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

Thu Apr 30 06:34:13 PDT 2015

The key is jurisdiction. The idea that ICANN may now be thinking the
NTIA transition is about something other than jurisdiction is concerning.

On your reply to Narelle's other concern. When the President of a
corporation says something one has to assume he both means it and has
the authority of the corporation behind him.

ICANN may of course clarify further or confirm that Fade was speculating
on the basis of stimulating debate and feedback from the Domain registry
businesses he was addressing at the time.

But I watched the video and I can't ignore his comments as they stand.
To make a relevant further point. Fade was clearly linking ICANN to the
Registry business model and forgetting the mostly the robustness and
stability of the DNS is managed by operators not in that room. That
short sightedness could be a real problem for ICANN if it bases its
transition plans ignoring that factoid.

Christian

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> 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

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
FBCS, CITP, MCMA
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel at firsthand.net
-------------------------