[Internal-cg] Contracting

Fri May 1 05:57:45 UTC 2015

I am thinking somewhat out loud here.

The query I was formulating was one where we requested clarification from the ICANN board and CEO as to the truth of the reports, and therefore also, if true, their imposed bounds on ICANN counsel's legal intervention into the process.

This gives everyone a chance to stop and draw breath.

"The ICG has become aware of claims that critical pieces of the IETF and RIR proposals for IANA operation post NTIA stewardship are being contested by ICANN's legal counsel through negotiation of the terms of the existing SLA and proposed models. The ICG therefore seeks clarification of these reports, and specifically to the extent which they are acting under instructions of ICANN."

We may wish to further include a request for clarification of their imposed bounds on ICANN counsel's legal intervention into the process. Ie how much of the proposals are therefore considered unacceptable by ICANN's counsel, and also by the ICANN board and CEO.

We may wish to point out that, if true, this activity runs the risk of being seen by the community to be fundamentally at odds with the principle of 'enhancing the multistakeholder model'.

These latter two points require the first case to be true, and to be the instructed (by the Board and/or management of ICANN) actions of ICANN's counsel.

Best regards

Narelle

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: Friday, 1 May 2015 1:01 AM
To: Narelle Clark
Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting

Hi Narelle,

Could you elaborate a bit more about what sort of query would work here? What would we be asking and of whom?

Thanks,
Alissa

On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au> wrote:

> I have to admit that I share some of Kavouss' concerns about intervention here. Kuo Wei has undertaken to investigate.
> 
> That said, I must also express the most extreme concern with respect to what it is being reported from the ARIN meeting. In my experience, it is normal business practice to have some - shall we call it - "Lawyer post-processing" of a set of principles, process or agreement to be contracted/under contract, but these reports, if true, appear to threaten the good faith process everyone is undertaking and therefore even the multi-stakeholder model itself.
> 
> Indeed, at the heart of the NTIA criteria is that  any new system must support and enhance the multistakeholder model.
> 
> I would prefer the "statement" be addressed as a query. And couple with that a reminder of the essential part of the transition.
> 
> This would be a more conciliatory approach to this issue.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> Narelle
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015 1:42 AM
> To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org'
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting
> 
> Good statement. I support it as is. 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements
>> 
>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship 
>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions 
>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in 
>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has 
>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all 
>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions 
>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the 
>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, 
>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other 
>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. 
>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus proposals 
>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the 
>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of the 
>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the same 
>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within established community processes.
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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