<div dir="ltr"><div>Mlton,</div><div>Thank you for information.</div><div>1.You said that Quote</div><div><br></div><div>"<em>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" </em></div><div>Unqoute</div><div>Please kindly before making it more cotraversial, kindly advise the official and formal announcemnertt of the above,</div><div>. </div><div>2. You also stating that </div><div>Quote</div><div><em>" these proposals were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria"</em></div><div>Unquote</div><div>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.</div><div>3. You also stated that </div><div>Quote </div><div>"<em>Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process</em>, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal*</div><div><br></div><div>Unquote</div><div>This is your impression which are not shared by the ICG.</div><div>4. You understood that </div><div>Quote</div><div><br></div><div><em>"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."</em></div><div>Unquote</div><div>This is agin your interpretation.</div><div>Nothing has yet been discussed not decided whether each OC would have its own IANA Function operator separately or commonly</div><div>We should not jump intop any conclusions .</div><div>5.You did indicate</div><div>Quote</div><div>"<em> Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition"</em></div><div>Unquote , </div><div>OPlease point me toward the expilic decision or conclusion of CWG on that issue. </div><div>Moreover, even if there is an implicit refernce to the possibilityof separate IANA fUNCTION Operator for each OC , that issue is now Under publix comment and needs to be carefully looked at in the light of the potential comments . Once again we should not jump into any conclusion and prejudge the public comment .</div><div><br></div><div>6. You indicated </div><div>Quote</div><div>"<em> 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 (</em><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860" target="_blank"><em>RFC 2860</em></a><em>). 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"</em></div><div>Unquote. </div><div>Pls provide formal statement by ICANN that they do not wish to maintain the current arrangement with or without reasons </div><div>Then we will reveiew their standing position and then comment</div><div><br></div><div class="MsoNormal"><u></u> 7. You also mentioned </div><div class="MsoNormal">Quote</div><div class="MsoNormal">" 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", IN PARTICULAR, you stated that " it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable"</div><div class="MsoNormal">Unquote</div><div class="MsoNormal">How you reached that comnclusion . Even if it is your firm conclusions ,ICG need to carefully examine the matter from all angles and all aspects</div><div class="MsoNormal">By the way, we still waiting to recieve formal proposal from Name OC, certainly after public comments are included in second draft</div><div class="MsoNormal"> We need to be calm, patient, priudent and NOT EMMOTIONAL..</div><div class="MsoNormal">If any individual or community wishes to comment ,the public comment is already open but NO ICG STAMP ON ANY THING UNLESS FULLY DISCUSSED EXAMINED ANALYSED AND AGREED UOPN</div><div class="MsoNormal">Finally I hope Alissa this tame would not take a uniléateral position in drafting any note on behalf of ICG and put us before something that French called 2 fait a comli"</div><div class="MsoNormal">Best Regards</div><div class="MsoNormal">Kavouss </div><div class="MsoNormal"> . <u></u><u></u></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> </p><div> .</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-04-30 20:25 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Hi Robin,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.<br>
As to Protocol parameters, I think it may be important to read the statement of the IAB chair before having a viewpoint.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On 30 Apr 2015 18:03, "Robin Gross" <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div style>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?<div><br></div><div>Thanks for forwarding it, Ed.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br><div><div>On Apr 30, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<div>
<div>
<div>Exactly</div>
<div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in;text-align:left;color:black;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Keith Drazek<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 11:41 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Accountability Cross Community<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Wow….<u></u><u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">A timely reminder of the importance of our work to improve ICANN’s Accountability.<u></u><u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Best,<br>
Keith<u></u><u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Edward Morris<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:15 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition<u></u><u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></div>
<div>
<div><div class="MsoNormal">Hi,<u></u><u></u></div>
</div>
<div><div class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></div>
</div>
<div><div class="MsoNormal">I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability. <u></u><u></u></div>
</div>
<div><div class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></div>
</div>
<div><div class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></div>
</div>
<div><div class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></div>
</div>
<div><div class="MsoNormal">Ed Morris<u></u><u></u></div>
</div>
<div><div class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></div>
</div>
<div><div class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></div>
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b>Milton L Mueller</b> <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>><br>
Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM<br>
Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition<br>
To: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu</a><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Dear NCSG:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Those of you who read my
<a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/" target="_blank">
blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the numbers community</a> 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
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html" target="_blank">
sent a letter to their community</a> 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.
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">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 (<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860" target="_blank">RFC 2860</a>). 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. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">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. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Milton L Mueller<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Syracuse University School of Information Studies<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/" target="_blank">http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Internet Governance Project<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://internetgovernance.org/" target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>