kdrazek at verisign.com
Sun May 3 00:01:09 UTC 2015
I agree with Milton.
On May 2, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
Joe and fellow ICG members:
I have been on travel and have not been able to follow these discussions as closely as I would like. One thought which would perhaps address the reluctance of some members related to the statements might be for an ICG statement to be neutral as to gossip and allegations as proposed, but to be issued specifically in response to community statements raising concerns about a constraint on openness and transparency related to proposals process.
Of course I agree that an ICG statement should be issued specifically in response to community statements, but I am not aware of any “gossip” about this, and I think it is demeaning of the seriousness of the issue to talk in that way. We have two very specific statements in front of us:
1. The CRISP team report made at the ARIN meeting. This is not gossip, this is a fairly detailed report on discussions that have taken place between members of the CRISP team and ICANN legal, the comments were made in a public forum with the presentation slides available for everyone to see.
2. The letter from the 3 IETF people posted on the IANA Plan list. This is not gossip either and in fact at least one of the writers of that letter is here in the ICG.
Note that while the second issue has provoked a response from ICANN (because, and ONLY because, people got “worked up” and made an issue of it - Jari), there has been no response to the more serious concerns expressed by a member of the CRISP team.
Further, one could reasonably contend that the ICANN response to the IETF/RFC 2860 SLA issue was inadequate, as it failed to cite specifically which part of the NTIA IANA functions contract was the alleged impediment to a renewal of their annual SLA. There has been an effort to present this problem as a matter unrelated to the transition, a simple snag in the IETF-IANA annual supplemental agreement. That could be true, and it would indeed be reassuring if it was. But there are many reasons to doubt that story, or at least to reserve judgment about it. If ICANN is unwilling to sign off on an agreement that incorporates elements of the IANAPLAN working group output now, and is unable to tell us exactly why, it is unclear to many people whether they will do so later. And if we don’t call out this issue now and get it clarified, we may find it more difficult to resolve problems later.
So a general call for transparency, and a more specific query directed to ICANN, seem perfectly justified to me.
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg