[bestbits] [governance] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non) transition

[Pranesh Prakash]

Dear Milton,
Thanks for your response.  We aren't in disagreement as to what the 
ICG's role was.  We are however disagreeing as to whether it performed 
it correctly, and more specifically as to what an inconsistency is / 
what goes into compatibility/interoperability.

1. Is it worth noting there might be an inconsistency between one 
community putting forward a jurisdictional limitation ("for negotiation 
with the PTI") and others not doing so, with the protocols community 
stating "The current agreement does not specify a jurisdiction," and the 
names community stating, "?  I think the obvious answer is yes, there 
is.  Did the ICG call this out?  No.

2. Is it worth noting that there might be an inconsistency between one 
community putting forward an all-in-one vision of a "Post-Transition 
IANA", while the other two communities only dealing with "IANA Numbering 
Services Operator" and the other being unclear but stating "there is no 
overlap between organizations because responsibility for each registry 
is carefully delineated" and talking of the "protocol registry operator 
role" (P3.III.5)?    Yes.  Did the ICG call this out?  No.

Now we might disagree on what constitutes an 
inconsistency/compatibility/interoperability, but it seems to me that 
"unworkable in a technical sense" is not the only definition for that, 
nor one that I would choose since workability was a separate criterion.

I support your views on the PTI, as also Paul Wilson's proposal to have 
a staggered transition and how a staggered transition is not lacking for 
completeness.

Regards,
Pranesh

Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> [2015-08-28 
15:02:51 +0000]:
> Pranesh:
> It's clear that you don't quite understand the role of the ICG, and of the decentralization of authority that was implicit in the model for designing the transition.
> The ICG has no authority to rewrite proposals, and in passing on a proposal it does not express "support" for it or "opposition to it. It is not in a position to "call out" jurisdictional issues. The only things the ICG can "call out" or question are:
>
> 1) did the proposal we receive have consensus of the operational community that developed it?
> 2) are there inconsistencies between the proposals, or are they literally unworkable in a technical sense?
>
> The question neither you nor Parminder asks is how much support for your positions regarding jurisdiction was there in the names community? I did not see either one of you in that process advocating a position - correct me if I am wrong. Further, neither of you could convincingly demonstrate that a change of jurisdiction could have commanded a consensus among the global community. I mean, if you completely ignore the issue of WHERE the new jurisdiction would be, or the question of WHAT LAW would be applicable, as Parminder has repeatedly done, it becomes pretty easy, but also meaningless, to complain about jurisdiction.
>
> As a member of the ICG we evaluated the proposals and stitched them together according to our mandate. As a member of the names CWG you probably know (if you followed the process) that I made many of the same criticisms about PTI as Richard Hill, but in the end the current position was the only one that could command consensus. So your view, then, if I understand it, is that ICG should act as a central authority that dictates its preferences to the rest of the community?
>
> If that's not your view, please tell me what positions about the transition could have been both feasible and gotten consensus. If you make such points in your comments they might actually have an impact. Parminder's "rejection in toto" won't, because it's mostly just empty posturing.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> The ICG report, which supports the PTI proposal by the names community, is
>> utterly status quoist, and doesn't address the questions of jurisdiction at all.
>>
>> In fact, it doesn't even call out the attempt by ICANN to ensure that PTI will
>> be US-based (a requirement listed in P1. Annex S).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pranesh
>>
>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2015-08-18 18:38:31 +0530]:
>>> Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
>>> coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition of
>>> ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure, but
>>> the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing of
>>> the sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.
>>>
>>> We have submitted our comments in two parts
>>>
>>> A overall political commentary can be found at
>>>
>>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
>>>
>>> A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the process
>>> is at
>>>
>>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
>>>
>>> In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process
>>> and the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result in
>>> the form of the final proposals on the table.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>> __
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91
>> 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150828/a15c6097/attachment.sig>