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

[Timothy Denton]

Greetings all:

It is quite obvious that the end point for some in ICANN (not I think, 
Crocker) would be something as self-electing  and self referential as 
the International Olympic Committee.
Something we must avoid.

Timothy Denton
Chairman, ISOC Canada chapter

On 4/30/2015 4:27 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>
> I agree that the jurisdiction issue is significant and cannot be swept 
> under the rug.
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
> *From:*Chapter-delegates 
> [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> *Sent:* jeudi, 30. avril 2015 10:26
> *To:* Narelle Clark; Chapter Delegates
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] Reminder - Open comment period from 
> ICANN CCWG for new naming proposal
>
> Dear Narelle,
>
> this slide, number 18, is unsubstantiated. I would ignore it.
> Ditto for slide 28, 29, 30...
>
> I would be more interested in Slide #19 - this is the issue of 
> jurisdiction and the proposal so far keeps jurisdiction firmly in the 
> United States.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 30/04/2015 09:55, Narelle Clark wrote:
>
>
>     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 <mailto: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 <mailto:narelle at internet.org.au>
>     www.internet.org.au <http://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 <mailto:president at isoc-au.org.au>
>     www.isoc-au.org.au <http://www.isoc-au.org.au>
>     The Internet is for Everyone!
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>
>     to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>
>     Chapter Portal (AMS):https://portal.isoc.org
>
>
>
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org


-- 
Timothy Denton 613 789 5397 613 222 1850 mobile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20150430/b6e342cf/attachment.htm>