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

Sat Feb 9 10:04:01 PST 2008

Lynn and Bill,
We have also some more notes, which we will be 
happy to share with Bill in Delhi.
However, a point is to be made, that the 
explanation you give, if it is not included in 
the ISOC's position, is of little, if no, usage. 
We still remember how ISOC was stating when 
bidding for the .org that the money for the .org 
will not be used to cover ISOC expenses, but this 
was not in the contract between PIR and ICANN, 
and therefore could not be checked. Correct me if 
I am wrong, as I remember this statement by memory, and it may be failing me.
Based on experience, would be good if you can 
include some more specifics in the ISOC position, 
which should disclose that there are different 
opinions among the chapters (so far, on the web 
site we have seen only the ones that are 
different from what ISOC suggests, but on this 
list we saw at list one personal opinion 
supporting your position), and ISOC does not (or 
could not) have unified position, supported by 
all of its members - organizational, individual and chapters.
It is also important to make sure that you 
address not only the request for comments by the 
NTIA, but also the response from ICANN, which you 
can see here: 
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-sene-09jan08.pdf

Some of us know it is a little bit strange for 
ISOC to make comments on the ICANN performance, but perhaps it is good to
a) to point out that there is a strong community, 
which is involved in the ICANN processes on a number of levels;
b) inform the public that all comments actually 
have some impact on the ICANN policies
c) admit that ICANN has created a completely new 
atmosphere, new policies, new ideas and many new 
discussions, which did not exist prior ICANN
d) disclose that ISOC has - through PIR - some 
contractual agreements with ICANN and the ICANN 
policies might have effect on ISOC

More can be written - both on these points, and 
on the concrete text, but having in mind what 
Bill said, "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." I am no feeling 
confident our contribution will be used at all, 
or will be "given to the ISOC staff for 
consideration", which in some other cases have 
meant sending it directly to the folder with deleted items.

I hope you will accept our small contribution 
positively, as it is intended to be.

best,
Veni

At 00:21 08.02.2008   +0100, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Chapter-delegates mailing list
>Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates