Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <[e-mail]>]

Comments in-line:

On 04/05/2015 16:35, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/01/icann_iana_latest/
>> Is any of this substantiated? I'd like to see the original ICANN note and who
>> has sent it. 
> Wouldn't we all? 
>
> The problem is substantiated by the members of the CRISP team who made the presentation. Here is a link to that presentation: https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf 
>
> Unless you believe that Bill Woodcock was making it all up, and that other CRISP team members present and ARIN's in house counsel stood by and let him publicly fantasize without challenge, I think there is enough substantiation here to warrant queries and concerns. 
>
> You ask for a documented note, but the problem is precisely that someone within ICANN seems to be pressuring the RIRs to alter their transition proposal and this negotiation process is not transparent or open. 

Unsubstantiated. Again - I'd like to see the note. This has all of the
favours of crying wolf without the actual note. If substantiated, then
it's another matter, but how do you want *any* progress to be made if
we're discussing allegations out of a presentation without an actual
source as to who said what. Was that meeting conducted under Chatham
House rules? If so, why? Why not an open, transparent meeting, in which
case someone could publicly say who said what?
I would appreciate the clarification either way.

>
>> Who has made this decision? The ICANN Board? ICANN the organisation? ICANN the community? 
> Definitely not the latter. Probably not the board either, given numerous statements we have from them indicating they had no problem with the CRISP proposal. The CRISP presentation specifically identifies "ICANN legal" 
>
>> Let's not forget it's the
>> ICANN Community that is firmly in charge of the NTIA Stewardship Transition
>> process and as a member of the Cross Community Working Group, I have
>> seen no discussion leading to this allegation.
> This issue has been aired and extensively discussed on the CCWG list. 

Yes, *post* allegation, the CRIP presentation was forwarded to the list
and discussions held. Did the ICANN Community direct this alleged
"problem"? You & I are in agreement that this was not the case.

Kind regards,

Olivier