[Chapter-delegates] [FYI] ISOC position on the ICANN Joint Project Agreement
Franck Martin
franck at sopac.org
Sat Feb 9 12:41:37 PST 2008
As we are in disclosing mode, Veni is an employee of ICANN ;) but it
does not make his comments less relevant.
Veni Markovski wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
--
Franck Martin
ICT Specialist
franck at sopac.org
SOPAC, Fiji
GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320
"Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20080210/ceee60af/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list