At 14:08 14/02/2008, Jacqueline A.Morris wrote:
Dear All, Please see the draft below of a proposed At Large statement on the JPA. Time is short - the deadline is tomorrow, but as much participation as possible is the At Large way, so please do what you can re comments. Jacqueline
This proposition seems to be good. However, I think we miss a summary framework of every the real accountability relations between ICANN and the US government, Verisign, the RIRs and the IETF, the implications for the Enhanced Cooperation, and the relations with the IGF participants. The more ICANN removes itself from the USG umbrella the more alternative solutions may emerge. I feel the Internet technology and the ICANN are still unprepared to such a situation. If they become independent providers, no more a de facto national agency/exclusive SSDO, there will be competition. IMHO the proper interface to deal with such a competition or/and its projects is the atlarges because the competitive projects will start from them first (open sources, alternative architectures to IETF, IDN resolution, national communities) and because ICANN in fact compete with them. As long as ICANN has not accepted it and acted accordingly I do not think it is mature enough to walk alone. ICANN is also tied with the IETF, I think this should also be reviewed. At the Dehli ICANN/IDNC meeting Thomas Narten (IETF liaison to BoD) and Chris Disspain agreed that in terms of IDNs the technical documentation should mostly come from ICANN, and they detailed why. ICANN is calling on external consulting power, but the IDNA case shows it has not acquired yet the competence to stand by its own and to proprely decide of the operational values of the IETF inputs. The "Fast Track" would be a first case where ICANN would lead an ICP-3-like test (however it does not respect the ICANN/ICP-3 constraints). I feel the NTIA wants to judge by its own theoric criteria, not by the real life criteria we learned during the last 9 years. jfc
Annette Muehlberg wrote: Hi all,
i think by replacing the last paragraph we could, wihtout dismissing other positions, reach a consensus. please have a look at the last alternative paragraph.
warm greetings
annette
Proposed ALAC-statement regarding JPA:
As the JPA (between the US Government and ICANN) is under Review, ALAC wishes to underline the unique opportunity the occasion offers to realize the original goals that led to the formation of ICANN. These include, inter alia, acknowledgement of the international nature of ICANN, support of the multi-stakeholder bottom-up approach to the management of ICANN, and the provision of viable and stable channels for the involvement of individual Internet users in the ICANN policy formation process. Measures must be implemented to ensure non-discriminatory availability of ICANN/IANA services as well as the opportunity for the involvement of global individual users in the ICANN process.
In its role as the voice of the individual Internet users, ALAC firmly believes that the current multi-stakeholder framework at ICANN should be further strengthened to allow more proactive involvement of end-users. The process to full participation of individual users through the ALAC/RALO (Regional At-Large Organization) mechanism is being undertaken at this moment. There is, however, a lack of incentives for the participants, especially a lack of direct involvement at the decision-making levels of ICANN. Therefore, we think that ICANN should find ways to implement adequate representation of individual users at the decision-making levels of ICANN so that a real multi-stakeholder framework is achieved.
In addition, we believe that no government should have a pre-eminent role in DNS management and exercise power over database changes and root-server data. We suggest that an institutional form should be found as soon as possible so that ICANN does not lie under the authority of any single national legislation. We also strongly advocate transparency and openness in the process of making any structural change in the ICANN framework for the coming transition.
However, at this mid-term review phase, we do not believe the organization is ready to function without a similar accountability mechanism to the JPA in place.
Alternative replacing the last paragraph:
We are concerned that the successor oversight framework is still not clear and ICANN needs to clarify the transitional arrangements with regard to accountability and transparency as well as to allow further definition and evolution of the multi-stakeholder model of governance under which it operates.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org