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

Mon Oct 24 15:16:50 EDT 2011

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.

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.

Postel¹s frustration about this governmental intervention prompted him to
look for other options. He approached the Geneva based International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) 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