Ominous update on the IANA transition
Avri Doria
avri at ACM.ORG
Thu Apr 30 17:57:11 EEST 2015
Hi,
One might wonder whether this kerfuffle might not be some inspiration
for becoming a co-owner and co-oversight of PTI as opposed to remaining
at ICANN's tender mercy.
avri
On 30-Apr-15 16:07, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Seun
>
> Of course there are still uncertainties and there is still room for
> interpretation regarding what is happening between IETF and ICANN.
>
> However, there are several pieces of evidence working against your
> more benign interpretation.
>
>
>
> 1. The ICANN response to the RIR CRISP team proposal, which
> indicates that ICANN wants a sole-source contract in perpetuity.
>
> 2. The fact that the _/existing/_ contract with NTIA commits
> ICANN to make a smooth transition to a new operator, and the
> _/existing/_ MoU with IETF provides the IETF with the right to
> terminate the contract. Why would it be in breach of that contract to
> acknowledge these existing requirements? If it is in breach, why
> didn’t ICANN say it is willing to sign but is seeking the approval of
> the US Govt contracting officer?
>
> 3. The fact, already put forward as evidence in my earlier
> message, and which you did not address in this message, that the IETF
> believesthat the disputed statements are “already part of our
> agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaboratingdetails of
> that existing agreement”
>
> 4. The fact that this seems to be the first time ICANN has not
> accepted the IETF’s supplemental agreement
>
>
>
> If our only problem here is a technicality regarding the timing of the
> agreement, then that’s great. But even you have to admit that there
> could be more to it than that.
>
>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf
> Of *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:23 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Ominous update on the IANA transition
>
>
>
> Hi Prof,
>
> 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.
>
> Below is the exact wording of the IAB chair:
>
> " ICANN has informed
> us that they are unable to agree to that text right now. ICANN told
> us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly
> put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA. "
>
> The use of the phrase "right now" is what I think makes the difference
> in our interpretation of the situation.
>
> 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?
>
> 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:
>
> " It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol
> parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent
> operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as
> part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry
> out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the
> current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA
> [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent
> operator(s), should the need arise. "
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 30 Apr 2015 17:36, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>
> Seun:
>
> I suggest that you read the letter from the IETF people.
>
>
>
> “It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already
>
> part of our agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating
>
> details of that existing agreement.
>
>
>
> I could be wrong, but I don’t think IETF would be publicizing this
> the way it is if it were not concerned.
>
> 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.
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:55 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Ominous update on the IANA transition
>
>
>
> Hi Milton,
>
> 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.
> 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.
> I am not a lawyer, but I think it makes a lot of sense to activate
> such agreement at the termination of the other.
>
> A question to ask is whether ICANN is committed to signing the SLA
> once NTIA relinquishes it's current agreement.
>
> Regards
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 30 Apr 2015 14:27, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear NCSG:
>
> It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF
> have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
>
>
>
> Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions
> with the numbers community
> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/>
> 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 sent a
> letter to their community
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Milton L Mueller
>
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150430/130417fe/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list