Re: [Ianaplan] [[e-mail]: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition]

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On May 3, 2015, at 10:54 PM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On May 3, 2015, at 5:47 PM, John Curran <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> However, I’m not certain it is a fair expectation that in the midst of admittedly private 
>> discussions between IETF/IAOC and ICANN, ICANN should have unilaterally and 
>> publicly sent a letter of inquiry to NTIA (in fact, I can easily imagine circumstances 
>> where that act would be deemed rather anti-social...)
> 
> [BA] The NTIA-ICANN contract has certainly introduced complexities into the relationship between ICANN and the communities, but in the years of dealing with this, RIRs, ICANN and IETF have weathered quite a few storms together.  The key has been open communications and a cooperative attitude - starting from "here is the situation, what do we do together to solve it?". 
> 
> So heavens no, I was not imagining anything unilateral, …

Bernard - 
 
   You stated earlier - 

>>> "In this case, instead of responding with a refusal that left much available to interpretation, ICANN legal could have sent a letter of inquiry to NTIA.  While this approach might have left us in much the same place with respect to the proposed agreement (e.g. ICANN unable to sign), the level of transparency would have been significantly improved.  For example, the letter of inquiry could have laid out the concerns relating to the proposed text, narrowing the opportunity for speculation about the precise nature of the reservations.  If NTIA chose to respond, their response could have provided clarification with respect to their contractual concerns and/or conditions under which such an agreement could be consummated.  
>>> 
>>> Even if NTIA had chosen not to respond promptly or at all to such a letter of inquiry, that would have constituted information for the communities, and would have been more in keeping with a public, transparent process.”

    My point was simply that the IETF/IAOC and ICANN were having private discussions and 
    then IETF provided an update to the community regarding ongoing developments; i.e. I’m 
    still trying to see when and where "ICANN legal could have sent a letter of inquiry to NTIA” 
    publicly as you originally suggested, without it being a significant breach of expectations.

    Andrew’s message updating the community is definitely open communications and Theresa 
    Swinehart’s reply (to the effect that the new text raised a legal issue for ICANN under the 
    existing contract and that such is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually expires) 
    is the start of more open dialogue.  Also raised was the potential perception issue of the IETF
    action appearing to be pre-empting the ongoing IANA stewardship planning efforts by the entire 
    community prior to finalization -  i.e. while the IETF is simply restating existing terms of its 
    ICANN relationship, that may not be well understood by the rest of the community involved
    in these planning activities.  There is quite a bit of ongoing work towards a complete strawman 
    IANA  stewardship transition plan, and that plan is to be reviewed by everyone before moving 
    into the “testing” phase.  (Folks interested in the proposed ICG timeline can look here -
    http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/TimelineDiscussion-v9.pdf <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/TimelineDiscussion-v9.pdf> but should note that the 
    names community sought a 6 month extension in order to prepare their portion of the plan)

> .. but rather open communications, multi-lateral brainstorming and transparency to the communities. 

    That’s starting to happen, but it shouldn’t be surprising that it wasn’t occurring earlier when
    the IETF’s engagement process for the supplemental agreement was a private negotiation.

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.  No electrons were permanently harmed in the making of this email.