[Chapter-delegates] [Inputs sought] ISOC response to the US Government Notice of Inquiry on the ICANN Joint Project Agreement
Holly Raiche
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Tue May 12 16:30:50 PDT 2009
HI Bill
First - thank you for this email and both the detail of your response
and the setting out of timelines for responding. This is a real
demonstration of how Sphere principles can be used effectively to
involve us all.
Next - this issue was discussed at the last ISOC-AU Board meeting,
and it was decided that we would largely support the ISOC position.
Finally, a suggestion. At the ICANN meeting in Mexico, the final
declaration from the ALAC Summit (available on the ICANN website)
includes the conclusions from Working Group 2 on the Future Structure
and Governance of ICANN - where there are recommendations on
safeguarding against capture (where there is a lot about
accountability and transparency). The ICANN President's Strategy
Committee has also published its draft Implementation Plan, with
recommendations on how to improve institutional confidence, which may
be worth looking at in developing a response on the issue of capture.
My one suggestion - is there any chance of receiving the final ISOC
response a day before it is sent to the Dept of Commerce so that
Chapters can have a final look, and add their support?
Thanks again
Holly
On 12/05/2009, at 11:02 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> 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
>
> <FedRegister.pdf>_______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
Kind regards
Holly Raiche
Executive Director,
Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
ed at isoc-au.org.au
Mob: 0412 688 544
Ph: (02) 9436 2149
The Internet is For Everyone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20090513/b432c0f8/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list