[Chapter-delegates] Fwd: PICISOC re JPA

[leslie.allinson at gmail.com]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: leslie.allinson at gmail.com <leslie.allinson at gmail.com>
Date: 14 Feb 2008 16:06
Subject: PICISOC re JPA
To: Asia-Pacific Discuss <apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Cc: Bill Graham <graham at isoc.org>

ALAC Reps

Further to consultation with board members of PICISOC there is agreement
regarding the direction of ICANN with respect to the mid term review of JPA.


There should be no control (oversight) by the US government or any other
single or group of governments and the GAC can continue to provide the
necessary participatory process.

Furthermore, there should definitely be no control (oversight) by the UN or
any UN body.

ICANN should be the mechanism or vehicle for global co-ordination where
ALS's though the RALOs and then ALAC can provide the bottom up guidance and
participation.

The JPA should be terminated as soon as possible through a process that
ensures the transition to ICANN's co-ordination role is both effective and
sustainable.

Finally PICISOC supports the proposed submission by ISOC from Bill Graham
via email of 8 February 2008 where the text follows:

============= start =============

[Chapter-delegates] [FYI] ISOC position on the ICANN Joint Project Agreement
Bill Graham <graham at isoc.org> 8 February 2008 03:48
To: Chapter Delegates chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org

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
_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates

============= end =============

Regards
--
Leslie Allinson       leslie.allinson at gmail.com
PO Box 3153         Tel: +679 3363753
Lami, Fiji Islands    Mob: +679 9970905
Honorary Treasurer, PICISOC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20080214/8c36d054/attachment.htm>