[CWG-Stewardship] ICANN fighting separabiity in the numbers space

[Bill Woodcock]

Seun wrote:

> Thanks for the update, its interesting that CRISP has not provided this
> update on its global list where they communicate with the RIR community OR
> perhaps you mean ICANN legal is presently at ARIN meeting where the
> discussion is happening? if that is the case, i will really appreciate if
> you could post url to transcript so i can follow as well.

Milton is paraphrasing the report made by the ARIN members of the CRISP Team (myself, John Sweeting, and Michael Abejuela) to the ARIN meeting attendees.  In that report, we presented the NRO’s slides (which Izumi had previously posted to the CRISP list), an update on the status of the RIR legal team’s negotiations with ICANN’s legal team, a summary of the challenges we believe we face in arriving at a transition, the results of ARIN’s outsourced legal report on ICANN accountability and California state non-profit corporation law, and John Curran (ARIN’s CEO, and ARIN’s delegate to the NRO EC) made a renewed commitment to a fully open and transparent CRISP process.

> Its really news to me and i think its something that should be followed up.
> I recall specifically asking ICANN board Chair about the proposal of the
> CRISP team during the public comment session in Singapore and his response
> was very positive (generally indicating they did not have any significant
> issue with it).

Exactly.  The overarching theme of our session was that an open and transparent process is necessary to bring this negotiation to conclusion.  On the one hand, we have a general statement from Steve Crocker, representing the ICANN Board, that is public and on-the-record, and seems quite optimistic about the possibility of a positive conclusion to negotiations.  On the other hand, we have a number of verbal and private communications from the ICANN staff that appear to contradict that.  What I think the CRISP Team has been very clear about, and continue to be very clear about, is that we can’t address innuendo, we can’t address putative or hypothetical objections attributed to third parties, and we can’t arrive at an executable contract if we don’t have from ICANN a clear and on-the-record response to the CRISP proposal’s principles and the proposed SLA.

So, the NRO EC, and each RIR as it has its next meeting, can reaffirm principles of transparency, but that’s only useful if our counterparts in this process can abide with transparency.  I very much hope that’s the case.

We very much hope that if ICANN has objections to the specific principles enumerated in the proposal, that they bring them forward soon, so that a negotiation can take place, and a mutually-beneficial solution arrived at.  That process cannot begin until ICANN makes any objections it may have known.  And we’ll know when that happens because they’ll be delivered to the CRISP Team, either directly, or via the ICG.

Steve wrote:

> When I spoke at ICANN 53 and in other fora, I did indeed feel there wasn’t any significant issue.  There are always details to work out, of course, but my feeling at the time was there was sufficient alignment of goals and requirements for me to express optimism.

Yes, I believe your position was understood by the CRISP Team to be a general one, and I don’t believe anyone thought that you were suggesting that there was literally nothing to negotiate.  The CRISP proposal’s principles are intentionally worded in very general terms, with the understanding that the RIR legal team and the ICANN legal team will need room to arrive at a mutual accommodation.  Like you, we are very optimistic regarding a positive outcome, and I believe that both the degree to which we moved toward balance and mutuality relative to the NTIA terms under which ICANN currently operates, and the degree of latitude which we left to the legal negotiating teams, should be understood to be signs of our good faith and optimistic outlook.

> Let me suggest it is very premature to conclude there is some sort of unsolvable problem.

We could not agree more.

> The persistent fact is the numbers community is getting the service it needs and ICANN is committed to continuing to provide it.

Again, we could not agree more.  First and foremost, the CRISP Team expressed its full faith and satisfaction in the service being provided to the Numbers Community by ICANN.  There is no issue of quality, nor any question that the current level of service would be more than adequate to satisfy any SLA that we arrive at.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150413/2109feb9/signature.asc>