[Chapter-delegates] Fwd: PICISOC re JPA

Wed Feb 13 22:33:48 PST 2008

Leslie:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Nope.  I am going to respectfully and publicly disagree with your assertion.

Do a little research on Internet History and discover for yourself WHO
invented the enabling technologies, and WHOSE tax dollars paid for this
effort.  Let me know if you need any assistance in your research.  I have
a wealth of information I would be happy to e-mail you.

Have a nice day over there in Fiji.

Regards,

William Favre Slater, III, PMP
Program Manager, CSSS.NET
slater at billslater.com
http://billslater.com/career
708 - 410 - 4098 - Work
773 - 235 - 3080 - Home
312 - 758 - 0307 - Mobile
1337 N. Ashland Ave. No. 2
Chicago, IL 60622
United States of America

On Wed, February 13, 2008 11:13 pm, leslie.allinson at gmail.com wrote:
> ---------- 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>