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

Thu Oct 22 13:29:33 CEST 2015

Acknowledged and agreed, thanks for the update Nurani.
--
Michael R. Abejuela
Associate General Counsel
ARIN
3635 Concorde Parkway
Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 20151
(703) 227-9875 (p)
(703) 263-0111 (f)
mabejuela at arin.net<mailto: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.

From: Craig Ng <craig at apnic.net<mailto:craig at apnic.net>>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:27 AM
To: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se<mailto:nurani at netnod.se>>, Paul Rendek <rendek at ripe.net<mailto:rendek at ripe.net>>
Cc: "crisp at nro.net<mailto:crisp at nro.net>" <crisp at nro.net<mailto:crisp at nro.net>>
Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Reasons why we should not fall much further behind.

Thanks very much Nurani for this update.

We are all united on our common goal of a successful transition. Our divergence appears to be on how we achieve this goal, in the least possible time.

As you know, my preference is to progress our work on a "soft diplomacy" basis. I agree with you and others that putting pressure on the ICG may not be the most effective way to progress our objective.

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<https://www.apnic.net/>   [https://cgi1.apnic.net/img/signature/apnic-logo-150x37.png]

On 22/10/2015, 12:14 PM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net<mailto:crisp-bounces at nro.net> on behalf of Nurani Nimpuno" <crisp-bounces at nro.net<mailto:crisp-bounces at nro.net> on behalf of nurani at netnod.se<mailto:nurani at netnod.se>> wrote:

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.

Thanks,
Nurani

On 21 okt 2015, at 17:44, Paul Rendek <rendek at ripe.net<mailto: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

_______________________________________________
CRISP mailing list
CRISP at nro.net<mailto:CRISP at nro.net>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

_______________________________________________
CRISP mailing list
CRISP at nro.net<mailto: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/20151022/34230857/attachment-0001.html>