Dear Joop and Jefsey,
This event should not have come as a surprise to
anyone. We all knew the date of the expiration of the
IANA Functions contract. We all knew that a new
procurement was scheduled (sole-source or otherwise),
and we all know that the IANA functions were a topic
of discussion in the WSIS process.
My own contribution on this topic was posted here:
http://www.wgig.org/docs/Comment-Younger.doc
[excerpt]
"We know that a large number of entities took issue
with these sole-source procurements arguing that other
candidates were also well-positioned to handle the
IANA functions. The U.S. Department of Commerce
received commentary from the Internet Multicasting
Service, from Nominet, from CENTR and from other
parties (including a sizable group of U.S. based
NGOs), citing concerns and pointing to organizations
that might be willing to participate in an open and
competitive bidding process these possible
candidates included The American Registry for Internet
Numbers, The Corporation for National Research
Initiatives and The Internet Society, among others.
The overall concern, which was also expressed by
ICANN's own DNSO General Assembly, was ICANN's
performance of the IANA function which many felt
threatened the stability, security, and reliability of
the Internet.
It should be noted that a primary actor, the Internet
Architecture Board, expressed "deep concerns" about
the operation of the protocol parameter function which
were spelled out in a series of formal communiqués
that were transmitted to ICANN including the "IAB
Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform, the "IAB
Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee
Second Interim Report", and the "IAB Response to ICANN
Evolution and Reform Committee Final Implementation
Report". These communiqués from the IAB underlined a
lack of confidence in the current administration of
the IANA."
If anything, the USG is pragmatic and seeks
performance enhancements. Sorry, I don't view the
development as extraordinary; I view it as scheduled,
expected and understandable in view of past
performance and current concerns.
--- JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 18:07 24/02/2006, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >>Description THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
> (RFI) ONLY
> >
> >This appears to be a shot before the bow. (only)
> >And yet. I could imagine responses by Verisign,
> Afilias or Neustar.
>
> They may respond. There are others. I would be
> surprised Google in a
> way or another would miss the opportunity.
>
> >I can't quite understand how this list meets this
> extraordinary
> >development with such silence.
>
> This list is mainly manned by US citizens or by
> people purely
> interested in domain names issues. Domain names
> could survive this
> announcement and ICANN. It was announced by the NTIA
> a few months ago
> and voted by the Congress. Privatising the Internet
> in selling it to
> an American industry Consortium or to an American
> Corporation is to protect it.
>
> There is a time when you are not sure that what you
> do is the proper
> thing to do. Then you shut your mouth. ICANN feigns
> to think it is
> standard procedure. What do you want all these
> idealists, explaining
> that their Internet was democracy for all the
> planet, do when their
> own Govs sells it to merchants?
>
> But probably the best reason of the silence is ...
> who cares? ICANN
> is only here to try get funded. The root is actually
> of no real use.
> A fossile institution. Time has come to get
> professionnal and serious
> about the digital ecosystem multilingual
> communications.
>
> There should be an important meeting about this in
> Geneva 9-11 May.
> But ITU and UNESCO do not please them. After having
> given the
> Internet to the merchants in refusing to cooperate
> with them, they
> are going to give the MGN (Multilingual Global NGN)
> to the
> Governements in hating them.
>
> Great!
> jfc
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com