[CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 20:00:22 UTC 2015


Mlton,
Thank you for information.
1.You said that  Quote

"*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" *
Unqoute
Please kindly before making it more cotraversial, kindly advise the
official and formal announcemnertt of the above,
.
2. You also stating that
Quote
*" these proposals  were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to
the NTIA criteria"*
Unquote
I do not recall that ICG has ever formally approved any proposals.They were
submitted discussed, several questions raised which have been recently
replied but the replies were not examined by ICG. .Consequently I do not
agree with that statement.
3. You also stated that
Quote
"*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*

Unquote
This is your impression which are not shared by the ICG.
4. You understood that
Quote

*"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."*
Unquote
This is agin your interpretation.
Nothing has yet been discussed not decided whether each OC would have its
own IANA Function operator separately or commonly
We should not jump intop any conclusions .
5.You did indicate
Quote
"* Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working
group on Names as a principle to guide the transition"*
Unquote ,
OPlease point me toward the expilic decision or conclusion of CWG on that
issue.
Moreover, even if there is an implicit refernce to the possibilityof
separate IANA fUNCTION Operator for each OC , that issue is now Under
publix comment and needs to be carefully looked at in the light of the
potential comments . Once again we should not jump into any conclusion and
prejudge the public comment .

6. You indicated
Quote
"* Separabilityand 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"*
Unquote.
Pls provide formal statement by ICANN that they do not wish to maintain the
current arrangement with or without reasons
Then we will reveiew their standing position and then comment

 7. You also mentioned
Quote
" 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", IN PARTICULAR, you stated that "  it is more difficult to keep
the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable"
Unquote
How you reached that comnclusion . Even if it is your firm conclusions ,ICG
need to carefully examine the matter from all angles and all aspects
By the way, we still waiting to recieve formal proposal from Name OC,
certainly after public comments are included in second draft
 We need to be calm, patient, priudent and NOT EMMOTIONAL..
If any individual or community wishes to comment ,the public comment is
already open but NO ICG STAMP ON ANY THING UNLESS FULLY DISCUSSED EXAMINED
ANALYSED AND AGREED UOPN
Finally I hope Alissa this tame would not take a uniléateral position in
drafting any note on behalf of ICG and put us before something that French
called 2 fait a comli"
Best Regards
Kavouss
 .


 .

2015-04-30 20:25 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Hi Robin,
>
> My first response to your question is to ask that you kindly specify the
> "this" you are referring to in your  statement. As for the numbers
> community, I understand there were some unofficial (side-talk) discussion
> with ICANN legal and the CRISP has rightly indicated that such informal
> discussions cannot be tolerated going forward; insisting on transparency in
> following due process as it concerns the procedure to resolving issues.
> Especially issues that would significantly go against the wish of the
> community as reflected in their proposal.
>
> ICANN made an open declaration about numbers proposal(including IETF's?)
> at Singapore, and if there is now a significant change in their view, I
> guess it will be helpful for them to formerly present this as well.
> As to Protocol parameters, I think it may be important to read the
> statement of the IAB chair before having a viewpoint.
>
> Overall fact is that the level of information available may not be
> sufficient to effectively come to a conclusion on this issue and I don't
> think this should influence the work of the ccwg.
>
> Regards
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 30 Apr 2015 18:03, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Very troubling.  On a practical level, will this put ICANN and the NTIA
>> in a "stand-off" or will NTIA allow ICANN to get away with this?
>>
>> Thanks for forwarding it, Ed.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>>
>>   Exactly
>>
>>   From: Keith Drazek
>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 11:41 AM
>> To: Accountability Cross Community
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition
>>
>>   Wow….
>>
>> A timely reminder of the importance of our work to improve ICANN’s
>> Accountability.
>>
>> Best,
>> Keith
>>
>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Edward
>> Morris
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:15 AM
>> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
>> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition
>>
>>  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:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150430/fd3d190a/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list