[LACNIC/Politicas] concerns regarding the IANA IP addressing function in the transition process

Thu Sep 11 17:31:57 BRT 2014

Muchas gracias por la información, Ernesto. No sabía de esa nueva lista.

[] fraterno

--c.a.

On 09/11/2014 05:10 PM, Ernesto Majo wrote:
> Carlos,
> LACNIC ha iniciado su proceso de consulta abierta a su comunidad
> precisamente para identificar aquellos aspectos que deban ser atendidos
> en relación con la gestión de los recursos numéricos.
> 
> Para ello hemos creado una sección en el web
> http://www.lacnic.net/web/lacnic/iana-transicion y realizado una primer
> conferencia donde explicamos el proceso que la comunidad deberá seguir.
> 
> Se ha creado una lista para procesar la discusión, por lo que sugiero
> que reenvíes esta información a dicho espacio: internet-gov at lacnic.net.
> Precisamente este tipo de aportes son los que deben ser procesados por
> la comunidad en ese espacio.
> 
> El cronograma planteado establece llegar a la reunión de LACNIC 22 en
> Santigo de Chile con una síntesis de los aspectos principales
> identificados por la comunidad en el proceso.
> 
> Abrazo
> 
> Ernesto
> 
> El 08/09/14 19:24, Carlos A. Afonso escribió:
>> Dear compas,
>>
>> I think this is a relevant policy issue, related to the IANA transition.
>>
>> As some of you recall, I am one of the [few so far] ones who advocates a
>> formalization of the role RIRs+NRO have in the governance of the IANA
>> functions. I actually tried to advance this proposition in my article in
>> the book produced by the WGIG in 2007 (!) -- perhaps too early...
>>
>> But now there is this stewardship transition initiated by the US gov
>> itself, and I reaffirm my proposal that the IANA function dealing with
>> IP addressing governance should be formally passed on to NRO at the
>> operational/coordination level.
>>
>> Some people think this is "complicated", quoting a number of hurdles --
>> among them, because either [1] it would require a change in the Icann
>> bylaws (I am not sure of this, but if so, so what?) or [2] while RIRs
>> are "membership organizations", Icann is not (so what? maybe it is way
>> past time Icann should become one as well, getting rid of the infamous
>> nominating committee to begin with -- but I am not sure this is a
>> problem either).
>>
>> In practice, NRO (or the set of RIRs) is already coordinating this IANA
>> function. Icann could remain the policy lightweight oversight
>> organization for this function. I think something similar could be
>> thought regarding ccTLDs, with the current ccTLD structures (LACTLD,
>> CENTR etc) taking over the operational/coordinating role -- although in
>> this case we have a very diverse world and this would require a
>> different approach, fully respecting the autonomy of each ccTLD. But if
>> things can be worked out in this way, Icann would remain the
>> coordinating realm of gTLDs only, while also remaining the lightweight
>> oversight policy body for all other IANA functions -- provided
>> accountability and transparency issues are properly addressed. Maybe at
>> the end ASO and ccNSO would no longer make much sense.
>>
>> All this said, Milton Mueller provides a disappointing account of how
>> NRO/RIRs seem to be handling the IANA transition process. I asked him to
>> authorize me to reproduce his message (originally posted to the ARIN
>> list) expressing his concerns.
>>
>> Hope to read your comments.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> --- message from Milton Mueller to ARIN, on Sept.08, 2014 ---
>>
>> A bit off topic, but possibly of interest to the members here interested
>> in the IANA transition. It seems the RIRs are not taking seriously the
>> requirement for the IANA process to be open and transparent.
>>
>> Milton L Mueller
>> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>>
>> From: Milton L Mueller
>> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM
>> To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)
>> Subject: IANA transition and the risk of a failed RIR process
>>
>> Today the IANA stewardship coordination group (ICG)
>> [https://www.icann.org/stewardship/coordination-group] released a
>> request for proposals for changing the IANA in ways needed to compensate
>> for the end of US government oversight.
>>
>> I am assuming that since the RIRs were signatories to the Montevideo
>> Declaration, which called for globalization of the IANA functions, that
>> most of their members and participants support the IANA transition and
>> want to see it happen expeditiously.
>>
>> The ICG, of which I am a member, has proposed a very open and bottom up
>> method for the transition. It has broken the problem down into three
>> types of IANA ‘customers’ – names, numbers and protocols – and has asked
>> each of these operational communities to convene open, transparent
>> processes to develop proposals with widespread public support for a new
>> IANA that can function without oversight by the US government.
>>
>> The IETF has convened a reasonably open process, creating a mailing list
>> (ianaplan at ietf.org) and chartering a working group to develop a proposal
>> [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/charter/].
>>
>> Likewise, the names community has chartered a cross-community working
>> group
>> [https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-charter-ccwg-iana-stewardship-21aug14-en.pdf],
>>
>> led by the GNSO and CCNSO, to develop a names proposal.
>>
>> I am sorry to report that ARIN and the NRO have not risen to this
>> challenge yet. We have not seen any call for input about how to convene
>> an open process – something which is _required_ by both NTIA and the ICG.
>>
>> The RIR’s proposed “process” for developing a proposal has  never been
>> discussed among the ARIN Advisory Council, nor has it been announced or
>> raised on the ARIN PPML. There was never a discussion as to whether the
>> process should be convened at the global level or at the regional level.
>> No mailing list for general discussion of that specific topic has been
>> convened by the RIRs as a whole. The web page ARIN has thrown together
>> about the transition does not describe or propose a process
>> [http://teamarin.net/education/internet-governance/iana-globalization].
>> There seem to be no methods for interested stakeholders to submit
>> proposals for the IANA transition to the RIR community, and no plans for
>> receiving public comment about their draft proposal.
>>
>> Instead, the assumption seems to be that ARIN, and APNIC and other RIRs,
>> will collect random “input” from poorly publicized face to face sessions
>> at their regional meetings, and then their staff will decide what the
>> proposal will be. There seem to be no plans for collating and analyzing
>> that input. There are not even plans for opening the RIRs proposals to
>> public omment.
>>
>> Even worse than ARIN’s vacuum, APNIC has started off its ”consultation”
>> process by putting in front of the community the staff’s own view as to
>> how the new IANA should look, which calls into question the neutrality
>> of the process.
>>
>> These process failings make the RIR’s proposed transition proposal
>> extremely vulnerable to challenge. Any aspect of the IANA transition
>> that cannot demonstrate a fair process and broad support from across the
>> spectrum of stakeholder groups is likely to attract criticism and to
>> fail the NTIA’s test. I am urging the RIRs to wake up and take this
>> transition process more seriously. In my opinion, the following criteria
>> need to be met before the RIRs can claim to have run a legitimate
>> process:
>>
>> 1)      There must be a global, open mailing list devoted specifically
>> to the numbers part of the IANA transition. Not existing regional lists.
>>
>> 2)      The draft proposal developed jointly by the RIRs must explicitly
>> respond to public input
>>
>> 3)      The final proposal developed jointly by the RIRs must be subject
>> to public comment on a global basis before it is submitted to the ICG
>>
>> Milton L Mueller
>> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Politicas mailing list
>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas