Ominous update on the IANA transition

Tue May 5 07:44:29 EEST 2015

At 07:17 AM 5/5/2015, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
>Hi, David,
>[SNIP]
>
>On this point, please see the recently releasedÂ 
>Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) 
>Accountability Initial Draft Proposal for Public 
>Comment,Â 
><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-proposal-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf>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?

Brenden

The Mission Statement changes do go a long way to 
addressing this concern - so the question 
becomes: will it actually serve as an effective 
constraint on ICANN's powers, or, Soviet 
constitution-style, just a bunch of nice words?

It's a little too early, for me, to say whether 
the proposed community empowerment mechanisms 
will do the job adequately; the devil really is 
in the details, and a lot - everything, actually 
- depends on how those details get fleshed 
out.  The proposal has a lot of good things in it 
- the enhanced Independent Review Panel, recall 
mechanisms for Directors, community power over 
the budget - and is a good step forward, in my 
view; but there are lots of substantial gaps and 
open questions about how it all will actually 
work [No criticism at all of the many folks who 
worked on this is intended, but just as a 
statement of fact]. There's a fine line between, 
say, an IRP that is effective and one that isn't 
(as the last 15 years have shown), so I guess I'm 
not ready to say it's been adequately addressed quite yet.

David

>Â
>
>On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM, David Post 
><<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>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/>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/>http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/internet-governance-what-if-the-sky-really-is-falling/
><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 releasedÂ 
>Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) 
>Accountability Initial Draft Proposal for Public 
>Comment,Â 
><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-proposal-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf>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?
>
>Â
>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
>
>Â
>David
>
>
>At 09:27 AM 4/30/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
>>Dear NCSG:
>>Itâ€™s now official: ICANN doesnâ€™t even want 
>>to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
>>Â
>>Those of you who read my 
>><http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/>blog 
>>post on ICANNâ€™s interactions with the numbers 
>>community 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 
>><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html>sent 
>>a letter to their community 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.
>>Â
>>These are truly shocking moves, because in 
>>effect ICANNâ€™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.
>>Â
>>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 protoocols – 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 
>>(<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>RFC 
>>2860).Â  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.
>>Â
>>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.Â
>>Â
>>Milton L Mueller
>>Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>><http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/>http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>>Internet Governance Project
>><http://internetgovernance.org/>http://internetgovernance.org
>>Â
>
>*******************************
>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
>blog (Volokh Conspiracy) 
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>book (Jefferson's 
>Moose)Â 
><http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2nÂ 
>Â Â Â Â Â
>music 
><http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic 
>publications etc.Â  http://www.davidpost.comÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
>*******************************
>

*******************************
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
music 
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150505/15f1fda6/attachment.htm>