[governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 - more history

Thu Nov 3 16:51:04 EDT 2011

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

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

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111104/5cb2baa6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/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