Ominous update on the IANA transition
Norbert Klein
nhklein at GMX.NET
Mon May 4 03:34:23 EEST 2015
On 05/01/2015 05:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
Thanks, Avri, to make all of us who are not native speaker of English
(especially of the British version) to study this language more - in
order to really get what you want to express.
So I found:
*
**1.**
**Definition of KERFUFFLE*
chiefly British
: *disturbance, fuss*
Examples of KERFUFFLE: <predictably, the royal scandal caused quite a
kerfuffle on Fleet Street>
2.
kerfuffle
[ker-fuhf-uh l]
Chiefly British Informal. *a****fuss;****commotion.*
==
So is it just a "fuss," a "disturbance" what we are reading about - or
is it a serious discussion of important things?
Norbert
Cambodia
>
> 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/>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150504/39a5dc06/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list