Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that

[Seth Johnson <[e-mail]>]

The reality of the different political environment that arises when
the NTIA is removed is not what you're talking about.  The discussion
is only about whether you'll get the option of a transfer from ICANN
in the outcome.

If domestic politics blocks the NTIA handoff, that will stir up its
own political situation internationally, where the world calls the US
out for being unable to let go.  That's a whole distinct scenario,
certainly.

BUT once you remove the NTIA, that all by itself gives the
intergovernmental mode the lead.

Whatever the merits of the claim that ICANN is resisting the option of
a prospective transfer to a non-US IANA operator, the way this concern
presents itself just adds up to:

1) ICANN is apparently at least not in principle opposed to the
*regular structure* of things in the proposal (prior to exercise of an
option to transfer IANA from ICANN) (hence Steve Crocker's comment
referenced in the slideshow); HOWEVER:

2) the claim NTIA or Congress won't support the potential of an IANA
transfer option clause only keeps the discussion in the frame of
resisting intergovernmental authority, which in turn just serves to
take attention away from the fact that removing NTIA *means*
intergovernmental, and that that is all by itself a totally different
political environment.

>From that slideshow:

"ICANN asserts that neither NTIA nor the US Congress will approve any
transition plan which leaves open the possibility of a future non-US
IANA Functions Operator."

I consider this mostly as a misleading concern.  The US Congress may
kick up contention and/or block the handoff from NTIA, but removing
NTIA removes the government relationship.  That by itself places
everything in an international context where intergovernmental acts
have sway, and in a very different way from what you're accustomed to.
A relationship to the US government, or any free government, means
that country's citizens can hold the government to account for
impinging on fundamental rights.  Removing that leaves you with
intergovernmental authority, regardless of what anyone may think (from
both the "anti-free-speech-pro-censorship axis" AND from the US, who
we know pursues policy through intergovernmental acts as well).

Eventually the reality will sink in.


Seth


On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Olivier,
>
> On 5/4/15 11:57 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> Unsubstantiated. Again - I'd like to see the note. This has all of the
>> favours of crying wolf without the actual note.
>
> When the many people that consists of the IAOC, IAB, IESG, and ARIN
> boards and at least some of the ICG and CRISP teams speak up, that tells
> you that this is not a person crying wolf, but a chorus of concern.
>
>>  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.
>
> What I want is something simpler: going forward, ICANN and the IANA
> customers bring forth questions to the communities before they rise to
> the level of even a concern.  I'd also hope that NTIA monitors these
> discussions so that when their name is used, especially by responsible
> people at ICANN, they can provide clarification where necessary.  Here
> (at least to me) it seems it would be helpful.
>
>     Eliot
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>