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

[Andrew Sullivan]

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:
> 
> 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

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


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com