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

Paul Rendek rendek at ripe.net
Thu Oct 22 16:21:27 CEST 2015

Hello All,

Thanks for sending this note to the CRISP team. I very much support this
approach and look forward to our cooperation to complete the transition.


On 10/22/15 12:14 PM, Nurani Nimpuno 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 
>>> 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CRISP mailing list
>>>> 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/d14830fb/attachment.html>

More information about the CRISP mailing list