[Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
kdrazek at verisign.com
Thu Apr 30 15:36:08 UTC 2015
Based on these reports, it appears there may be, at a minimum, a significant disconnect between ICANN Board and ICANN Staff.
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Wu Kuo-Wei
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:12 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
We understand the agreement with IETF/NRO in the past, and also the proposals delivered to ICG very well. We are not intend, and we can not change the status of the proposals to ICG. And we also know ICG will based on the proposals you received from IETF/CRISP (and eventually CWG) to develop ICG proposal. If you don’t like lots of words in the last email, I simplify as : (1) we respect and support the ICG process based the proposals you received from IETF/CRISP and will receive from CWG. (2) describe what the operation in the past, and why the departing is not happened (if you don’t like it, I can take if off).
Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> 於 2015年4月30日 21:47 寫道：
I am sorry but these responses show an almost Alice in Wonderland-like detachment from what is happening. Your comments fail to address the very serious concerns raised by the CRISP team, the RIRs and the IETF. My comments below:
1. The proposals of IETF and CRISP are in public and delivered to ICG already. They are in ICG's hands now. ICANN (including board) have no intention to intervene the ICG independent process. ICANN staff and Board continue to support independence of the ICG process.
MM: ICANN has _already_ intervened in the process. It is telling the two communities who have submitted consensus proposals that it does not accept the proposals. We would appreciate it if you could do something to bridge the obvious gap between what ICANN staff is doing and what the board is saying.
2. The MOU or agreement between ICANN and IETF/NRO exist for many years and continue to exchange the performance information of IANA regularly. ICANN/IANA always do the best to meet the expectation of IETF and NRO, and continue to improve our service. This is one of key factors for the success operation of global internet. And it proves the current operation is benefit to the communities and global internet users.
MM: You are dodging the issue. The issue is not the past agreement between ICANN and NRO, it is the _new_ proposal that the CRISP team has come up with.
3. Many on the ICANN Board support the sound engineering principle as recently articulated by Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, that for any working system change it as little as possible, and make gradual reforms over time. The Board continues to encourage simpler solutions where possible rather than creating new structures that require new legal frameworks and governance models.
MM: Are you asserting that the proposals of IETF/IANAPLAN and the CRISP team are changing too much? Are you asserting that ICANN staff can, therefore, unilaterally veto their proposals? We do not see the board “encouraging” simpler solutions through persuasion, we see them attempting to veto solutions. Furthermore, the differences between the existing IETF MoU and supplemental SLA and the new one are tiny, almost unnoticeable. So even assuming ICANN had the right to override a community consensus to make things “simpler,” ICANN’s actions are not even consistent with this principle.
5. ICANN will support the proposals generated by the community that have reached consensus.
MM: Then ICANN will support the CRISP proposal and the IANAPLAN proposal, and it will cease attempting to undermine or modify them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg