[CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 18:25:10 UTC 2015


Hi Robin,

My first response to your question is to ask that you kindly specify the
"this" you are referring to in your  statement. As for the numbers
community, I understand there were some unofficial (side-talk) discussion
with ICANN legal and the CRISP has rightly indicated that such informal
discussions cannot be tolerated going forward; insisting on transparency in
following due process as it concerns the procedure to resolving issues.
Especially issues that would significantly go against the wish of the
community as reflected in their proposal.

ICANN made an open declaration about numbers proposal(including IETF's?) at
Singapore, and if there is now a significant change in their view, I guess
it will be helpful for them to formerly present this as well.
As to Protocol parameters, I think it may be important to read the
statement of the IAB chair before having a viewpoint.

Overall fact is that the level of information available may not be
sufficient to effectively come to a conclusion on this issue and I don't
think this should influence the work of the ccwg.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 30 Apr 2015 18:03, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> 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
> <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>
> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM
> Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition
> To: 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’s interactions with the
> numbers community
> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/>
> 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
>
>
>
>    _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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/20150430/590cb34b/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list