[Chapter-delegates] Reminder - Open comment period from ICANN CCWG for new naming proposal

[Narelle Clark]

All,
you may find this further piece interesting also. I admit to being deeply
concerned and am seeking further clarification.

At the recent ARIN meeting a presentation was given:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf

Page 18 of the ARIN presentation says:

"ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement
in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for IANA
functions in perpetuity.

"ICANN asserts that neither NTIA nor the US Congress will approve any
transition plan which leaves open the possibility of a future non-US IANA
Functions Operator."

Milton Mueller has blogged on this:
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/
<
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/
>

An interesting quote from the article:

"Those who claim that ICANN’s good performance of the IANA functions in the
past, under NTIA supervision, means that we needn’t bother with “complex”
new organizational arrangements that compensate for the loss of NTIA
accountability are, we think, being proved wrong. But it’s good that this
is happening now, before the die is fully cast. Just imagine bargaining
with ICANN once it has all the marbles.”


Thoughts?


Narelle



On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Narelle Clark <narelle at isoc-au.org.au>
wrote:

> All,
> we are entering what may be the final stages of the compilation of the
> proposal for a post-US government stewardship of the IANA functions.
>
> Like the numbering and protocol parameters groups before them, the
> names community are in the final phases of compiling a proposal for
> that final piece of IANA. Their proposal has gone out for public
> comment, see:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
>
> I therefore encourage you to participate in this community exercise.
>
> A huge thank you must go to everyone who participated in the proposal
> development for the numbers community (via the CRISP team from the
> RIRs) and the protocol parameters community (via ianaplan from the
> IETF). Those proposals are comprehensive indeed:
>
> Numbers, ie RIR: https://www.nro.net/news/final-proposal-crisp
> Protocols, ie IETF:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09
>
>
> We will be moving into the final phase soon, so I will need people's
> thoughts on the overall system proposal: is it appropriate?
> Have the processes been rigorous and dealt with issues raised within
> standing community processes?
> Are the proposals consistent with each other?
> Will they work together?
>
> Is anything missing?
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Narelle
>
> --
>
> Narelle Clark
> ISOC nominee to the IANA Coordination Group
>
> Immediate Past President and Board Member
> Internet Society of Australia
> narelle at internet.org.au
> www.internet.org.au
> The Internet is for Everyone!
>



-- 



Narelle Clark
Immediate Past President and Board Member
Internet Society of Australia
ph: 0412 297 043
int ph: +61 412 297 043
narelle at isoc-au.org.au <president at isoc-au.org.au>
www.isoc-au.org.au
The Internet is for Everyone!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20150430/d7fe75d7/attachment.htm>