Ominous update on the IANA transition

[Brenden Kuerbis]

Hi, David,



On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM, David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com> wrote:

>  [Apologies for cross-posting]
>
>
> This really is starting to look, as Milton said, ominous - coupled with
> the pressure being placed upon ICANN to regulate message content, see
>  http://www.internetcommerce.org/senate-judiciary-to-ip-czar/
>
> my take on this is here:
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/internet-governance-what-if-the-sky-really-is-falling/
>
> If the final proposal does not have real safeguards against ICANN's
> content-regulation powers, we're all in trouble.
>


On this point, please see the recently released Cross Community Working
Group (CCWG) Accountability Initial Draft Proposal for Public Comment,
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-proposal-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf

Would you agree that the proposed update to ICANN's Mission Statement (pg
15) which limits ICANN scope, in conjunction with proposed community
empowerment mechanisms address this concern adequately?



> And I am starting to wonder whether the USG is interested in making sure
> those safeguards are in place, or, as suggested in the above, making sure
> that they're NOT in place. . . .
>
>

I agree there will continue to be pressure put on ICANN by IP rightsholders
interests, using any available route. But if the above is adopted it seems
it would go a long way toward mitigating that pressure.

-- Brenden



> David
>
>
> At 09:27 AM 4/30/2015, Milton L Mueller 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
>
>
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
> <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0> publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
>
> *******************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150505/fc6aa0e3/attachment.htm>