Hi Milton.

I want to thank you for this post but it's so depressing I'm not sure
thanks is the appropriate response. Thank you for your hard work might be
more appropriate.

Per your request, I've just posted this to the CCWG list.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
>
> Dear NCSG:
>
> It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice
> of its IANA functions operator.
>
>
>
> Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the
> numbers community
> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/>
> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the
> numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its
> IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to
> second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN.
> Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF
> Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html>
> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level
> agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change
> in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN.
>
>
>
> These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is
> telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not
> accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as
> part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both
> cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected
> communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the
> NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process,
> setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an
> acceptable transition proposal.
>
>
>
> The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will
> have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether
> each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have
> the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability
> is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a
> principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by
> the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them
> separability since 2000 (RFC 2860 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>).
> Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a
> monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one.
>
>
>
> Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most
> effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are
> locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA
> responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these
> actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will
> forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event
> already.
>
>
>
> Milton L Mueller
>
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>