[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Fri May 1 15:15:57 UTC 2015


Hi Theresa,

Thanks for following up.  The legal and timing issues were what I
understood, too.

Thanks,

A

On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 03:10:42PM +0000, Theresa Swinehart wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Thank you for the statement, and agree it's an important piece to read. To
> add to this, we are raising concerns because suggested new text to the
> language raise a legal issue for us under the existing contract ICANN has
> with NTIA. This is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually
> expires. In fact, this case is an excellent example of a reason why the
> transition is so essential. We have no desire to affect the results of the
> community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to
> maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to
> not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community
> consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition.
> 
> Theresa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/30/15 3:51 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message
> >exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else.  The
> >message is at
> >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html.
> >It's not long.  I encourage people to read it carefully, because it
> >was written that way.  I shall not say more than I said in that
> >message, however.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >A
> >
> >On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:29:30AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> >> I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this
> >>group as
> >> well.  It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are
> >> involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing
> >> negotiations).
> >> 
> >> Greg
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> >> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
> >> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition
> >> To: Accountability Cross Community
> >><accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest
> >>to
> >> those of us working on Accountability.
> >> 
> >> Best,
> >> 
> >> Ed Morris
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> >> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM
> >> Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition
> >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Dear NCSG:
> >> 
> >> It¹s now official: ICANN doesn¹t even want to let the IETF have a
> >>choice of
> >> its IANA functions operator.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN¹s interactions with the
> >>numbers
> >> community
> >> 
> >><http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functio
> >>ns-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 ICANN¹s 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
> >
> >-- 
> >Andrew Sullivan
> >ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship



-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list