[CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Sat May 2 02:02:41 UTC 2015

Speaking from the numbers community -

Steve has helpfully referenced a response from Bill Woodcock, and I would like to reiterate that it is not the CRISP Team which is involved in the negotiations with ICANN.
However in essence, it is true that the numbers community has concerns about closed negotiations and to hear about requests to change our proposal, which lacks in transparency.

We believe transparency in the process is the key to this. To address this concern, below is what the CRISP Team has stated on the numbers community mailing list, as a part of sharing the next steps in preparing implementation.

 Transparency in providing feedback on the implementation
     - The proposal consolidated by the CRISP Team was developed based on the requirements announced by the NTIA in March 2014, with consensus from the numbers community.
       Therefore, in case there are any concerns for implementation to be consistent with the numbers community proposal, including the ability to choose an operator for the IANA numbering services, it should be
       communicated to the community's attention in a transparent manner.

    https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000433.html

Additionally, in the panel on 25th April with the ICANN Board on the IANA Stewardship Transition, I listed with the CRISP Team Chair hat "Transparency in both the ICG process and preparing implementation" and "Ensuring implementation to be consistent with the proposal" as two of the three elements important for the future steps. The audio and transcript was shared on this mailing list earlier by Bruce Tonkin. 

 Talking points from the CRISP Chair on the ICANN Board Panel on the IANA stewardship transition
 (Compiled as slides after the panel)
 https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICANN-Board-community-panel.pdf

I very appreciate the ICANN Board to have given us this opportunity, to invite the operational communities to share our views, and having recordings of this panel publicly available. I think this itself demonstrates the Board's interests to hear the views from the communities and to make discussions transparent. It is also reassuring to see the response from Bruce that the Board's position hasn't changed on the process.
It would be further helpful to encourage ICANN to act in helping instill trust in this process through communicating any concerns in transparent manner, during such critical time in our process.

While what I've shared here is basically in the context of the numbers proposal, I hope it may be of a helpful reference to this group as well.

Regards,
Izumi

On 2015/05/01 3:13, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> Bill Woodcock just posted a reply to Milton���s post, clarifying his role in the meetings with ICANN. (link<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/>).    Bill concludes with a confirmation of the troubling trend that Milton reported:
> 
> Those particulars aside, the rest of your description of the situation seems accurate to me. The IAB minutes that you cite are particularly worthy of note: that ICANN is _refusing to renew_ the MOU under which they provide Protocol Registry services to the IETF, because it contains a termination clause, I find very disturbing. I have to admit that if I were in the IETF���s shoes, I might very well just take ICANN at their word and go on my merry way, if they say they don���t want to renew the agreement.
> 
> Let���s assume we will encounter the same resistance when it comes time to ���negotiate��� implementation of CCWG proposals.
> 
> From: Paul Rosenzweig
> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 1:30 PM
> To: 'Robin Gross', 'Accountability Cross Community'
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition
> 
> At a guess, with only limited information, I do not think the NTIA will accept this proposal if it is told clearly by the community that ICANN is thwarting the community���s will ���
> 
> 
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:03 PM
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition
> 
> 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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://internetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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
> 