Isn’t the real problem here that there is no way of knowing, ex ante, whether the mechanisms will actually work?  I have spent a lot of time on the IRP and if it works as I hope it will, it would be a strong bulwark against mission creep – but what if it doesn’t?

 

Part of me wants to say that the formal transition should be delayed 5 years until ICANN has lived under an implemented transition system and has adequate experience.  I fear, however, that such a solution is untenable, politically and practically.  We must, I think, take a leap (of faith?) …

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 

 

From: David Post [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 8:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ominous update on the IANA transition

 

At 07:17 AM 5/5/2015, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:



Hi, David,
[SNIP]

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

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


Brenden

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

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

David






 

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM, David Post <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  > wrote:

[Apologies for cross-posting]



This really is starting to look, as Milton said, ominous - coupled with the pressure being placed upon ICANN to regulate message content, see 

http://www.internetcommerce.org/senate-judiciary-to-ip-czar/



my take on this is here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/internet-governance-what-if-the-sky-really-is-falling/
 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/internet-governance-what-if-the-sky-really-is-falling/> 


If the final proposal does not have real safeguards against ICANN's content-regulation powers, we're all in trouble. 



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

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

 

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



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

-- Brenden

 

David



At 09:27 AM 4/30/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:



                             

Dear NCSG:

It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator. 

 

Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the numbers community <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/>  will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html>  noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. 

 

These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal.

 

The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protoocols – will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860> ).  Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. 

 

Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already.  

 

Milton L Mueller

Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor

Syracuse University School of Information Studies

http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

Internet Governance Project

http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>  

 

 

*******************************

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         

******************************* 


*******************************
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 <http://www.davidpost.com         />          
*******************************