<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
There is no doubt there are two sides here that are negotiating from
a differing opening stance. ICANN's answer isn't merely about
timing.<br>
<br>
Many in the Internet communities have asked for separability, and
the IETF's Supplemental Agreement to the MoU with ICANN have been
used by some people therein to have ICANN make commitments to that
effect, furthering the separability end game. When they (we) say
that it was always separable, that may or may not be the case but
those statements are also furthering separability in the
negotiation, something that is desirable.<br>
<br>
Icann *itself* does decide if it acquiesces or not to the SLA, it
does not ask NTIA. When it invokes a purported NTIA or US gov
position, it is self-serving. In this case it is both invoking a
pseudo-legal justification to obtain clearly worded separability
commitments from it and it is also trying to resonate with some
parts of the US gov by mapping separability on to some other points
― losing the american foothold ― that may garner ICANN some support
for its monopoly_in_perpetuity_is_our_preference stance. That
stance, btw, isn't morally abject and it is completely
understandable. We just have another somewhat opposite stance. <br>
<br>
This story isn't about ICANN trying to bypass the process. It's
about them knowing that the process is larger than the actual
process. And ... we know that too. <br>
<br>
So ... nothing *legal* about their *legal* justification. Except
the dress.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-04-30 1:23 PM, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6i7sW7cG0Re4L-oxWJp_N+PKHzwOxsES2UbPQ+30L3fHQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hi Prof,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I read the mail before responding as well(as you know
I am also on that list) and you are right that there is a
concern which I also agree with. However, it's our
interpretation of the concern that I think we disagree on.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Below is the exact wording of the IAB chair:</p>
<p dir="ltr">" ICANN has informed<br>
us that they are unable to agree to that text right now. ICANN
told<br>
us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would
possibly<br>
put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA. "</p>
<p dir="ltr">The use of the phrase "right now" is what I think
makes the difference in our interpretation of the situation.</p>
<p dir="ltr">At ICANN 49, a question was raised during public
forum whether the NTIA contract was weightier than the existing
MoU; i.e if NTIA decide to assign IANA to another operator, can
the respective communities(based on their current mou) insist
that ICANN has meet up with their SLA and by so should continue
to operate their function?</p>
<p dir="ltr">There was no definite response to that question and I
think that is what is happening in this current situation; if
ICANN signs such SLA, that would indirectly imply double
oversight body. The specific section below is what buttresses
my point:</p>
<p dir="ltr">" It is possible in the future that the operation of
the protocol<br>
parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to
subsequent<br>
operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community
that, as<br>
part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will
carry<br>
out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the<br>
current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA<br>
[NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to
subsequent<br>
operator(s), should the need arise. "</p>
<p dir="ltr">So how can ICANN sign an agreement reflecting the
statement above without actually either getting permission from
NTIA OR having the current agreement with NTIA terminated. The
requirements listed by IAB chair were developed in response to
ICG request and that process is on-going, so I don't see why
implementation should begin before NTIA's approval.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Overall, I think the important question has been
asked on the IANA-plan list which is to know the actual text in
the new SLA that ICANN can not agree to "at the moment". Until
such information is made available, ordinary community member
like me (and you?) would only be speculating. So my
interpretation of the issue may be largely incorrect but it's
based on the information currently available to me.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 30 Apr 2015 17:36, "Milton L Mueller"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Seun:</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I
suggest that you read the letter from the IETF
people.
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></font></p>
<pre><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">“</span></font><font color="black"><span style="color:black">It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already</span></font></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Courier
New" size="2"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">part of our agreement with
ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Courier
New" size="2"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black">details of that existing
agreement.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I
could be wrong, but I don’t think IETF would be
publicizing this the way it is if it were not
concerned.
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Given
the precedent established with CRISP, ICANN’s
refusal to accept an agreement that, in IETF’s
opinion, already existed, is troublesome to say the
least. </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">--MM</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></font></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font face="Calibri"
size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><font
face="Calibri" size="2"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">On Behalf Of
</span></b>Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:55 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Ominous update on the IANA
transition</span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"
size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Hi Milton,</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Thanks for this share, I
am not sure what was posted on the IANA-plan list
by the IAB chair implied that ICANN is refusing
IETF from moving it's function if required.<br>
I understood his message to imply ICANN is
refusing to sign and agreement of such ability
because they already have a commitment on such
with the NTIA.<br>
I am not a lawyer, but I think it makes a lot of
sense to activate such agreement at the
termination of the other.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">A question to ask is
whether ICANN is committed to signing the SLA once
NTIA relinquishes it's current agreement.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Regards</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"
size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">On 30 Apr
2015 14:27, "Milton L Mueller" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>>
wrote:</span></font></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Dear NCSG:</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">It’s now
official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let
the IETF have a choice of its IANA
functions operator.
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Those of you who
read my
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/"
target="_blank">
blog post on ICANN’s interactions with
the numbers community</a> will already
know that ICANN is refusing to accept the
consensus of the numbers community by
recognizing its contractual right to
terminate its IANA functions operator
agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I
referred to second-hand reports that IETF
was encountering similar problems with
ICANN. Those reports are now public; the
chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee have
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html"
target="_blank">
sent a letter to their community</a>
noting that ICANN is refusing to renew
their supplemental service level agreement
because it includes new provisions
designed to facilitate change in IANA
functions operators should IETF become
dissatisfied with ICANN.
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">These are truly
shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s
legal staff is telling both the numbers
and the protocols communities that they
will not accept the proposals for the IANA
transition that they have developed as
part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination
Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the
proposals were consensus proposals within
the affected communities, and were
approved by the ICG as complete and
conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus,
ICANN is in effect usurping the entire
process, setting itself (rather than ICG
and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an
acceptable transition proposal.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">The key point of
conflict here seems to be the issue of
whether ICANN will have a permanent
monopoly on the provision of IANA
functions, or whether each of the affected
communities – names, numbers and protocols
– will have the right to choose the
operator of their global registries.
Separability is explicitly recognized by
the Cross community working group on Names
as a principle to guide the transition,
and was also listed as a requirement by
the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an
agreement with ICANN giving them
separability since 2000 (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860"
target="_blank">RFC 2860</a>). Yet
despite the wishes of the community, ICANN
seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to
be exploiting the transition process to
get one.
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Of course, a
severable contract for the IANA functions
is the most effective and important form
of accountability. If the users of IANA
are locked in to a single provider, it is
more difficult to keep the IANA
responsive, efficient and accountable.
Given the implications of these actions
for the accountability CCWG, I hope
someone on that list will forward this
message to their list, if someone has not
noted this event already. </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Milton L Mueller</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Laura J. and L.
Douglas Meredith Professor</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Syracuse
University School of Information Studies</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/"
target="_blank">http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Internet
Governance Project</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetgovernance.org/"
target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org</a></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>