[Internal-cg] U.S. Government Funding Bill & ANA Transition

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Agree with Jean- Jacques
Kavouss

2014-12-16 9:22 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:
>
> This thread has provided useful analysis on the prospects of Transition. I
> found Milton's piece of special interest.
>
> Given the genesis of the Transition idea, and as far as process and
> timeline are concerned, there is only one entity which ccould legitimately
> change the ICG's course, and that is NTIA. So, while following closely the
> public debate unfolding on the Hill and elsewhere, we should proceed until
> we receive a FORMAL notification from NTIA to take a different course or to
> disband.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg at icann.org>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Décembre 2014 10:03:20
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] U.S. Government Funding Bill & ANA Transition
>
>
>
>
> Dear All,
> I agree with those who believe that we need to continue our works as
> planned
> I also agreed with those raising red light of alarming that the situation
> is not so straightforward as some of us believed.
> For me it was clear that there are people that are not fully in favour of
> the full fledged transition but keeping some legacy overnighting for DOC.
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2014-12-12 6:22 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > :
>
> The bill passed. Here's my blog on the topic, seeking a silver lining in
> this dark cloud
>
>
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/12/12/u-s-congress-man-in-the-middle-attack-on-iana-transition/
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-
>
>
> > bounces at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 4:45 PM
> > To: ICG
> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] U.S. Government Funding Bill & ANA Transition
> >
> > I would suggest that we (and the operational communities) proceed on our
> > current course and timeline until we receive information from NTIA or
> ICANN
> > (as the convener of stakeholders) that indicates a need to change course.
> >
> > Alissa
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu >
> wrote:
> >
> > > I am not directly in touch with Washington people because I am
> traveling,
> > but I fear the situation is a bit worse than Adiel and Jari have
> described.
> > >
> > > The funding cutoff is intended to just stop the NTIA from doing the
> > transition. This means that assuming NTIA gets a proposal from us more or
> > less on time, they cannot do anything with it (unless they take it home
> and
> > work on their own time) until after Sept 30, 2015.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, since Republicans now control Congress the cutoff could be
> > extended again given the right conditions.
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-
> > >> bounces at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan
> > >> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:52 AM
> > >> To: ICG
> > >> Subject: [Internal-cg] U.S. Government Funding Bill & ANA Transition
> > >>
> > >>
> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141210_breaking_us_government_funding
> > >> _bill_delays_iana_transition/
> > >>
> > >> Just read this, and wondering if anyone has more insider information
> > >> about what it means to this process? My reading is that the
> > >> transition process cannot start before 30 September 2015. Which in my
> > >> sense is not that alarming as much as it effectively starts then (it
> > >> is a transition process). The other part that caught my attention is
> > >> the fact that the NTIA is required to inform Congress 45 days prior
> > >> to extending the IANA contract or taking any other decision in regard
> > >> to it. Which means that the NTIA will have up to the 15th of August
> > >> 2015 to evaluate the proposal we will submit, in order to present
> > >> their suggested action to Congress. That gives them only 15 formal
> > >> days from the time we have planned to submit our proposal. If we
> > >> build in the 14 days given to ICANN board to assess and deliver this
> > >> to the NTIA ... I don't see how we will achieve the target without
> > >> putting emphasis right now on the fact that our published timeline
> > >> has to be executed as a waterfalls process where many things has to be
> > done in parallel, particularly toward then end.
> > >>
> > >> - a.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Internal-cg mailing list
> > > Internal-cg at icann.org
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141216/6ae22872/attachment-0001.html>