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

[Adam Peake]

Perhaps NTIA just decided to not award an important contract to an
organization that'll have a new CEO in a couple of months?

Anyway, many rumors here in Costa Rica, but no one seems to know.

Adam




On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> If I may play Internet governance realpolitik analyst for a minute:
>
> The nonrenewal of IANA while a surprise to ICANN, was likely - not at all  -
> a surprise to the EU + other OECD other governments.
>
> Reading between the 'global community' lines in the NTIA statement, it is
> also safe to surmise that the Indian government for sure, quite possibly
> rest of IBSA crowd, plus or minus China, were pre-informed/consulted as
> well.
>
> Because, what a coincidence, on the same day NTIA slaps ICANN upside the
> head, India drops its call for a new global Internet governance body, and
> humbly claims it was 'not well thought out.'
>
> Coincidence?  I think not.
>
> Therefore: there is a broader game underway; whose contours certain folks at
> NTIA know well; as do certain folks in certain other national governments
> who are - players - too.
>
> Given the significance of the IANA function to the global economy, these
> players aren't playing around.
>
> ICANN will have a new and improved plan inside 6 (- 9)  months, or lose the
> game. (My realpolitik calculus that the 6 month renewal will become 9
> months, is that I seriously doubt the Obama admin will want to be talking
> much about - global Internet governance - September - November 2012. For
> some reason, I have this hunch that domestic politics and the Electoral
> College will be more on their minds then ; ).
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Daniel Kalchev
> [daniel at digsys.bg]
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:16 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements"
> for IANA renewal
>
> About the same. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. Yet, Governments change
> in cycles - although it can be argued that the same (insert your favorite)
> sits behind the scenes no matter which 'party' rules. I have no doubt it is
> the same with ICANN and other power concentration bodies.
>
> The problem with this type of 'governance', where you have central body that
> has the power to make decisions on their own is that it conflicts with the
> fundamental architecture of the Internet - a network of networks. Within
> Internet, each network is autonomous, has it's own governing and operational
> structures -- no matter how small or how large that network is. In fact, the
> smallest network is "equal" to the largest network in "rights" over the
> Internet governance, for both have to peer somehow for the Internet to
> exist.
>
> ICANN was created with the concept that such an "organization for sharing
> the responsibility" will be able to handle the task, mainly because all
> stakeholders will be at parity and nobody will be able to point at others
> for whatever failure has happened… we have already seen some (mostly
> political and policy) failures. More are coming with the new gTLD program.
> Then, because ICANN grew "large" some came to the idea that it has to deal
> with international issues and even "infringe" on matters that are considered
> inter-governmental. This is not technical role. It is bound to fail and
> nobody can help it. Of course, there are no culprits, because of the "shared
> responsibility".
>
> About the only way out, with regards to the current situation is if ICANN Is
> brave enough to spin off IANA as separate entity. Failing that, all other
> options will alienate ICANN with it's constituencies and might have it split
> in pieces.
>
> Daniel
>
> On Mar 11, 2012, at 8:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> And the governments’ track record?
>
> From: Daniel Kalchev [mailto:daniel at digsys.bg]
>
> My take on this is that those lobbying will either lobby the Government(s),
> or ICANN (staff).
> For the consequences this does not really matter, unfortunately.
>
> So in the end, it all comes down to whether the community trusts ICANN to
> behave. Unfortunately for ICANN this is sometimes not the case.
>
> Not saying Governments are any better - but we got to this situation by the
> ICANNs track record...
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

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