Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote:
[SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the âjust let the contract expireâ scenario before I donât buy it for three reasons.
First, ICANN has been âhiredâ under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates.
Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires. David
Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill: We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions.
Third, and most important, the whole concept of the âtransitionâ includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration.
But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary.
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM To: Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
Phil I donât tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition âevent". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day ICANN would. <
So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so letâs be ready.
From: <<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM To: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Jordan Carter <<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016.
From: <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event.
Greg
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: Hi all, hi Milton,
My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest.
Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended?
I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't.
Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too?
Cheers Jordan
On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>milton@gatech.edu> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIAâs originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
<tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 | <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* 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 *******************************
But ICANN isn't a widget maker. It regulates the top level of the Internet's DNS, albeit not as a regulator of the conventional type. Jordan On Friday, 18 December 2015, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com> wrote:
At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote:
[SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons.
First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates.
Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires.
David
Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill:
*We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. *That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions.
Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration.
But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary.
Best regards, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC *
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey * *From:* Steve DelBianco [ mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdelbianco@netchoice.org');>] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM *To:* Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. <
So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready.
*From: *< accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>> *Date: *Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM *To: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');> >, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> > *Cc: *Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>
*Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM *To:* Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event.
Greg
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> > wrote: Hi all, hi Milton,
My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest.
Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended?
I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't.
Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too?
Cheers Jordan
On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','milton@gatech.edu');>> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* 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
*******************************
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Several years ago, when the contract was being re-awarded, NTIA rejected ICANN’s initial application and solicited other applications. In the end it was re-awarded to ICANN. But if it had been transferred to another operator, ICANN’s contract would have expired and it would clearly have had no authority to continue performing the functions. How is an expiration without re-award any different? In any event, NTIA’s public commitment is to go beyond a mere expiration and to engage in an active transfer to the global multistakeholder community. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:24 PM To: David Post Cc: Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; Greg Shatan; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act But ICANN isn't a widget maker. It regulates the top level of the Internet's DNS, albeit not as a regulator of the conventional type. Jordan On Friday, 18 December 2015, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com>> wrote: At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote: [SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons. First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates. Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires. David Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill: We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions. Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration. But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Steve DelBianco [ mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdelbianco@netchoice.org');>] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM To: Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. < So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready. From: < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');> >, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event. Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> > wrote: Hi all, hi Milton, My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest. Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended? I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't. Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too? Cheers Jordan On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','milton@gatech.edu');>> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ******************************* 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 ******************************* -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Surely what is different is that this is a transition. A transition of stewardship. If the United States can 'change its mind' after the fact, that isn't a transition, it's a fiction. Jordan On Friday, 18 December 2015, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Several years ago, when the contract was being re-awarded, NTIA rejected ICANN’s initial application and solicited other applications. In the end it was re-awarded to ICANN. But if it had been transferred to another operator, ICANN’s contract would have expired and it would clearly have had no authority to continue performing the functions. How is an expiration without re-award any different?
In any event, NTIA’s public commitment is to go beyond a mere expiration and to engage in an active transfer to the global multistakeholder community.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>] *Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:24 PM *To:* David Post *Cc:* Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; Greg Shatan; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
But ICANN isn't a widget maker. It regulates the top level of the Internet's DNS, albeit not as a regulator of the conventional type.
Jordan
On Friday, 18 December 2015, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.g.post@gmail.com');>> wrote:
At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote:
[SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons.
First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates.
Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires.
David
Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill:
*We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. *That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions.
Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration.
But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary.
Best regards, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC *
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey * *From:* Steve DelBianco [ mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM *To:* Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. <
So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready.
*From: *< accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM *To: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >, Jordan Carter < jordan@internetnz.net.nz > *Cc: *Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM *To:* Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event.
Greg
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz
wrote: Hi all, hi Milton,
My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest.
Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended?
I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't.
Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too?
Cheers Jordan
On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* 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 *******************************
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
By no means was I suggesting that the USG could or would change its mind post-transition and attempt to reverse it. All I am saying is that I believe that the transition requires more than the passive act of contract expiration, but an active transfer of what has been the USG counterparty role to the newly empowered community. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:38 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: David Post; Steve DelBianco; Greg Shatan; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act Surely what is different is that this is a transition. A transition of stewardship. If the United States can 'change its mind' after the fact, that isn't a transition, it's a fiction. Jordan On Friday, 18 December 2015, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Several years ago, when the contract was being re-awarded, NTIA rejected ICANN’s initial application and solicited other applications. In the end it was re-awarded to ICANN. But if it had been transferred to another operator, ICANN’s contract would have expired and it would clearly have had no authority to continue performing the functions. How is an expiration without re-award any different? In any event, NTIA’s public commitment is to go beyond a mere expiration and to engage in an active transfer to the global multistakeholder community. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:24 PM To: David Post Cc: Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; Greg Shatan; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act But ICANN isn't a widget maker. It regulates the top level of the Internet's DNS, albeit not as a regulator of the conventional type. Jordan On Friday, 18 December 2015, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.g.post@gmail.com');>> wrote: At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote: [SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons. First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates. Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires. David Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill: We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions. Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration. But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Steve DelBianco [ mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM To: Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. < So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready. From: < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%20> >, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz%20> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event. Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz%20> > wrote: Hi all, hi Milton, My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest. Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended? I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't. Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too? Cheers Jordan On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ******************************* 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 ******************************* -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
As you appear to know something here, can you explain exactly what legal powers are being transferred to ICANN by the Department of Commerce in a 'transition of stewardship'. And whence the legal powers derive under which this is expected to be done? As you've seen from the DOTCOM Act and this Appropriations Bill, this appears to involves a matter of public law, in addition to multistakeholderism, Accordingly it requries the public authority to explicitly have vires and therefore obliges us to understand that authority, in order to properly produce a transition plan that fits within it. On 12/17/2015 07:38 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Surely what is different is that this is a transition. A transition of stewardship.
If the United States can 'change its mind' after the fact, that isn't a transition, it's a fiction.
Jordan
On Friday, 18 December 2015, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Several years ago, when the contract was being re-awarded, NTIA rejected ICANN’s initial application and solicited other applications. In the end it was re-awarded to ICANN. But if it had been transferred to another operator, ICANN’s contract would have expired and it would clearly have had no authority to continue performing the functions. How is an expiration without re-award any different?____
__ __
In any event, NTIA’s public commitment is to go beyond a mere expiration and to engage in an active transfer to the global multistakeholder community.____
__ __
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597/Direct*____
*202-559-8750/Fax*____
*202-255-6172/cell**____*
*__ __*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*____
____
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*____
__ __
*From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:24 PM *To:* David Post *Cc:* Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; Greg Shatan; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act____
__ __
But ICANN isn't a widget maker. It regulates the top level of the Internet's DNS, albeit not as a regulator of the conventional type.____
__ __
Jordan
On Friday, 18 December 2015, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com> wrote:____
At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote:
____
[SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons.
First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates. ____
Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires.
David
____
Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill: /We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. /That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions.
Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration.
But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary.
Best regards, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC * */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey /* *From:* Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM *To:* Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. <
So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM *To: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz > *Cc: *Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM *To:* Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event.
Greg
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz > wrote: Hi all, hi Milton,
My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest.
Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended?
I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't.
Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too?
Cheers Jordan
On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
> -----Original Message----- > It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall > not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the > drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in > October of next year the transition will be complete. > > I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping > back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed > in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the > NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place > and are enforceable as part of the transition plan. > > Please let me know if you have questions. > > Rick > > SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by > 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of > 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during > fiscal year 2016, with respect to > 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- > 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and > 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. > 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) > 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. > > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ____
__ __
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.____
__ __
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ____
******************************* 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 ******************************* ____
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ____
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz____
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.____
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No one appears to have an answer to my point of this morning. Where is the money appropriated that they ARE spending? On 12/17/2015 07:32 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Several years ago, when the contract was being re-awarded, NTIA rejected ICANN’s initial application and solicited other applications. In the end it was re-awarded to ICANN. But if it had been transferred to another operator, ICANN’s contract would have expired and it would clearly have had no authority to continue performing the functions. How is an expiration without re-award any different?
In any event, NTIA’s public commitment is to go beyond a mere expiration and to engage in an active transfer to the global multistakeholder community.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell***
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:24 PM *To:* David Post *Cc:* Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; Greg Shatan; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
But ICANN isn't a widget maker. It regulates the top level of the Internet's DNS, albeit not as a regulator of the conventional type.
Jordan
On Friday, 18 December 2015, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com <mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com>> wrote:
At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote:
[SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons.
First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates.
Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires.
David
Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill: /We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. /That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions.
Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration.
But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary.
Best regards, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC * */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey /* *From:* Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM *To:* Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. <
So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM *To: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz > *Cc: *Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM *To:* Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event.
Greg
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz
wrote: Hi all, hi Milton,
My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest.
Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended?
I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't.
Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too?
Cheers Jordan
On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* 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 *******************************
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I understand that. But suppose the contract terminated tonight; what things ICANN did today would it be prohibited from doing tomorrow? Entering into contracts with registries and registrars? Holding meetings? Convening working groups? Who could stop them? Without the USG contract, they would lose much, or all, of their 'authority' to act - but that's not the same as saying they would have no "right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates. " David On Thursday, December 17, 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
But ICANN isn't a widget maker. It regulates the top level of the Internet's DNS, albeit not as a regulator of the conventional type.
Jordan
On Friday, 18 December 2015, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.g.post@gmail.com');>> wrote:
At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote:
[SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons.
First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates.
Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires.
David
Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill:
*We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. *That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions.
Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration.
But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary.
Best regards, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC *
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey * *From:* Steve DelBianco [ mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM *To:* Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. <
So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready.
*From: *< accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM *To: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >, Jordan Carter < jordan@internetnz.net.nz > *Cc: *Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM *To:* Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event.
Greg
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz
wrote: Hi all, hi Milton,
My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest.
Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended?
I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't.
Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too?
Cheers Jordan
On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* 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
*******************************
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-- Sent from Gmail Mobile
If the IANA contract expired tonight ICANN could keep doing everything it is doing today – except recommend changes to the root zone. Note also what Strickling said in January. There are two things it must do for the transition to happen. One is to terminate the IANA contract. What we are debating is whether a passive expiration rather than active termination would suffice legally – and politically. The second is to amend the contract with VeriSign under which it currently makes root zone changes on NTIA’s order. That second step is absolutely affirmative and requires an act which is clearly barred by the current IANA transition freeze language. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:04 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Phil Corwin; Steve DelBianco; Greg Shatan; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act I understand that. But suppose the contract terminated tonight; what things ICANN did today would it be prohibited from doing tomorrow? Entering into contracts with registries and registrars? Holding meetings? Convening working groups? Who could stop them? Without the USG contract, they would lose much, or all, of their 'authority' to act - but that's not the same as saying they would have no "right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates. " David On Thursday, December 17, 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: But ICANN isn't a widget maker. It regulates the top level of the Internet's DNS, albeit not as a regulator of the conventional type. Jordan On Friday, 18 December 2015, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.g.post@gmail.com');>> wrote: At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote: [SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons. First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates. Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires. David Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill: We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions. Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration. But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Steve DelBianco [ mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM To: Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. < So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready. From: < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%20> >, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz%20> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event. Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz%20> > wrote: Hi all, hi Milton, My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest. Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended? I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't. Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too? Cheers Jordan On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ******************************* 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 ******************************* -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity -- Sent from Gmail Mobile ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I don't think this is entirely correct. They actually could continue to make recommendations to change the root zone, such as operational name server changes and uncontroversial transfers. I am not sure about protocols and addresses. There might be too many parties involved. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 17 Dec 2015, at 22:16, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
If the IANA contract expired tonight ICANN could keep doing everything it is doing today – except recommend changes to the root zone.
[...]
And I was always told ICANN just exercised stewardship over the root. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 17 Dec 2015, at 21:24, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
But ICANN isn't a widget maker. It regulates the top level of the Internet's DNS, albeit not as a regulator of the conventional type.
Jordan [...]
On the other hand, if you have a government contract to operate a resource or provide particular services, you can't do so after the contract expires. If I have a contract to clean the FBI building, and the contract is terminated, I will be in big trouble if I show up and pull out my cleaning supplies and try to go to work. Even in your scenario, while you might continue to make widgets or conduct research, you'll no longer be making widgets for the government or conducting government research. Either you would be doing it for other clients, or it would be a hobby (and businesses don't tend to have hobbies). That said, the IANA Contract is an odd bird. It's simplistic to think of it as a contract where the government has a resource and it contracts with a private party to manage that resource. If it were that simple, the resource would stay with the government and a new manager would be found. The IANA Contract was much more about finding oversight and a "home" for a private resource that started in Jon Postel's shirtpocket. I'm reminded of the book "Are You My Mother?", where a little hatchling chick runs around trying to get someone to be its mother. IANA found its mother and 18 years later (ironically), it's ready to fly on its own. Lastly though, I agree that if in fact this "Let It Go" scenario were actually tried, it would not be pretty. When Congress knocks on the door, and the NTIA says "IANA? There's no IANA here. The contract was over and she left," there would be hell to pay. Greg On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:36 AM, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com> wrote:
At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote:
[SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons.
First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates.
Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires.
David
Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill:
*We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. *That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions.
Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration.
But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary.
Best regards, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC *
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey * *From:* Steve DelBianco [ mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM *To:* Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. <
So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready.
*From: *< accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM *To: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >, Jordan Carter < jordan@internetnz.net.nz > *Cc: *Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM *To:* Jordan Carter *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act
As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event.
Greg
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz
wrote: Hi all, hi Milton,
My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest.
Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended?
I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't.
Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too?
Cheers Jordan
On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place
and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* 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
*******************************
Agree on last point. The appropriators would extract long-term retribution on NTIA if it acts in a way that they perceive as defying Congress. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Dec 17, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: On the other hand, if you have a government contract to operate a resource or provide particular services, you can't do so after the contract expires. If I have a contract to clean the FBI building, and the contract is terminated, I will be in big trouble if I show up and pull out my cleaning supplies and try to go to work. Even in your scenario, while you might continue to make widgets or conduct research, you'll no longer be making widgets for the government or conducting government research. Either you would be doing it for other clients, or it would be a hobby (and businesses don't tend to have hobbies). That said, the IANA Contract is an odd bird. It's simplistic to think of it as a contract where the government has a resource and it contracts with a private party to manage that resource. If it were that simple, the resource would stay with the government and a new manager would be found. The IANA Contract was much more about finding oversight and a "home" for a private resource that started in Jon Postel's shirtpocket. I'm reminded of the book "Are You My Mother?", where a little hatchling chick runs around trying to get someone to be its mother. IANA found its mother and 18 years later (ironically), it's ready to fly on its own. Lastly though, I agree that if in fact this "Let It Go" scenario were actually tried, it would not be pretty. When Congress knocks on the door, and the NTIA says "IANA? There's no IANA here. The contract was over and she left," there would be hell to pay. Greg On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:36 AM, David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com>> wrote: At 08:36 PM 12/16/2015, Phil Corwin wrote: [SNIP] Respectfully, while I have heard the “just let the contract expire†scenario before I don’t buy it for three reasons. First, ICANN has been “hired†under the contract and when it expires it no longer has any right to manage IANA, no more than any other contractor has a right to keep performing the work it was doing after its contract terminates. Though it may not matter too much, I'm not sure that's strictly true ... Generally speaking, a government contractor DOES have the right to keep performing work it was doing under contract after the contract expires. If I am the recipient of a government contract to make widgets, or to conduct research, when the contract expires ordinarily I can go on making widgetsor conducting the research. I think the same thing is true here. Depending on exactly what you mean by "managing IANA," there is a great deal that ICANN now does under its contract with USG that it could simply continue to do when the contract expires. David Second, Secretary Strickling is already on the public record saying this in January 2015 about the FY 2015 prohibition, which is identical to the one in the FY 16 bill: We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity. That language puts on NTIA on record as viewing the transition as something that requires it to actively perform two separate actions. Third, and most important, the whole concept of the “transition†includes NTIA transferring its role to the global multistakeholder community which has acquired adequate accountability powers, and that implies an active handoff and not a passive contract expiration. But we have lots of other lawyers and policy wonks on this list, so opinions may vary. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Steve DelBianco [ mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:18 PM To: Phil Corwin; Greg Shatan; Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act Phil — I don’t tthink the Congressional appropriations language would prevent the transition “event". NTIA could simply allow the IANA contract to expire 30-Sep-2016 without spending any resources whatsoever. The contract could just expire, leaving in question who has the authority to operate the IANA functions. But no question who would be operating the root, numbers and protocols the next day — ICANN would. < So we (the community) should continue developing accountability mechanisms so we can hold ICANN accountable if/when it takes control of IANA functions. It could happen on 30-Sep-2016 so let’s be ready. From: < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act NTIA can continue to prepare for the transition, including leading an interagency review of any Proposal it receives from ICANN. But it is prohibited from actually effecting the transition until October 1, 2016. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:07 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: FY16 Appropriations Act Extends IANA Transition Freeze without DOTCOM Act As I read this, it does not slow anything down. We were targeting a transition around September 30, 2015 in any event. Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > wrote: Hi all, hi Milton, My understanding of the steps in the timetable was that finalising our proposal in January was what gave space for a transition in September at the earliest. Are you suggesting that instead it means one of the earlier steps can't start when it was intended? I.e. If NTIA could not start its consideration until 30 Sep then that does materially change things, timing wise. But if it could still do its review as part of preparing for a transition, then that wouldn't. Maybe we could ask NTIA for their view of the situation too? Cheers Jordan On Thursday, 17 December 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: This is good news, and I hope the co-chairs of the CCWG all sit down and read former Congressman Boucher's message out loud - better yet, sing it to the tune of Jingle Bells! - together. The idea that we have to truncate our process and twist ourselves into pretzels or cave to unreasonable demands from the board in order to meet an arbitrary schedule is now, I think, officially dead. --MM
-----Original Message----- It's also noteworthy that (b) has been added saying that the restriction shall not apply in fiscal year 2017. That's a nice statement of intention by the drafters of this provision that by the commencement of fiscal year 2017 in October of next year the transition will be complete.
I don't believe that the adoption of this language in any way reflects a stepping back by Congress from the bipartisan consensus which has now been formed in both the House and the Senate to support the IANA transition as long as the NTIA’s originally announced 4 principles for ICANN accountability are in place
and are enforceable as part of the transition plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Rick
SEC. 539. (a) None of the funds made available by 21 this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of 22 the National Telecommunications and Information Ad ministration, during fiscal year 2016, with respect to 24 Internet domain name system functions, including respon- 1 sibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and 2 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. 3 (b) Nothwithstanding any other law, subsection (a) 4 of this section shall not apply in fiscal year 2017.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ******************************* 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 *******************************
On 17-Dec-15 14:43, Greg Shatan wrote:
IANA found its mother and 18 years later (ironically), it's ready to fly on its own.
Has this been clearly established? The mess we, with the board's assistance, are starting to make of this makes me wonder whether it is really ready to fly on its own. We are so consumed by our various fears and prejudices we are putting on quite a display of nearsightedness, short tempers, nastiness and ineptitude. And in any case we are not talking about setting IANA free, but rather of keeping it bound in service to ICANN. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
David Post -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Nigel Roberts -
Phil Corwin