(As if the US has "control" anyway....) It's all over the "popular press", strange I haven't seen it here. <http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm> Etc., etc. It's nice of the DoC to "relinquish" control, but I really don't see it changing much other than quieting down some hype from countries that were saying they were pissed at the US for "controlling" the Internet. And I couldn't really see those countries doing anything about it unless the US did something actually bad, which they wouldn't do IMHO. Was I being a pollyanna? -- TTFN, patrick
On Mar 14, 2014, at 9:19 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I look forward to the ITU equitably allocating domain names and IP addresses.
While it is not possible to know what will happen in the future, we do have some idea of what _won't_ happen:
From <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/qa_-_iana-for_web_eop.pdf> - "NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government or an inter-governmental organization solution."
FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
I look forward to the ITU equitably allocating domain names and IP addresses.
"NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government or an inter-governmental organization solution."
Let's hope you're right, but I note that the ITU isn't an inter-governmental organization, it's (depending on which part of their web site you believe) a specialized agency of the United Nations, or an organization based on public-private partnership since its inception, with a membership of 193 countries and over 700 private-sector entities and academic institutions. Sounds totally multistakeholder to me. Unhelpfully, John PS: And the ITU is definitely not a solution.
On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:13 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
"NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government or an inter-governmental organization solution."
Let's hope you're right, but I note that the ITU isn't an inter-governmental organization, it's (depending on which part of their web site you believe) a specialized agency of the United Nations, or an organization based on public-private partnership since its inception, with a membership of 193 countries and over 700 private-sector entities and academic institutions. Sounds totally multistakeholder to me.
Unhelpfully, John
PS: And the ITU is definitely not a solution.
Excellent point... given that ITU's (full) Members are governments, I suspect it would be deemed an inter-governmental organization, but in the end it's the NTIA's views on this question that will actually matter. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Mar 14, 2014, at 8:13 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I look forward to the ITU equitably allocating domain names and IP addresses.
"NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government or an inter-governmental organization solution."
Let's hope you're right, but I note that the ITU isn't an inter-governmental organization, it's (depending on which part of their web site you believe) a specialized agency of the United Nations, or an organization based on public-private partnership since its inception, with a membership of 193 countries and over 700 private-sector entities and academic institutions. Sounds totally multistakeholder to me.
The United Nations _IS_ an inter-governmental organization and the ITU would be considered part of the UN in this context, I believe. Owen
Let's hope you're right, but I note that the ITU isn't an inter-governmental organization,
It was able to obtain a delegation for ITU.INT, so it's inter-governmental enough in DNS terms.
Yes, it was delegated a month before TPC.INT was. Could you clarify the point you're making? R's, John
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:17 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Let's hope you're right, but I note that the ITU isn't an inter-governmental organization, It was able to obtain a delegation for ITU.INT, so it's inter-governmental enough in DNS terms.
Yes, it was delegated a month before TPC.INT was. Could you clarify
the point you're making?
The ITU is an agency of the United Nations. Which is an organization created by treaty, of which various nations' governments are members. How is the ITU _not_ an Inter-governmental organization? If it is not, then what kind of organizations does the NTIA memo say will be excluded?
R's, John
-- -JH
The ITU is an agency of the United Nations. Which is an organization created by treaty, of which various nations' governments are members.
Actually, the ITU is more than twice as old as the UN, and merged with the UN in 1947. As noted in a previous message, the ITU has both government and non-government members, more of the later than the former, which arguably makes it a multi-stakeholder entity. I entirely believe that NTIA doesn't want the ITU involved with ICANN, but the ITU has made it abundantly clear over the years that it wants a seat at the table, preferably its own table. I listened to the ICANN press conference this morning, the gist of which was don't worry, nothing will change, but once the NTIA opens up the ICANN management contract (or whatever it's called these days) to other parties, keeping the ITU out will be a challenge. R's, John
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
The ITU is an agency of the United Nations. Which is an organization created by treaty, of which various nations' governments are members.
Actually, the ITU is more than twice as old as the UN, and merged with the UN in 1947. As noted in a previous message, the ITU has both government and non-government members, more of the later than the former, which arguably makes it a multi-stakeholder entity. I entirely believe that NTIA doesn't want the ITU involved with ICANN, but the ITU has made it abundantly clear over the years that it wants a seat at the table, preferably its own table.
I listened to the ICANN press conference this morning, the gist of which was don't worry, nothing will change, but once the NTIA opens up the ICANN management contract (or whatever it's called these days) to other parties, keeping the ITU out will be a challenge.
R's, John
Yes, the ITU is a very old agreement. It's also been more or less painless to us on the low end of the ladder even though of late they are doing their best to screw it up. Personally, I'm not too terribly worried about ICANN. Granted, the politicians have gotten markedly more efficient at converting gold into sh** in recent years but I think it will take them quite a while to royally fk up the internet, especially if they are relying on going through ICANN to do it. What's the worst they can do at this point? Make .bobtodd and .bubbagump TLDs? This is different from some of the crap we've got now in what way?? -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
What's the worst they can do at this point? Make .bobtodd and .bubbagump TLDs? This is different from some of the crap we've got now in what way??
Well, ICANN has come pretty close to delegating .HOME and .CORP to domain speculators, despite the vast amount of informal use which would get badly screwed up. Like I said, I look forward to the ITU equitably delegating domain names and IP addresses. Sorry the US has enough names already, the next ten million go to underserved areas. And since we know that phone numbers work great with per-country prefixes, we're going to improve the DNS so domain names always start with the country code. R's, John
What's the worst they can do at this point? Make .bobtodd and .bubbagump TLDs? This is different from some of the crap we've got now in what way??
I’m not too worried about what they could do to TLDs… It would be hard to make a bigger mess than ICANN already has. On the other hand, I am very concerned about what they would do to the numbers side of things.. Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
What's the worst they can do at this point? Make .bobtodd and .bubbagump TLDs? This is different from some of the crap we've got now in what way?? I’m not too worried about what they could do to TLDs… It would be hard to make a bigger mess than ICANN already has.
On the other hand, I am very concerned about what they would do to the numbers side of things..
Owen
And try to horn their way into the standards side of things. Can you say X.25? Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On the other hand, I am very concerned about what they would do to the numbers side of things..
Just keep their grubby paws off the IETF and the internet standards process..... I doubt there's much reason for concern. IPv4 is pretty much already spoken for, and probably even they could not screw up IPv6 allocation. It's not as if they would be free to invent crazy new numbering schemes. I'm not too worried about what they could do to TLDs... It would be hard to
make a bigger mess than ICANN already has.
What comes to mind is scrapping WHOIS due to "privacy concerns", and replacing it with a filing with a private national authority for the TLD, accessible primarily to law enforcement (and not incident responders/operators/infosec/anti-spam people). How TLDs COULD be screwed up worse than ICANN...... introducing "regional TLDs", for coded regions (similar to DVD region locking), and region-locking existing TLDs --- Or certain agreements and fees will be required for an ISP to "subscribe" to a certain TLD, including agreement to pay kickbacks for "Data transfer" and termination fees related to DNS queries and site access, according to rate schedules that the receiving country will be free to set, however exorbitantly they like ---- to the benefit of certain countries desiring to limit access or charge access fees for subscription to out-of-region DNS content; and splitting the root zone, so that domains registered in a certain region cannot be resolved in other regions,
Owen
-- -Mysid
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
(As if the US has "control" anyway....)
It's all over the "popular press", strange I haven't seen it here.
<http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm>
Etc., etc.
It's nice of the DoC to "relinquish" control, but I really don't see it changing much other than quieting down some hype from countries that were saying they were pissed at the US for "controlling" the Internet. And I couldn't really see those countries doing anything about it unless the US did something actually bad, which they wouldn't do IMHO.
Was I being a pollyanna?
With respect, I don't think so. John Springer
-- TTFN, patrick
(As if the US has "control" anyway....)
It's all over the "popular press", strange I haven't seen it here.
<http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm>
Etc., etc.
It's nice of the DoC to "relinquish" control, but I really don't see it changing much other than quieting down some hype from countries that were saying they were pissed at the US for "controlling" the Internet. And I couldn't really see those countries doing anything about it unless the US did something actually bad, which they wouldn't do IMHO.
Was I being a pollyanna?
Yep, way to optimistic. The world always wants the success of capitalism as long as they don't have to create the climate for it, they just want it handed to them. Once they have it they turn it back toward socialism and proceed to F%^$ it up. Gee, sound like the direction our system's been trying to go in for the last 6 years. Bob Evans
-- TTFN, patrick
Bob Evans wrote:
(As if the US has "control" anyway....)
It's all over the "popular press", strange I haven't seen it here.
<http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm>
Etc., etc.
It's nice of the DoC to "relinquish" control, but I really don't see it changing much other than quieting down some hype from countries that were saying they were pissed at the US for "controlling" the Internet. And I couldn't really see those countries doing anything about it unless the US did something actually bad, which they wouldn't do IMHO.
Was I being a pollyanna? Yep, way to optimistic. The world always wants the success of capitalism as long as they don't have to create the climate for it, they just want it handed to them. Once they have it they turn it back toward socialism and proceed to F%^$ it up. Gee, sound like the direction our system's been trying to go in for the last 6 years.
Not for nothing, but what does capitalism have to do with this? The Internet was a creation of a combination of Government investment (not just US mind you, the ARPANET was not the only early network that ended up merging into the early Internet, there were European networks as well). Today's Internet is a cooperative endeavor that is not "owned" by anyone (the pieces, of course, are); and the governance is mostly a cooperative endeavor (yes ICANN is under contract to the US Government, but primarily operates on its own). Capitalism, if anything, is a negative factor in the mix - as evidenced by the practices of some of the backbone owners and particularly the large cable and telephone companies who own a lot of the network edge (at least in the US, where access costs are higher, and bandwidths are lower, than some far more socialist countries). Now one can argue about under- and over- regulation; and who is to do the regulating (treating US carriers under common carriage regimes would, IMHO, would have positive results. Handing ICANN over to the ITU would create a bureacratic nightmare, for example). But that's a separate issue entirely - and coincidentally, the issue on the table. As to being a pollyanna: I agree, way to optimistic. But not for reasons having to do with communism vs. socialism - but for reasons of a proven system that works vs. handing control over to bureaucrats who might F&^k it up. Personally, I think the caveats that NTIA has attached to "relinquishing control" sound like somebody has got it right - handing ICANN over to, say ISOC might work very well (nobody complains about ISOC control of the IETF). The question is, whether political pressures will lead to a horribly bad decision. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Patrick: On 3/15/14, 12:42 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
(As if the US has "control" anyway....)
It's all over the "popular press", strange I haven't seen it here.
<http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm>
Etc., etc.
It's nice of the DoC to "relinquish" control, but I really don't see it changing much other than quieting down some hype from countries that were saying they were pissed at the US for "controlling" the Internet. And I couldn't really see those countries doing anything about it unless the US did something actually bad, which they wouldn't do IMHO.
Was I being a pollyanna?
How things change is up to every person in the community. Operators are an incredibly important part of the Internet ecosystem. Some questions you might want to ask yourself: 1. What is the current legal framework for the IANA functions contract? If you don't know it, it's a good time to learn, if you are interested. 2. How does it impact operators? 3. What do operators want out of the evolution that is likely to take place? Discussions are taking place now in a few fora, including on the IAB's internetgovtech mailing list[1], where the focus has largely been on protocol parameters, one of the IANA pillars. Olaf Kolkman has written a very interesting draft draft-iab-iana-framework[2] that gives you at least one view on how to think about the problem. The IETF has some draft principles that are being knocked around.[3] There is a separate 1net mailing list[4] in which mostly the ICANN component is being discussed. Also, there will be meetings, the ICANN one starting on Friday in Singapore, as but one example where this topic will be discussed in person. I'm going to hazard a guess that the RIRs will also be discussing this, both on lists and in person. Assuredly other governments are paying attention. While I speak only for myself in this email, I will also point out that Cisco did make a statement about the NTIA announcement.[5] So have others. Eliot [1] https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-iana-framework-01 [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12562.html [4] http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss [5] http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/cisco-supports-u-s-department-of-commerce-decisio...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On a related note, another great way to keep track of new ICANN registry agreements is the gTLD Tech mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-tech ...and the gTLD Notification list: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtldnotification I have found both to be quite informative. $.02, - - ferg On 3/19/2014 12:51 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Patrick:
On 3/15/14, 12:42 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
(As if the US has "control" anyway....)
It's all over the "popular press", strange I haven't seen it here.
<http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control>
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14mar14-en.htm>
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm>
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm>
Etc., etc.
It's nice of the DoC to "relinquish" control, but I really don't see it changing much other than quieting down some hype from countries that were saying they were pissed at the US for "controlling" the Internet. And I couldn't really see those countries doing anything about it unless the US did something actually bad, which they wouldn't do IMHO.
Was I being a pollyanna?
How things change is up to every person in the community. Operators are an incredibly important part of the Internet ecosystem. Some questions you might want to ask yourself:
1. What is the current legal framework for the IANA functions contract? If you don't know it, it's a good time to learn, if you are interested. 2. How does it impact operators? 3. What do operators want out of the evolution that is likely to take place?
Discussions are taking place now in a few fora, including on the IAB's internetgovtech mailing list[1], where the focus has largely been on protocol parameters, one of the IANA pillars. Olaf Kolkman has written a very interesting draft draft-iab-iana-framework[2] that gives you at least one view on how to think about the problem. The IETF has some draft principles that are being knocked around.[3] There is a separate 1net mailing list[4] in which mostly the ICANN component is being discussed. Also, there will be meetings, the ICANN one starting on Friday in Singapore, as but one example where this topic will be discussed in person. I'm going to hazard a guess that the RIRs will also be discussing this, both on lists and in person. Assuredly other governments are paying attention.
While I speak only for myself in this email, I will also point out that Cisco did make a statement about the NTIA announcement.[5] So have others.
Eliot
[1] https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-iana-framework-01 [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12562.html
[4] http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[5] http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/cisco-supports-u-s-department-of-commerce-decisio...
- -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlMsh9MACgkQKJasdVTchbK6lAD/Y490eHIfDUE8uBGCvyzYsc7x zH8VDmDqfGHeZHJ3mTIA/iI1Sw5CX1MFnJHXoiRfSCm+vEz04lNbUoM9gtHpYawE =Li5v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (13)
-
Bob Evans -
Eliot Lear -
Florian Weimer -
Jimmy Hess -
John Curran -
John Levine -
John R. Levine
-
John Springer -
Miles Fidelman -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul Ferguson -
Wayne E Bouchard