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

Sweeting, John john.sweeting at twcable.com
Wed Oct 21 16:08:10 CEST 2015


Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Michael Abejuela <mabejuela at arin.net> wrote:
> 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;
> and
> (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
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

More information about the CRISP mailing list