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

Fri Feb 8 03:21:10 PST 2008

Erkki,
We agree with the basic principle, stated in Peter Dengate Thrush
letter to the NTIA; it makes more than two points, and certainly shows
a way for getting ICANN on the way where the users always have wanted
it to be.
As I said, what worries us, is that ISOC is taking a position which is
not so good for ICANN and for the self management of the Internet. And
I am sure that some governments will be happy to read such a statement
coming from ISOC. That worries me personally as well.
I am glad to see that the two chapter-elected Trustees share my our
fears, and would like to hear from the other Trustees, as well.

Veni

On 2/8/08, Erkki I. Kolehmainen <eik at iki.fi> wrote:
> I particularly agree with these two points made by Lynn:
>
> "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".
>
> "The endpoint model should be known/agreed - preferably we're moving
> towards something rather than simply away from something".
>
> Even if we are not happy with the current arrangement, let's get serious
> in developing a good, working solution without a possibly damaging
> haste.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> 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: venimarkovski at gmail.com [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com]
> Puolesta Veni Markovski
> Lähetetty: 8. helmikuuta 2008 9:21
> Vastaanottaja: eik at iki.fi; Veni Markovski; Bill Graham; Chapter
> Delegates
> Aihe: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [FYI] ISOC position on the ICANN
> JointProject Agreement
>
>
> 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
>
>

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