<div dir="ltr">I have heard enough from the numbers community to be pretty confident that what Milton describes is at least close to accurate, and that upsets me quite a lot.<div><br></div><div>My own approach to this is to ignore anything that any ICANN board or staff members assert about what the NTIA says or wants. I will listen to NTIA officials on that subject, but nobody else.</div><div><br></div><div>ICANN as an institution has too much at stake and too much of a history of trying to asset its interests in these debates for anyone to take its alleged analysis of what NTIA would or would not put up with seriously.</div><div><br></div><div>I can only urge you all to at least consider a similar approach. We must continue to work to the public NTIA criteria. If NTIA wants to change or supplement them, they must do so on the record and in public.</div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Jordan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 May 2015 at 05:02, Robin Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">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><div class="h5"><div>On Apr 30, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:</div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>Exactly</div>
<div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt">
<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" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Wow….<u></u><u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Best,<br>
Keith<u></u><u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">
<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:12.0pt">---------- 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></div></div><span class="">
_______________________________________________<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></span></blockquote></div><br></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><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>