[Chapter-delegates] [Inputs sought] ISOC response to the US Government Notice of Inquiry on the ICANN Joint Project Agreement

[Bill Graham]

As I pointed out in my note to you on April 24, the United States  
Department of Commerce has released its notice of inquiry (NOI)  
"regarding the upcoming expiration of the JPA with ICANN." Comments  
are due ON OR BEFORE JUNE 8, 2009.  The document is attached again here.

BACKGROUND

The NOI summarizes the history of the JPA and asks eight questions  
that are very far reaching.  They ask about whether the original White  
Paper principles are still appropriate and whether ICANN has  
integrated them.  They ask if the private sector-led, bottom-up  
process is still the most appripriate, or if there are better.  They  
ask about ICANN's progress against the JPA core tasks and subsequent  
commitments made by the ICANN Board.  they ask whether progress is  
sufficient to transition ICANN to full independence, and if not what  
remains to be done.  Then they ask if there enough safeguards in place  
to ensure continued security and stability of the DNS, and if they can  
ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself.  And  
finally they ask what the NTIA final report on the JPA should  
include.  It appears they are seeking either oral or written comments,  
all of which will be put on the public record.

ISOC will be responding to this inquiry.  ISOC has an important  
obligation on a matter as critical as this for the future of the  
Internet and the Internet model as a whole.  I want to reaffirm that  
in line with our mission we will need to consult broadly: with our  
Board, Chapters and Members, but also within Internet community, IETF,  
etc., to ensure the most appropriate response possible.  Consistent  
with that mission, I am launching this broad consultation with you to  
get your overall views of ICANN, its performance and its future which  
will serve as valuable input to the eventual ISOC response to the NOI.
PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR ISOC RESPONSE

Following are some preliminary points I am proposing as elements for  
the ISOC response (including some suggested areas where I would  
particularly appreciate hearing your views, in square brackets):

-- Emphasize the fundamental role of ICANN as a steward of a global  
resource.  [It might be something like: ICANN must always remember its  
fundamental responsibility as the steward over a shared global  
resource.  ICANN is not a simple aggregator of the interests of its  
multiple constituencies. This central obligation should drive the  
future direction and activities of the organization.  And it implies  
that the ICANN Board must accept the responsibility to do what is  
right for the Internet, even if that course is not the most popular  
with some of its most powerful constituencies.]

-- Support the original four principles for management of the DNS as  
having ongoing relevance (those were: stability; competition; private,  
bottom-up coordination; and  representation)

-- Support the full privatization of ICANN at the end of the JPA to  
promote private-sector (defined as non-governmental, private)  
leadership and bottom-up policy making, consistent with our previous  
statements to the US government.

-- Draw attention to the ongoing need to improve accountability and  
transparency mechanisms (ref. the first point), but stress that this  
is something that the ICANN stakeholders can and must accept  
responsibility for doing.

-- Support the identified need to continue to strengthen mechanisms to  
avoid capture [Are the current mechanisms are sufficiently strong?   
Are improvements needed and if so what?]

-- The US Government emphasizes the requirement that it and ICANN  
collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's  
policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the  
agreement. They ask what should be included in this report?  [This  
would be a good place to reiterate the stewardship role.  Are there  
other messages ISOC should propose for inclusion in this report?]

TIMELINE

The ISOC response must be submitted by the deadline of 8 June.  I  
propose the following timeline, and hope you will be able to help by  
these deadlines:

May 12:  Consultation launched, comments invited.  Any coordination  
you may want to do in preparing the comments will be welcomed.

May 18:  Board of Trustees discussion of response.

May 27:  End of comment period.  I may need to follow up with some of  
you for clarification or more information.

June 8:   ISOC files comments with Department of Commerce, shares  
final version internally.

I will also provide an explanation for the rationale for particular  
choices made in the final response.  I believe this will help us all  
to develop and understanding of how we work together, and also help to  
build capacity for engaging in this kind of dialogue.

HOW TO CONTRIBUTE

I propose two ways to collect your comments.  The first and most  
traditional would be if you can please send your comments to me in  
reply to this message (so I can use the header to sort).  The second  
will be to use a special blog that will be set up to collect your  
comments.  Anne Lord will get that done in the next day or two, and  
will send you information about how to access the blog when done.

Please let me know if any of this is unclear.

BACKGROUND MATERIAL

As background material, I would also refer you to ISOC's previous  
inputs to the US Department of Commerce, that can be found at:
http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/ISOC_NTIA_response_060707.pdf
http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/ISOC_NTIA_statement_060726.pdf
http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/ISOC_NTIA_response_080215.pdf

and ISOC's inputs to the ICANN President's Strategy Committee on the  
issues of Improving Institutional Confidence at:
http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/community/icann.shtml

United States Government archive of background papers on the DNS  
project are available at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/background.htm

Looking forward to your response

Bill Graham

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FedRegister.pdf
Type: application/x-octetstream
Size: 54571 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20090512/d3735b67/attachment.bin>