[Internal-cg] Contracting

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Wed Apr 29 12:15:47 UTC 2015


Catching up on this thread and having flashbacks of the 2013 RAA Negotiations. Wouldn't  surprise me if ICANN Legal/Jones Day is calling the shots. 

I also support a statement from the ICG that any feedback on proposals must be provided in the open thru established community processes. 

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

> On Apr 28, 2015, at 13:14, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> I also support sending a statement and am fine with the proposed language.
> 
> If this reported behavior has occurred and is undermining the work of the OCs, it is troubling and appears to raise questions about ICANN's commitment to a truly bottom-up, consensus-based community process.
> 
> Regards,
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:52 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting
> 
> Hi Alissa, all,
> 
> I support sending a statement such as you propose.  This is too important a principle and too important a task for us not to be vigilant, particularly when there are reports of statements that contradict previous agreements.
> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Kavouss,
>> 
>> We established in our RFP that the transition proposals should be supported by community consensus, developed in the open, and that all interested stakeholders should get involved in them early on. What Milton is questioning and what the reports out from the OCs linked below point to is that ICANN staff may not be adhering to these tenets as we set them out. I wouldn’t expect them to come tell us that they aren’t adhering to them, which is why I’m asking whether we need to proactively reinforce our expectation that everyone adhere to them, including ICANN. As the body that put out the RFP, this seems well within our remit.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Alissa
>>> Thanks
>>> Then why we intervene?
>>> Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg?
>>> I suggest no action at all
>>> Kavouss
>>> 
>>> 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>> Hi Kavouss,
>>> 
>>> The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See:
>>> 
>>> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-de
>>> velopments 
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/
>>> crisp_panel.pdf (starting at slide 18) 
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-ste
>>> wardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. 2-3)
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea as they see fit.
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> Thank you for your comments
>>>> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN  Staff 
>>>> to ICGin regard with what Alissa said Quote " Shouldn’t we expect 
>>>> the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.”
>>>> Unquote
>>>> I do not know what was the  procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion .
>>>> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN.
>>>> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational 
>>>> communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to 
>>>> any conclusion
>>>> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has  already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated.
>>>> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG 
>>>> output Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then 
>>>> to decide what appropriate actions to be taken Kavouss
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me:
>>>> 
>>>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.”
>>>> 
>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator?
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Milton,
>>>>> 
>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants.  NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?”
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --MM
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On 
>>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM
>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat 
>>>>>> Transcript
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email.  Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jennifer
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM
>>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org'
>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15.  Please let me know if you note any discrepancies:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ICG Members
>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)
>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO)
>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)
>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO)
>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF)
>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)
>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF)
>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO)
>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC)
>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)
>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)
>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries)
>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB)
>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC)
>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC)
>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB)
>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC)
>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO)
>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO)
>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO)
>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)
>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)
>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Liaisons
>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apologies
>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison)
>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO)
>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO)
>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO)
>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC)
>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)
>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC)
>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jennifer
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list