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

Craig Ng craig at apnic.net
Wed Oct 21 18:27:47 CEST 2015


Thanks Nurani - I think it is a good idea to engage a wider group to
discuss this.

Cheers
Craig


________________________________________
Craig Ng 
General Counsel, APNIC
e: craig at apnic.net 
p: +61 7 3858 3152 
m: +61 416 052 022 
www.apnic.net <https://www.apnic.net/>




On 21/10/2015, 4:33 PM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Nurani
Nimpuno" <crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of nurani at netnod.se> wrote:

>Thanks for this perspective Bill. Very interesting indeed!
> 
>Izumi and I would like to consult a little bit wider to make sure that we
>all have the same facts on the table before we proceed in any direction.
>
>Let¹s try to find a time to chat during the break!
>Nurani
>
>
>> On 21 okt 2015, at 14:17, 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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net
>https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20151021/7930dcd7/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the CRISP mailing list