "Bill Graham" <graham at isoc.org>; "Chapter Delegates" 
<chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:50 PM
Subject: 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