[CWG-Stewardship] Read the "stress tests" for IANA transition and ICANN accountability obtained by The Register

Wed Dec 10 22:36:50 UTC 2014

Whether it’s bipartisan or not, the funding cutoff is a destructive intervention in the transition process.
It basically is Congress saying, “we don’t care whether you come up with a good plan or not, we don’t want it to happen this year.”

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:27 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Read the "stress tests" for IANA transition and ICANN accountability obtained by The Register

Well you both follow Washington closer than I do but I have to say I'm not seeing or hearing it myself.

Kieren

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
I think Phil’s point has merit.  There has been indications over the last several months that there is less bipartisan bickering and a trend to more cooperation in U.S. politics with regard to the transition.  That doesn’t mean that there playing politics has ended but I do think that there is some room for optimism.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:36 PM
To: Kieren McCarthy; Robert Guerra

Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Read the "stress tests" for IANA transition and ICANN accountability obtained by The Register

Beg to differ on the claim that it is increasingly partisan, what with Dem Senate just accepting 1 year freeze language. I expect a more bipartisan approach in 2015.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct
202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax
202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Kieren McCarthy
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:30 PM
To: Robert Guerra
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Read the "stress tests" for IANA transition and ICANN accountability obtained by The Register

Sorry - only just saw this one and request for a response from me.

Re: context. I don't know whether people are following all the action whirling around this recently. I've been trying to write stories about each new aspect so forgive me if I post a series of links to articles of mine.

Very broadly, several of you on this list have probably been having the usual behind-the-scenes conversations with ICANNers about how the transition must be done by September but also there isn't time for all the accountability work i.e. lobbying for an IANA transition without real accountability changes in place.

A lot of people who have been stung in the past don't like this argument. The NTIA is one of them.

At the same time, there are more than a few people poking the fires in Washington in the lead up to the Republican run Congress. This has resulted in a range of things:

* Internet freedom bill (going nowhere but a usual rallying cry) - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/20/legislation_icann_oversight_body/
* Media articles arguing that IANA transition is bad (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/08/ted_cruz_internet_argument/)
* Congressional hearings coming in the new year - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/20/gao_questions_into_iana_transition/
* A rider in the new funding bill (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/10/congress_attempts_to_disrupt_iana_transition_by_withholding_money/)

Overall, the pressure is on. And it is going increasingly partisan - which is bad news for anyone interested in rational policymaking.

So Strickling is trying to keep everything on track but pushing back on inaccuracies while also, I believe, trying to make it clear to us - the internet community - to get moving on a plan.

(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/09/commerce_secretary_engages_in_war_of_words_with_wsj_over_iana/)

I should say in a quick plug that IoN magazine - which I edit - is writing a special feature on all this for our next issue. Should be comprehensive.

It will be handed out at the NamesCon conference in Las Vegas in early January but we are also mailing it to subscribers so if you are interested in signing up, let me know offlist.

Hope that is helpful.

Kieren

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org<mailto:rguerra at privaterra.org>> wrote:
Just came across this article. Thought it might be of interest given our conversations.

US govt tells ICANN: No accountability, no keys to the internet
We publish the 12 'stress tests' DNS overlord must prove it can handle before it keeps IANA
By Kieren McCarthy, 5 Dec 2014

Read the "stress tests" for IANA transition and ICANN accountability obtained by The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/05/us_government_tells_icann_no_accountability_no_iana/

I know Kieren is on this list, so I’m hoping he might provide additional context …

regards

Robert

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5557 / Virus Database: 4223/8641 - Release Date: 11/27/14
Internal Virus Database is out of date.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141210/8c2cbbaf/attachment-0001.html>