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

Nurani Nimpuno nurani at netnod.se
Thu Oct 22 13:14:32 CEST 2015

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments on the list, as well as the many informal hallway discussions we have had here onsite. 

Izumi and I reached out to both the RIRs and the NTIA to seek clarity on some of the points raised, but also to get people’s different perspectives on this. 

The NTIA confirmed that they will simply not proceed with the transition even if the ICG submits the proposal early on, without waiting for the CCWG. They were very clear that they will reject any “partial” proposal they receive. So pressuring the ICG to submit now, will not be fruitful.

Further, the NTIA clearly stated that the budget restriction does not prevent them from working on the transition. They still believe in this being achievable if the CCWG-Accountability group can conclude its work early in the new year. (This is consistent with what they have been saying in many both public and informal meetings in the last month.)

After having consulted people informally onsite, there were many concerns raised about requesting the ICG to submit its proposal at this stage. 

Personally, I feel that it is still in the interest of the broader community, as well as the number community, to achieve a successful transition of all IANA functions. 

While we may all be rather frustrated with the slow progress of the CCWG-Accountability, I do think there has been some very encouraging progress in that group in the last week. We need to recognise that. If they achieve a submission in January, which is the currently work plan they have, this transition can still be a success. 

I feel that we should continue to put positive pressure on the CWG-Accountability to conclude their work. And we should continue to prepare our implementation plan as we have been doing. 

I would be happy to hear the thoughts on this of others in the group.


> On 21 okt 2015, at 17:44, Paul Rendek <rendek at ripe.net> wrote:
> +1
> Paul
> On 10/21/15 5:27 PM, Craig Ng wrote:
>> 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 <mailto:craig at apnic.net> 
>> p: +61 7 3858 3152 
>> m: +61 416 052 022 
>> www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/> <https://www.apnic.net/> <https://www.apnic.net/>
>> On 21/10/2015, 4:33 PM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Nurani
>> Nimpuno" <mailto:crisp-bounces at nro.netonbehalfofNuraniNimpuno> <crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of nurani at netnod.se> <mailto:crisp-bounces at nro.netonbehalfofnurani@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> <mailto: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 <mailto:CRISP at nro.net>
>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net <mailto:CRISP at nro.net>
>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net <mailto:CRISP at nro.net>
>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20151022/bd193ad0/attachment.html>

More information about the CRISP mailing list