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

Fri May 1 16:04:06 UTC 2015

Hi Greg,

Considering this is an IETF related issue, i think your request would be
better asked from the IETF community(IANAPLAN), or better still, it will be
good to ask the IETF leadership to grant permission to release such
information.
I am saying this because similar question has been asked on the IETF list.

Regards

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Theresa,
>
> Thank you for the response.  For the time challenged among us (which is
> probably all of us), can you please identify which sections of the existing
> contract are involved?  I'm not asking for the legal analysis, on the
> assumption that would be privileged (though it would be preferable to share
> it with the community, in my opinion) -- just the sections.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Theresa Swinehart <
> theresa.swinehart at icann.org> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150501/42c70b65/attachment.html>