[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Dec 1 16:02:27 UTC 2014
At 01/12/2014 09:31 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="_000_d1bbff259761403aa9fdf0e1343501a0EX13MBX13adsyredu_"
>
>Alan, based on some of your comments I am having trouble
>comprehending what your disagreement is about anymore. See comments inline:
>
>There has been general agreement on the principle that policy making
>and its implementation in the root zone should be separate and
>distinct processes. That is why IETF is separate from IANA, why RIRs
>are separate from IANA. And while there is no hard and fast line
>barring ICANN from doing both under proper safeguards, most people
>recognize the inherent danger of a corporate entity with the unchecked power
>
>
>Bingo. And that unchecked power was what I was attempting to
>demonstrate could be fixed. And fixing it would have a VERY
>significant benefit to the policy process as well. And we have
>little hope of fixing them without using the IANA contract as leverage.
>
>MM: Agreed, the IANA contract has to be used as leverage, _both_ to
>keep ICANN's policy processes in bounds, _and_ to ensure adequate
>performance. So why are you opposing the contracting model?
My point was that in the contracting model, I think the leverage is
largely gone. It is status quo from an ICANN perspective. But my main
reason for opposition is that I am far from convinced that all of the
questions I and others have can be viably answered.
>
>Thus my reference to lost opportunities.
>
>MM: "Lost opportunities" is the phrase I heard from Malcolm Hutty in
>Frankfurt, after he was told that it would be out of scope for the
>IANA transition process to be used as leverage to keep ICANN policy
>making in bounds. I agreed with Malcolm, I believe Chuck Gomes did,
>too, and I think the group started to reconsider that. But again,
>people who support Malcolm's view are people who are strongly
>committed to the external contracting model of governance. So where
>do you stand on this now?
I think that using the transition to force accountability with
respect to policy IS out of scope. But I also think that SOME
transition models will have the incidental benefit of better
policy-making accountability.
>
> And since your message also made some comments about the
> acceptability of the current proposal to the US government, let me
> point out to you that the Kelly bill actually would _require_ IANA
> to be pulled out of ICANN and formed as a separate corporation
>
>
>To quote Milton Mueller referring to the Kelly bill, "There are some
>very good ideas and some very bad ideas in this proposal". If we
>cannot take all of the aspects of the Kelly bill as gospel, then you
>cannot use a particular one to demonstrate what the US government
>wants. Sensible, desirable, far-fetched and overly micromanaged are
>clearly in the eyes of the beholder.
>
>MM: My point in the original message to you was not that we should
>take the Kelly bill as gospel, but that you were mistaken to claim
>that the "US government" will not accept separating IANA from ICANN.
>If a significant part of the US government is writing legislation
>demanding that IANA be separated before they will allow the
>transition to occur, I don't see how anyone can claim that
>separating IANA from ICANN is unacceptable to the USG.
>
>MM: As a general matter, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone
>here to use "what the USG will accept" as an argument for or against
>any provision of the plan, unless a) they are part of the US
>government and b) such provision clearly contradicts the criteria
>that the NTIA has set out. The simple fact is that the NTIA criteria
>do not say anything about whether IANA is contracted or not,
>separable or not, or inside or outside of ICANN.
I never claimed that the current proposal would not be accepted. I
try to be quite careful in what I write. I said "It is not at all
clear that a proposal such as one that the CWG has put in this draft
would be acceptable to the US government." That was an opinion, but
it voices a possibility that I believe we need to consider.
>
>MM: While we are on the subject of the USG, let me direct your
>attention to today's column by L. Gordon Crovitz in the Wall Street
>journal.
><http://online.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-halfway-to-wrecking-internet-freedom-1417387404?cb=logged0.09525622939690948>http://online.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-halfway-to-wrecking-internet-freedom-1417387404?cb=logged0.09525622939690948
>
>
>In this opinion piece, Crovitz claims that the transition process is
>failing, that we have accomplished nothing, that "there has been no
>progress finding an alternative for protecting the Internet from
>authoritarian governments" and that "Icann has spent the past nine
>months trying to come up with a new governance model, to no avail."
>Obviously he is making this up, but most people aren't tracking our
>process and don't know better.
>
>I'd suggest that before you nitpick the plan further you weigh very
>carefully the fact that there are vultures circling who would like
>nothing better than for this effort to fail and for the status quo
>to remain in place.
I find it rather inappropriate to consider the comments I presented,
ones that I and others (and indeed YOU, in some cases as you have
confirmed) feel are crucial to the ultimate success of this
transition, as NITPICKING.
Alan
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141201/b331cd78/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list