[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Ominous update on the IANA transition

[Robin Gross]

Forwarding Milton Mueller's response upon request.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> "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"
> 
> Unqoute
> Please kindly before making it more cotraversial, kindly advise the official and formal announcemnertt of the above,
>  
> MM: Kavouss, your comment reveals that you do not understand the situation. ICANN has made no formal announcement about its position regarding RIR and IETF contracts, and _that is precisely the problem_. We learned about these problems from a public report on private discussions made by a CRISP team member who has met with ICANN legal to discuss the CRISP proposal. If ICANN had made an official and formal announcement, we would know a lot more about who we are dealing with, what their position is, any why. Thus, it is pointless for you to insist on an “official and formal announcement” before action can be taken.
>  
> 2. You also stating that 
> Quote
> " these proposals  were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria"
> Unquote
> I do not recall that ICG has ever formally approved any proposals.They were submitted discussed, several questions raised which have been recently replied but the replies were not examined by ICG. .Consequently I do not agree with that statement.
>  
> MM: The proposals were reviewed. No challenges to their completeness or their consensus status were upheld. A potential compatibility issue raised by the RIR/CRISP proposal to deal with IANA-related intellectual property and domain was resolved. But it is true that we have not completed our review, because we do not have the names proposal yet.
>  
> 3. You also stated that
> "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*
>  
> This is your impression which are not shared by the ICG.
>  
> MM: I did not claim to speak for ICG, but for you to say this view “is not shared by the ICG” makes it seem as if you are speaking for ICG. In fact, all ICG members who have expressed a view on this issue have agreed that it is a concern, although not all would use my direct language. Everyone who has spoken up so far has called for a statement to be made by ICG calling for transparency. You are the only person who is trying to cover up the problem. No one has supported your view. It is your view that, quite literally, is not shared by the ICG.
>  
> 4. You understood that
>  
> "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."
> This is agin your interpretation.
> Nothing has yet been discussed not decided whether each OC would have its own IANA Function operator separately or commonly
> We should not jump intop any conclusions .
>  
> MM: Of course this is my interpretation. Is it correct? The issue of separability has been discussed extensively in all three communities. You incorrectly think of it as a question of whether each OC will have a separate IANA function operator. All communities could have the right to terminate their contract without necessarily splitting into three distinct IANA functions operators. For numbers and protocols, it already has been decided that they will have the right to have their own IFO and the right to terminate the contract.
>  
> 5.You did indicate
> Quote
> " Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition"
> Unquote ,
> OPlease point me toward the expilic decision or conclusion of CWG on that issue.
>  
> MM: I see you are not well informed about the CWG.
> See Annex C in the current draft proposal of the CWG.
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-with-annexes-22apr15-en.pdf
> Principle 9 says: “Separability: any proposal must ensure the ability:
> i. To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line
> with agreed processes;
> ii. To convene a process for selecting a new IANA Functions Operator; and
> iii. To consider separability in any future transfer of the IANA Functions
>  
> 6. You indicated
> Quote
> " Separabilityand 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).  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"
> Unquote.
> Pls provide formal statement by ICANN that they do not wish to maintain the current arrangement with or without reasons
> Then we will reveiew their standing position and then comment
>  
> MM: See my answer to your first point above.
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150430/db003cda/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150430/db003cda/signature.asc>