Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition
I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations). Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Hi, I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability. Best, Ed Morris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu Dear NCSG: It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator. Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the numbers community <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-m...> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal. The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. The message is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however. Best regards, A On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:29:30AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations).
Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Hi,
I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Dear NCSG:
It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the numbers community <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-m...> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN.
These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal.
The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one.
Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Hi Andrew, Thank you for the statement, and agree it's an important piece to read. To add to this, we are raising concerns because suggested new text to the language raise a legal issue for us under the existing contract ICANN has with NTIA. This is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually expires. In fact, this case is an excellent example of a reason why the transition is so essential. We have no desire to affect the results of the community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition. Theresa On 4/30/15 3:51 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. The message is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:29:30AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations).
Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Hi,
I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Dear NCSG:
It¹s now official: ICANN doesn¹t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN¹s interactions with the numbers community
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functio ns-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN.
These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN¹s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal.
The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities names, numbers and protocols will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one.
Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Theresa, Thanks for following up. The legal and timing issues were what I understood, too. Thanks, A On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 03:10:42PM +0000, Theresa Swinehart wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for the statement, and agree it's an important piece to read. To add to this, we are raising concerns because suggested new text to the language raise a legal issue for us under the existing contract ICANN has with NTIA. This is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually expires. In fact, this case is an excellent example of a reason why the transition is so essential. We have no desire to affect the results of the community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition.
Theresa
On 4/30/15 3:51 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. The message is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:29:30AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations).
Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Hi,
I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Dear NCSG:
It¹s now official: ICANN doesn¹t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN¹s interactions with the numbers community
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functio ns-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN.
These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN¹s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal.
The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities names, numbers and protocols will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one.
Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Thanks for the follow-up Theresa, this was my understanding as well Regards On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Theresa Swinehart < theresa.swinehart@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for the statement, and agree it's an important piece to read. To add to this, we are raising concerns because suggested new text to the language raise a legal issue for us under the existing contract ICANN has with NTIA. This is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually expires. In fact, this case is an excellent example of a reason why the transition is so essential. We have no desire to affect the results of the community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition.
Theresa
On 4/30/15 3:51 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. The message is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:29:30AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations).
Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Hi,
I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Dear NCSG:
It¹s now official: ICANN doesn¹t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN¹s interactions with the numbers community
< http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functio ns-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN.
These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN¹s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal.
The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities names, numbers and protocols will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one.
Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Theresa, Thank you for the response. For the time challenged among us (which is probably all of us), can you please identify which sections of the existing contract are involved? I'm not asking for the legal analysis, on the assumption that would be privileged (though it would be preferable to share it with the community, in my opinion) -- just the sections. Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Theresa Swinehart < theresa.swinehart@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for the statement, and agree it's an important piece to read. To add to this, we are raising concerns because suggested new text to the language raise a legal issue for us under the existing contract ICANN has with NTIA. This is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually expires. In fact, this case is an excellent example of a reason why the transition is so essential. We have no desire to affect the results of the community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition.
Theresa
On 4/30/15 3:51 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. The message is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:29:30AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations).
Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Hi,
I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Dear NCSG:
It¹s now official: ICANN doesn¹t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN¹s interactions with the numbers community
< http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functio ns-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN.
These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN¹s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal.
The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities names, numbers and protocols will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one.
Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Greg, Considering this is an IETF related issue, i think your request would be better asked from the IETF community(IANAPLAN), or better still, it will be good to ask the IETF leadership to grant permission to release such information. I am saying this because similar question has been asked on the IETF list. Regards On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Theresa,
Thank you for the response. For the time challenged among us (which is probably all of us), can you please identify which sections of the existing contract are involved? I'm not asking for the legal analysis, on the assumption that would be privileged (though it would be preferable to share it with the community, in my opinion) -- just the sections.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Theresa Swinehart < theresa.swinehart@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for the statement, and agree it's an important piece to read. To add to this, we are raising concerns because suggested new text to the language raise a legal issue for us under the existing contract ICANN has with NTIA. This is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually expires. In fact, this case is an excellent example of a reason why the transition is so essential. We have no desire to affect the results of the community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition.
Theresa
On 4/30/15 3:51 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. The message is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:29:30AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations).
Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Hi,
I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Dear NCSG:
It¹s now official: ICANN doesn¹t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN¹s interactions with the numbers community
< http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functio ns-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN.
These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN¹s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal.
The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities names, numbers and protocols will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one.
Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Seun, Your disagreement with my approach is noted. Greg On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Considering this is an IETF related issue, i think your request would be better asked from the IETF community(IANAPLAN), or better still, it will be good to ask the IETF leadership to grant permission to release such information. I am saying this because similar question has been asked on the IETF list.
Regards
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Theresa,
Thank you for the response. For the time challenged among us (which is probably all of us), can you please identify which sections of the existing contract are involved? I'm not asking for the legal analysis, on the assumption that would be privileged (though it would be preferable to share it with the community, in my opinion) -- just the sections.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Theresa Swinehart < theresa.swinehart@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for the statement, and agree it's an important piece to read. To add to this, we are raising concerns because suggested new text to the language raise a legal issue for us under the existing contract ICANN has with NTIA. This is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually expires. In fact, this case is an excellent example of a reason why the transition is so essential. We have no desire to affect the results of the community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition.
Theresa
On 4/30/15 3:51 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. The message is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:29:30AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations).
Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Hi,
I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Dear NCSG:
It¹s now official: ICANN doesn¹t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN¹s interactions with the numbers community
< http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functio ns-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN.
These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN¹s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal.
The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities names, numbers and protocols will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one.
Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Seun, I am not involved in the IETF but I would certainly like to get the information Greg requested so I have no problem that he asked. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 12:04 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition Hi Greg, Considering this is an IETF related issue, i think your request would be better asked from the IETF community(IANAPLAN), or better still, it will be good to ask the IETF leadership to grant permission to release such information. I am saying this because similar question has been asked on the IETF list. Regards On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Theresa, Thank you for the response. For the time challenged among us (which is probably all of us), can you please identify which sections of the existing contract are involved? I'm not asking for the legal analysis, on the assumption that would be privileged (though it would be preferable to share it with the community, in my opinion) -- just the sections. Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart@icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Andrew, Thank you for the statement, and agree it's an important piece to read. To add to this, we are raising concerns because suggested new text to the language raise a legal issue for us under the existing contract ICANN has with NTIA. This is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually expires. In fact, this case is an excellent example of a reason why the transition is so essential. We have no desire to affect the results of the community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition. Theresa On 4/30/15 3:51 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. The message is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however.
Best regards,
A
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:29:30AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am forwarding the email below, as it will be of interest to this group as well. It would also be of interest to hear the views of those who are involved in the process (to the extent that is possible given ongoing negotiations).
Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Hi,
I think this post on the NCSG list by Dr. Mueller might be of interest to those of us working on Accountability.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu>
Dear NCSG:
It¹s now official: ICANN doesn¹t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator.
Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN¹s interactions with the numbers community
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functio ns-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN.
These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN¹s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal.
The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities names, numbers and protocols will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one.
Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
participants (5)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Seun Ojedeji -
Theresa Swinehart