RES: [governance] NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements" for IANA renewal

[Vanda UOL]

Agree, politics in US is impacting all scenarios.... 
icann is not different

-----Mensagem original-----
De: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Em nome de Adam Peake
Enviada em: domingo, 11 de março de 2012 16:42
Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Assunto: Re: [governance] NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements"
for IANA renewal

Perhaps NTIA just decided to not award an important contract to an
organization that'll have a new CEO in a couple of months?

Anyway, many rumors here in Costa Rica, but no one seems to know.

Adam




On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> If I may play Internet governance realpolitik analyst for a minute:
>
> The nonrenewal of IANA while a surprise to ICANN, was likely - not at 
> all  - a surprise to the EU + other OECD other governments.
>
> Reading between the 'global community' lines in the NTIA statement, it 
> is also safe to surmise that the Indian government for sure, quite 
> possibly rest of IBSA crowd, plus or minus China, were 
> pre-informed/consulted as well.
>
> Because, what a coincidence, on the same day NTIA slaps ICANN upside 
> the head, India drops its call for a new global Internet governance 
> body, and humbly claims it was 'not well thought out.'
>
> Coincidence?  I think not.
>
> Therefore: there is a broader game underway; whose contours certain 
> folks at NTIA know well; as do certain folks in certain other national 
> governments who are - players - too.
>
> Given the significance of the IANA function to the global economy, 
> these players aren't playing around.
>
> ICANN will have a new and improved plan inside 6 (- 9)  months, or 
> lose the game. (My realpolitik calculus that the 6 month renewal will 
> become 9 months, is that I seriously doubt the Obama admin will want 
> to be talking much about - global Internet governance - September - 
> November 2012. For some reason, I have this hunch that domestic 
> politics and the Electoral College will be more on their minds then ; ).
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Daniel Kalchev 
> [daniel at digsys.bg]
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:16 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements"
> for IANA renewal
>
> About the same. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. Yet, Governments 
> change in cycles - although it can be argued that the same (insert 
> your favorite) sits behind the scenes no matter which 'party' rules. I 
> have no doubt it is the same with ICANN and other power concentration
bodies.
>
> The problem with this type of 'governance', where you have central 
> body that has the power to make decisions on their own is that it 
> conflicts with the fundamental architecture of the Internet - a 
> network of networks. Within Internet, each network is autonomous, has 
> it's own governing and operational structures -- no matter how small 
> or how large that network is. In fact, the smallest network is "equal" 
> to the largest network in "rights" over the Internet governance, for 
> both have to peer somehow for the Internet to exist.
>
> ICANN was created with the concept that such an "organization for 
> sharing the responsibility" will be able to handle the task, mainly 
> because all stakeholders will be at parity and nobody will be able to 
> point at others for whatever failure has happened
 we have already 
> seen some (mostly political and policy) failures. More are coming with the
new gTLD program.
> Then, because ICANN grew "large" some came to the idea that it has to 
> deal with international issues and even "infringe" on matters that are 
> considered inter-governmental. This is not technical role. It is bound 
> to fail and nobody can help it. Of course, there are no culprits, 
> because of the "shared responsibility".
>
> About the only way out, with regards to the current situation is if 
> ICANN Is brave enough to spin off IANA as separate entity. Failing 
> that, all other options will alienate ICANN with it's constituencies 
> and might have it split in pieces.
>
> Daniel
>
> On Mar 11, 2012, at 8:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> And the governments’ track record?
>
> From: Daniel Kalchev [mailto:daniel at digsys.bg]
>
> My take on this is that those lobbying will either lobby the 
> Government(s), or ICANN (staff).
> For the consequences this does not really matter, unfortunately.
>
> So in the end, it all comes down to whether the community trusts ICANN 
> to behave. Unfortunately for ICANN this is sometimes not the case.
>
> Not saying Governments are any better - but we got to this situation 
> by the ICANNs track record...
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-------------- 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