[governance] ISOC-NY joins coalition of groups supporting the completion of the IANA Transition - hearing is Weds

Sun Sep 18 18:34:27 EDT 2016

To follow on from Milton's observations, and play politics:

Some people are saying...the fact that it is Senator Ted Cruz who is the leading opponent is actually great news for ICANN.

Since never mind the Democrats, Ted's fellow Republican Senators delight in rolling over, insulting and/or ignoring him whenever possible. Given his treatment of them in DC and on campaign trail.

With jockeying for presidential elections - in 2020  -kicking into high gear as of 11.9.2016,the  best chance for a speedy ICANN transition is Ted's colleagues desire to torpedo Ted self-promoting himself as nominal front runner for 2020, which his sticking it to Obama/bipartisan US Internet policy would help do if he actually succeeded.

So my take: it ain't over til it's over.

Who knows a lame duck session after the election, approving a new Supreme Court justice, might also surprise us all by jamming through other unfinished business with perhaps more bipartisan than party appeal, like ICANN, and TPP...so careful what you wish for! ; )

Under other election scenarios all bets are off, and sooner would have been at least done, if not necessarily done well...given ICANN board and staff prior intransigence/slow-walking the not-small matters of accountability and transparency reform.  NOT because of the time taken to eventually get those reforms through to an acceptable to community standard.

Lee

________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 4:26 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: RE: [governance] ISOC-NY joins coalition of groups supporting the completion of the IANA Transition - hearing is Weds

It's seemed quite unlikely to me that the transition would occur any time before, say, the third year of the next administration, ever since we started missing deadlines on our side in January of LAST year.

MM: This assumes that had we met the January 2015 deadline that Senator Cruz and the alt-right nationalists would suddenly fall in love with the transition. Or that they wouldn’t have noticed that it was happening. THAT is an irrational position. No, had we met the deadline we would be dealing with the same issues and same sources of opposition that we are dealing with now.

Note that the leader of the opposition, Sen. Cruz, is NOT a Presidential candidate and is NOT a supporter of Donald Trump (he refused to endorse him at the Convention). So the idea that this is all happening because it’s an election year doesn’t hold water. Note also that last year we DID get a budget resolution that prevented the transition until this year, so the opposition was even stronger then (not clear whether we will get one this year).

So when Bill and John imply that had we gotten this done last year we would have avoided all these problems I don’t know what they are talking about. But then, politics are not their strong suits.

--MM

Irrational optimists will be the death of us.

On Sep 16, 2016, at 05:57, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org<mailto:jcurran at istaff.org>> wrote:
On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com<mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. John, I'm curious about this letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/journet-to-stathos-31aug16-en.pdf> dated 31 August - it indicates that 15 calendar days notice should be given if the IANA contract is to be extended.

Yes, per the contract, 15 calendar notices notice is required to maintain the option
to renew.  That letter serves as such notice for option year two, without committing
the government to do so.

To Giacomo's question, given today's date and given we have not seen any other correspondence from the US government to ICANN, does this mean the NTIA hasn't exercised its renew option on the IANA contract,

No.  The letter informs ICANN that the USG maintains its _right_ (but not obligation)
to continue the contract.

and so the transition is now irreversible? That's certainly what it looks like to me - but please do correct me if I am mistaken!

See above.
/John

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20160918/631aadf2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t