<html>
<body>
At 01/12/2014 09:31 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Content-Language: en-US<br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
boundary="_000_d1bbff259761403aa9fdf0e1343501a0EX13MBX13adsyredu_"<br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#1F497D">Alan, based on some of your
comments I am having trouble comprehending what your disagreement is
about anymore. See comments inline:<br>
<br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times">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<br>
</font><br>
</dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><br>
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.<br>
</font><font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#1F497D"> <br>
MM: Agreed, the IANA contract has to be used as leverage, _both</i>_ to
keep ICANN’s policy processes in bounds, _and</i>_ to ensure adequate
performance. So why are you opposing the contracting model?
</font></blockquote><br>
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. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#1F497D"> <br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">Thus my reference to lost
opportunities.<br>
</font><font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#1F497D"> <br>
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?
</font></blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
<dl>
<dd> 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</i>_ IANA to be
pulled out of ICANN and formed as a separate corporation<br>
</font><br>
</dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><br>
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.<br><br>
</font><font face="Calibri" color="#1F497D">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. <br>
<br>
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.</font> </blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#1F497D"> <br>
</font><font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#1F497D">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.
<a href="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</a>
<br>
<br>
</font>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.”<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#333333"> </font>Obviously he
is making this up, but most people aren’t tracking our process and don’t
know better.<br>
<font face="Calibri" size=2 color="#1F497D"> <br>
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. </font></blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>