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

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri May 1 10:09:37 CEST 2015

> However, I think we can reiterate our belief in (and commitment to) transparency, but also encourage ICANN to act in a constructive manner to help instill trust in this process. Especially now, in such a crucial stage of the process.

Totally agree Nurani. This is why I have reference my talking points at the ICANN Board Panel.
It probably helps to say this more explictly, so thanks for this comment.


On 2015/05/01 16:58, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> And btw, I certainly agree that it is not constructive to say "this is alarming". 
> However, I think we can reiterate our belief in (and commitment to) transparency, but also encourage ICANN to act in a constructive manner to help instill trust in this process. Especially now, in such a crucial stage of the process.
> Nurani
>> On 1 maj 2015, at 09:05, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>> 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
>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000433.html
>> Talking points by the CRISP Team Chair compiled as slide after the
>> ICANN Board Panel(4/25) on the IANA stewardship transition.
>> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICANN-Board-community-panel.pdf
>> The audio and transcript: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-workshop-community-panel-intro-2015-04-26-en
>> 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)
>> Izumi
>> -------- 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
>> <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
>> <������������������������.txt>_______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list