[CWG-Stewardship] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Thu Apr 30 17:36:25 UTC 2015

Forwarding my response to Milton on this subject matter (I like to note
it's a personal view)

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Date: 30 Apr 2015 18:23
Subject: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] Ominous update on the IANA transition
To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>

Hi Prof,

I read the mail before responding as well(as you know I am also on that
list) and you are right that there is a concern which I also agree with.
However, it's our interpretation of the concern that I think we disagree on.

Below is the exact wording of the IAB chair:

" ICANN has informed
us that they are unable to agree to that text right now.  ICANN told
us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly
put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA. "

The use of the phrase "right now" is what I think makes the difference in
our interpretation of the situation.

At ICANN 49, a question was raised during public forum whether the NTIA
contract was weightier than the existing MoU; i.e if NTIA decide to assign
IANA to another operator, can the respective communities(based on their
current mou) insist that ICANN has meet up with their SLA and by so should
continue to operate their function?

There was no definite response to that question and I think that is what is
happening in this current situation; if ICANN signs such SLA, that would
indirectly imply double oversight body. The  specific section below is what
buttresses my point:

" It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol
     parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent
     operator(s).  It is the preference of the IETF community that, as
     part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry
     out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the
     current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA
     [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent
     operator(s), should the need arise. "

So how can ICANN sign an agreement reflecting the statement above without
actually either getting permission from NTIA OR having the current
agreement with NTIA terminated. The requirements listed by IAB chair were
developed in response to ICG request and that process is on-going, so I
don't see why implementation should begin before NTIA's approval.

Overall, I think the important question has been asked on the IANA-plan
list which is to know the actual text in the new SLA that ICANN can not
agree to "at the moment". Until such information is made available,
ordinary community member like me (and you?) would only be speculating. So
my interpretation of the issue may be largely incorrect but it's based on
the information currently available to me.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 30 Apr 2015 17:36, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Seun:
>
> I suggest that you read the letter from the IETF people.
>
>
>
> “It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already
>
> part of our agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating
>
> details of that existing agreement.
>
>
>
> I could be wrong, but I don’t think IETF would be publicizing this the way
> it is if it were not concerned.
>
> Given the precedent established with CRISP, ICANN’s refusal to accept an
> agreement that, in IETF’s opinion, already existed, is troublesome to say
> the least.
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf Of
> *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:55 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Ominous update on the IANA transition
>
>
>
> Hi Milton,
>
> Thanks for this share, I am not sure what was posted on the IANA-plan list
> by the IAB chair implied that ICANN is refusing IETF from moving it's
> function if required.
> I understood his message to imply ICANN is refusing to sign and  agreement
> of such ability because they already have a commitment on such with the
> NTIA.
> I am not a lawyer, but I think it makes a lot of sense to activate such
> agreement at the termination of the other.
>
> A question to ask is whether ICANN is committed to signing the SLA once
> NTIA relinquishes it's current agreement.
>
> Regards
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 30 Apr 2015 14:27, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear NCSG:
>
> It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice
> of its IANA functions operator.
>
>
>
> Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the
> numbers community
> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/>
> 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 sent a letter to their community
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>).
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Milton L Mueller
>
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150430/99e4b7bf/attachment.html>