<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Ian Peter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Perhaps in the context of this discussion it is worth looking at how ICANN<br>
evolved from the work on Jon Postel, how Postel at one stage favoured an ITU<br>
solution, and how the USG reacted to this. What is below combines a little<br>
of my writings with a large input from Wolfgang Kleinwachter. I would urge<br>
you to read this, as it outlines the initial involvement of many players<br>
still involved in internet governance debates.<br>
<br>
<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">Today is the 4th November, 2011 at least here in Fiji, so warm greetings everyone. Ian thank you very much for the opportunity view history through yours and Wolfgang's lenses. I suppose the bidding for the IANA contract starts today so it will be interesting. This helps me to understand context better :)</font><br>
<br>
His (Postel²s) first idea was to use the ³Internet Society² (ISOC),<br>
established in 1992, as an umbrella organization. In 1994 he proposed adding<br>
150 new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) to the existing Domain Name System<br>
consisting of seven gTLDs[7]<br>
<<a href="http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/internet-governance-history-writte
n-2010/#_ftn7" target="_blank">http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/internet-governance-history-writte<br>
n-2010/#_ftn7</a>> and 243 ccTLDs in 1994.<br>
<br>
Postel¹s initiative was not co-ordinated with the US Department of Commerce.<br>
Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), a private company based in Herndon/Virginia<br>
which managed .com, .net, and .org as well as the A Root Server, was rather<br>
angry about such an initiative. In 1992 NSI had been given a contract by the<br>
DOC to be the sole domain name registrar for the three gTLDs .com, .net and<br>
.org. Based on such a monopoly position NSI saw in the emerging domain name<br>
market a grandiose new business opportunity. Consequently, NSI opposed the<br>
Postel plan to introduce 150 competitive gTLDs at this early stage in the<br>
development of a global domain name market. NSI lobbied the US Congress and<br>
the DOC, which finally intervened with Postel¹s plan and stopped the<br>
handover of the DNS management to ISOC and the introduction of 150 new<br>
gTLDs.<br>
<br>
<br>
<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">Very interesting :)</font><br>
Postel¹s frustration about this governmental intervention prompted him to<br>
look for other options. He approached the Geneva based International<br>
Telecommunication Union (ITU)ŠŠ Postel¹s idea was to create a new form of<br>
public-private partnership for Internet Governance by bringing technical<br>
organizations, private sector institutions and intergovernmental<br>
organizations together, launching a bottom-up policy development process and<br>
creating a new form of oversight body for the management of some of the key<br>
Internet resources. Postel pushed for the establishment of an ³Interim Ad<br>
Hoc Committee² (IAHC) which was formed in summer 1996².<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The members of the IAHC were ISOC and Postel¹s IANA, the Internet<br>
Architecture Board (IAB), the International Trademark Association (INTA),<br>
the ITU and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). In 1997<br>
they signed an MOU proposing a new Geneva based structure.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The US Government was unhappy about this, and within a few weeks began a<br>
process to ensure that this plan did not eventuate. Under the Clinton<br>
administration, they began a process to establish an alternative mechanism<br>
for DNS management, and its successive Green Paper and White Paper outlined<br>
a new organization.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Again quoting Kleinwachter,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
³ The European Union supported in principle the idea of privatizing the DNS.<br>
But it criticized the US centric approach of the Green Paper. In a rather<br>
critical comment about the Green Paper the European Commission wrote: ³The<br>
European Union and its Member States would wish to emphasize our concern<br>
that the future management of the Internet should reflect the fact that it<br>
is already a global communication medium and the subject of valid<br>
international interests.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ira Magaziner, US President Clinton¹s Internet adviser and the main<br>
architect of what later became ICANN, replied in a hearing before the US<br>
Congress to the European criticism: ³The purpose of the Commerce Department<br>
proposal is to improve the technical management of the DNS only. The Green<br>
Paper does not propose a monolithic Internet Governance system. Frankly we<br>
doubt that the Internet should be governed by a single body or plan.²<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jon Postel again changed his plans and took active part in the debate which<br>
led to a ³White Paper², published in June 1998 by the US Department of<br>
Commerce.² [ii]<br>
<<a href="http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/internet-governance-history-writte
n-2010/#_edn2" target="_blank">http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/internet-governance-history-writte<br>
n-2010/#_edn2</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The US Government prevailed, and thus ICANN was born.- with a MOU with the<br>
US Government Department of Commerce which included in part ³ICANN will<br>
perform other IANA functions as needed upon request of DOC². Thus ICANN<br>
became a corporation under US law, with a contract to operate from the US<br>
government, despite concerns of many stakeholders.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jon Postel unfortunately died in 1998, just a dew days before ICANN was<br>
formally established,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> From: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org">jcurran@istaff.org</a>><br>
> Reply-To: <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org">jcurran@istaff.org</a>><br>
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:13:23 +0000<br>
> To: Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>><br>
> Cc: <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding<br>
> on November 4<br>
><br>
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
><br>
>> According to RFC 2850 (published in the year 2000), the ICANN's IANA<br>
>> department is acting "as IANA on behalf of the IETF", and its<br>
>> appointment to this role was approved by IAB.<br>
><br>
> Specifically, the IAB believes that it has the ability to<br>
> direct the IANA's range of action, as specifically stated<br>
> in their second IANA NOI response, which notes "... IANA's<br>
> actions are constrained by the technical boundary conditions<br>
> as set by the IETF."<br>
><br>
>> I understand this as implying that in the year 2000, the US Government<br>
>> was not opposed that that perspective on IANA.<br>
><br>
> I'm uncertain how the publication of RFC 2850 implies<br>
> anything with respect to USG position at the time. It<br>
> was well known at the time that both IAB and USG made<br>
> various claims regarding authority to direct the IANA;<br>
> the entire purpose of RFC 2860 was to delineate these<br>
> authorities, in particular with respect to identifiers<br>
> with policy implications.<br>
><br>
>> Now the US Government apparantly believes to have the authority to<br>
>> unilaterally decide who performs the IANA function.<br>
><br>
> And this is unchanged from the first IANA contract issuance<br>
> by DoC. We can all stare at the announcement until we start<br>
> seeing things, but as far I can tell there's a distinct lack<br>
> of evidence of any policy change at this time.<br>
><br>
>> This looks to me like the US Government taking back authority that it<br>
>> had previously given away (or at least pretended to give away).<br>
>><br>
>> So I feel quite justified in asking whether this is a policy change of<br>
>> some kind, or what is it?<br>
><br>
> It is a resolictation of an existing contract to perform specific<br>
> technical tasks. It's not magic, and so far it does not appear to<br>
> be any policy change (although I think we should wait to see the<br>
> actual statement of work to be certain of that...)<br>
><br>
> FYI,<br>
> /John<br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
><br>
> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div><br></div><div>Tweeter: @SalanietaT</div><div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div><div>Cell: +679 998 2851</div>
<div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br></span></font></div><br>