[CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Thu Apr 30 17:30:15 UTC 2015

At a guess, with only limited information, I do not think the NTIA will
accept this proposal if it is told clearly by the community that ICANN is
thwarting the community's will .

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:03 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Very troubling.  On a practical level, will this put ICANN and the NTIA in a
"stand-off" or will NTIA allow ICANN to get away with this?

Thanks for forwarding it, Ed.

Best,

Robin

On Apr 30, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:

Exactly

From: Keith Drazek
Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 11:41 AM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Wow..

A timely reminder of the importance of our work to improve ICANN's
Accountability.

Best,
Keith

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Edward Morris
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Hi,

I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to
those of us working on Accountability. 

Best,

Ed Morris

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu> >
Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM
Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu> 

Dear NCSG:

It's now official: ICANN doesn't even want to let the IETF have a choice of
its IANA functions operator. 

Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-
monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/> 's
interactions with the numbers community will already know that ICANN is
refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its
contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with
ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was
encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the
chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have
sent a letter to their community
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html>
noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level
agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change
in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. 

These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN's legal staff is
telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not
accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as
part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both
cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected
communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the
NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting
itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable
transition proposal.

The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will
have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether
each of the affected communities - names, numbers and protocols - will have
the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is
explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a
principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by
the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them
separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860> ).
Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly
and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. 

Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective
and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to
a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive,
efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the
accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message
to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.  

Milton L Mueller

Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor

Syracuse University School of Information Studies

http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

Internet Governance Project

http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150430/0bebf0da/attachment.html>