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

[Carlos A. Afonso]

My turn to say: good point! :)

--c.a.

On 03/10/2012 04:12 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> Perhaps the next IGF should have some sessions focusing on the nature of,
> and a definition for "the global public interest".
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 9:23 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements" for
> IANA renewal
>
>
> Thought i'd share the following news that is popping up on twitter regarding
> NTIA's IANA renewal RFP...
>
>
> NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements" for IANA renewal
> http://domainincite.com/ntia-says-icann-does-not-meet-the-requirements-for-i
> ana-renewal/
>
> Kevin Murphy, March 10, 2012, 15:21:51 (UTC), Domain Policy
>
> The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has dealt a
> stunning blow to ICANN in its bid to carry on running the internet's
> critical IANA functions.
>
> The NTIA said this hour that it has canceled the RFP for the new IANA
> contract "because we received no proposals that met the requirements
> requested by the global community"
>
> NTIA thinks that ICANN's bid was unsatisfactory, in other words.
>
> The NTIA said:
>
> Based on the input received from stakeholders around the world, NTIA added
> new requirements to the IANA functions' statement of work, including the
> need for structural separation of policymaking from implementation, a robust
> companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened
> respect for local country laws, and a series of consultation and reporting
> requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the
> international community.
>
> The government may cancel any solicitation that does not meet the
> requirements. Accordingly, we are cancelling this RFP because we received no
> proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community. The
> Department intends to reissue the RFP at a future date to be determined
> (TBD) so that the requirements of the global internet community can be
> served.
>
> However, it has extended ICANN's current IANA contract until September 30,
> 2012.
>
> This means ICANN still has its IANA powers over the DNS root zone, at least
> for another six months.
>
> While the NTIA has not yet revealed where ICANN's bid for the contract fell
> short, it is known that the NTIA and ICANN's senior management did not
> exactly see eye to eye on certain issues.
>
> One of the key sticking points is the NTIA's demand that the IANA contractor
> - ICANN - must document that all new gTLD delegations are in "the global
> public interest".
>
> This demand is a way to prevent another controversy such as the approval of
> .xxx a year ago, which the Governmental Advisory Committee objected to on
> the grounds that it was not the "the global public interest".
>
> Coupled with newly strengthened Applicant Guidebook powers for the GAC to
> object to new gTLD application, the IANA language could be described as "if
> the GAC objects, you must reject".
>
> If the GAC were to declare .gay or .catholic "not in the global public
> interest", it would be pretty tough for ICANN to prove otherwise.
>
> But ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom has previously stated that he believed such
> rules imposed by the US government would undermine the multistakeholder
> process.
>
> He told the NTIA last June that the draft IANA contract language stood to
> "rewrite" ICANN's own process when it came to approving new gTLDs.
>
> The IANA functions contract should not be used to rewrite the policy and
> implementation process adopted through the bottom-up decision-making
> process. Not only would this undermine the very principle of the
> multi-stakeholder model, it would be inconsistent with the objective of more
> clearly distinguishing policy development from operational implementation by
> the IANA functions operator.
>
> Since then, language requiring ICANN to prove "consensus" on new gTLD
> delegations was removed, but language requiring it to demonstrate the
> "global public interest" remains.
>
> The game is bigger than petty squabbling about new gTLDs, however.
>
> The US government is worried about International Telecommunications Union
> treaty talks later this year, which many countries want to use to push for
> government-led internet governance.
>
> A strong GAC, backed by an enforceable IANA contract, is one way to field
> concerns that ICANN is not responsive enough to government interests.
>
> It's tempting to view the deferral of the IANA renewal as an attempt to wait
> out Beckstrom's tenure as CEO - he's set to leave at the end of June - and
> deal with a more compliant replacement instead.
>
>

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