[kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Fw: [ICANN-discuss] IANA RFP Canceled

Sun Mar 11 18:45:11 EAT 2012

Barrack,

this looks like a serious development...IANA 
oversees the global IP address allocation under  ICANN through a contract signed with the US Govt.  This contract is expiring and so there is need to shop around for proposals (RFP) on the way forward. The cancellation of the RFP leaves more questions than answers..

walu.

--- On Sun, 3/11/12, otieno.barrack at gmail.com <otieno.barrack at gmail.com> wrote:

From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com <otieno.barrack at gmail.com>
Subject: [ISOC_KE] Fw: [ICANN-discuss] IANA RFP Canceled
To: isoc at orion.my.co.ke
Date: Sunday, March 11, 2012, 6:14 PM

Sent from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com>
Sender: icann-discuss-bounces at elists.isoc.org
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:21:23 
To: ISOC icann-discuss<icann-discuss at elists.isoc.org>
Reply-To: joly at punkcast.com
Cc: <x-pubpol at isoc-ny.org>
Subject: [ICANN-discuss] IANA RFP Canceled

http://domainincite.com/ntia-says-icann-does-not-meet-the-requirements-for-iana-renewal/

NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements" for IANA 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.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
please log into
 the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
_______________________________________________
isoc mailing list
isoc at orion.my.co.ke
http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20120311/0f18e971/attachment.htm>