AW: [governance] Digital Agenda: Commission welcomes improvements in new IANA contract

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

This is from Nelly Kroes website:
 
"In case you missed it, late last week came significant news for Internet governance, as the US government launched tender documents <https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c564af28581edb2a7b9441eccfd6391d&tab=core&_cview=0>  for the next Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA <http://www.iana.org/> ) contract.

You'd be forgiven if you don't know what that means! But in reality, this contract is central to how the Internet works <http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/internet-infrastructure.htm>  and how it is run <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority> . The contractor is ultimately responsible, together with others like the regional Internet registries, for managing key resources which underpin the Internet, so that when you type a domain name into your browser it connects to the right IP address and ultimately the right website. The IANA contract is currently held by an organisation called ICANN <http://www.icann.org/>  (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), and is due to expire in March.

It's no secret that I've disagreed with some of the decisions ICANN have made in the past, and with the way that the legitimate concerns of public authorities are insufficiently taken into account. Nonetheless the "multi-stakeholder" philosophy which it operates is a good one: decisions should be made after consulting a range of people with an interest, from business to civil society, and self-regulation should be encouraged as far as practicable.

The details of the new contract show some promising developments which should help resolve some of the issues with current arrangements. First, there are much better provisions to ensure that the IANA contractor avoids conflicts of interest. These provisions will both avoid damage to credibility and, on substance, ensure decisions are impartial. Second, there are better rules about the how the public interest must be taken into account when agreeing new top-level domain names.

These are both positive steps which I support <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1345&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en> . The contract is still not perfect; for example, it's still restricted to US companies, which is a shame given that the Internet is a resource for the whole world. And there are some improvements that could have been made about determining which law should apply, for example when there are interactions with EU data protection laws.

But, nonetheless, this is a big step forward in ensuring a fairer, global, transparently-governed Internet."

It is also a big step forward, that Nelly Kroes calles the "multistakeholder philosophy" a "good one". 

BTW, is there a difference between "philosophy" and "policy"? Hope no! Just a question.

Wolfgang 


________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von John Curran
Gesendet: Mo 14.11.2011 17:04
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] Digital Agenda: Commission welcomes improvements in new IANA contract


 <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1345&format=HTML <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1345&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en> > 


"The Commission welcomes the publication by the US Government of tender documents for the contract to manage the naming and numbering systems that keep the global Internet running smoothly. The new tender will be subject to a competitive bidding process and its specifications will strengthen the transparency, independence and accountability of the next IANA contractor within the Internet's multi-stakeholder governance ecosystem.
...
The Commission believes greater respect should be given by the IANA contractor to respecting applicable law (such as EU personal data protection laws). The Commission will continue to take the initiative for such provisions in future IANA contracts as part of its efforts to ensure sustainable multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet, in the service of public interest, as a matter of both principle and efficient practice. In that context, it noted with regret that non-US companies are not allowed to compete for the forthcoming IANA contract."


FYI,
/John


p.s. Referencing NTIA IANA Contract solicitation announcement here: 
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/OS/OAM-OSBS/SA1301-12-RP-IANA/listing.html




____________________________________________________________
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