[CRISP-TEAM] Reasons why we should not fall much further behind.

Michael Abejuela mabejuela at arin.net
Wed Oct 21 15:34:05 CEST 2015

Thank you Bill for this explanation.  I agree that it may be time for us
to try to take advantage of this opportunity, and in order to do so to
make such a statement to the ICG.

For the potential statement to the ICG, I suggest we include the following
key points:

(1)  Recognize the work of the other communities;
(2)  Reiterate the completion of our proposal on-time and our community¹s
expectations for a timely transition;
(3)  Demonstrate our understanding that while deadlines were not met by
the Names community and the ICG and NTIA, (i.e. Jan 15th deadline, October
1st deadline), there were various reasons for not meeting the deadlines;
(4)  Since there¹s no interdependency amongst the proposals, require that
the ICG put forth our proposal to the NTIA by end of October.

Thoughts anyone?

Michael R. Abejuela
Associate General Counsel
3635 Concorde Parkway
Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 20151
(703) 227-9875 (p)
(703) 263-0111 (f)
mabejuela at arin.net

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, copy, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.   If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.

On 10/21/15, 9:17 AM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:

>In June and July, when it became apparent that the ICG was going to miss
>their deadline to advance the transition proposal to NTIA in time for
>NTIA to bring it to conclusion by the September 30 deadline, I concluded
>that, due to domestic political considerations within the United States,
>it would be very difficult for the current transition process to complete
>before the current administration begins to wind down.  The new
>administration that takes office in 2017 will need time to settle in, and
>will have its own campaign promises to make good on which will occupy at
>least its first eighteen months.  That means that, sometime in the latter
>half of 2018, we¹d need to begin the transition process over again, and
>convince two groups of people to allow it to proceed: those who¹ve never
>heard of us before, and those who remember that we failed three years
>before.  In any event, the second time will be more difficult than the
>first, and this time has not (yet) been successful.
>There are a number of factors at play here:
> - The domestic electoral politics of the Congress, whereby they need to
>make mundane things like this controversial in order to excite their
>voters and gain reelection.
> - The spending prohibition rider placed on the last budget, which
>precluded NTIA from acting to conclude their ICANN contract.
> - The as-yet-un-passed DOTCOM Act, which provided a mechanism by which
>NTIA could conclude the ICANN contract, albeit under more active
>oversight of Congress.
> - The fact that Congress¹ attention and willingness to provides such
>active oversight will be significantly diminished during the electoral
>period next year.
> - The fact that the appointees who are necessary to take action, like
>Larry Strickling, are scarcer and scarcer as the current administration
>winds to a close.
>My conclusion is that we have one last opportunity, but it requires
>immediate action if we¹re to have any chance of success.  I believe that
>we need to publicly tell the ICG that our community is ready for the ICG
>to advance our proposal to the NTIA now, before the factors above
>conspire to render all of our work thus far irrelevant.  If we fail to do
>so, we¹ll be starting over from scratch in 2018, and facing a much more
>difficult challenge than we had this time.  And in the intervening three
>or four years, the Internet governance community will be unable to
>demonstrate that the multistakeholder process is real and unopposed by
>the USG and ICANN.
>If, on the other hand, the Numbers (and Protocols) proposals are advanced
>and implemented, we can demonstrate a success on the part of the
>multistakeholder community and we demonstrate that the USG and ICANN do
>in fact support the multistakeholder process and its outcomes.  Not only
>do we take responsibility for our own relationship with the IANA, we
>advance the cause of multistakeholder Internet governance significantly.
>So, I ask that we give this one last shot, and try to get the ICG to
>advance our proposal before it becomes irrelevant, as it will surely do
>if we continue waiting for the CWG and CCWG, who have difficult problems
>still to resolve.
>                                -Bill

More information about the CRISP mailing list