[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri May 1 09:05:49 CEST 2015

FYI, it is getting attention in the ICANN Accountability CCWG as well.
(I'm in the CCWG as one of the ASO reps)

I wouldn't want to join in to simply say "This is alarming" as I'm not 
sure how connstructive that is, but it may be worth sharing the number 
community position and how we are appoaching it, by quoting what we 
already said.

I am planning to share this on the CCWG ML, stating that the number 
commnunity considers transparency in the process is the key.

  Next Steps in the Process and the Community Engagement

  Talking points by the CRISP Team Chair compiled as slide after the
  ICANN Board Panel(4/25) on the IANA stewardship transition.

  The audio and transcript: 

I would also 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 we have concerns about closed negotiations which request changes to 
the proposal, which lacks transparency.

If I hear no objections, I will an e-mail with this message after 
UTC16:00 1 May. (roughly
12 hours from now)


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition
Date: 	Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:13:55 +0000
From: 	Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
To: 	Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>, 'Robin
Gross' <robin at ipjustice.org>, 'Accountability Cross Community'
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>

Bill Woodcock just posted a reply to Milton’s post, clarifying his
role in the meetings with ICANN. (link

     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.



On Apr 30, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:


     *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


     A timely reminder of the importance of our work to improve ICANN’s


     *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


     I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of
     interest to those of us working on Accountability.


     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
     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


     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>

-------------- next part --------------
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the CRISP mailing list