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

Fri Sep 12 08:41:50 BRT 2014

Buenas sugerencias, Roque.

Reenvié mi mensaje ayer a esta lista, pero mi email no estaba en la
misma. De todos modos, el mensaje está incorporado al mensaje de Ernesto.

Esta sirve tb como prueba de suscripción...

[]s frats

--c.a.

On 09/12/2014 04:57 AM, Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) wrote:
> Ernesto,
> 
> Gracias por la aclaración.
> 
> Creo que al diagrama de la página le falta información sobre cómo el NRO va a proceder a tomar las propuestas de las 5 regiones y crear su respuesta al ICG. Ese proceso parece ser lo que reclama Milton con la creación de una lista global. Aclarar este punto sería un importante aporte a este proceso
> 
> También creo que sería bueno que si hay debates a través de teleconferencias, publicar en la lista de correos las minutas de forma muy rápida. Esto creo que es importante por varias razones: no todo el mundo puede participar de las discusiones “live” y queda testimonio que la discusión está ocurriendo (hoy la lista no tiene tráfico).
> 
> Un abrazo!
> Roque
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ernesto Majo
> Date: Thu Sep 11 2014 22:10:43
> To: politicas at lacnic.net<mailto:politicas at lacnic.net>
> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] concerns regarding the IANA IP addressing function in the transition process
> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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
> 