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

Andrés andres at lacnic.net
Thu Oct 22 14:31:19 CEST 2015 

Acknowledged and agreed also

Enviado con Aquamail para Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


El 22 de octubre de 2015 11:29:34 Michael Abejuela <mabejuela at arin.net> 
escribio:

> 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
>
>
>
> ----------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151022/523005ca/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CRISP mailing list