ICANN's Sense Of Entitlement Takes Over; Shocked It Lost Its Bid To Retain IANA
from the oops dept
Via Lauren Weinstein, we find out that ICANN has effectively lost its bid to retain control over IANA functions, though the fact that everyone else sucks too means it gets to hang on for at least six more months. In the meantime, though, it appears the whole thing took an always out-of-touch ICANN by surprise:In a worrying turn of events, it appears that ICANN had no idea about the rejection of its bid for long-term running of the IANA contract prior to an announcement being posted on the NTIA's website today.IANA is the part that manages the authoritative root servers and important things like IP address allocations. ICANN has run that (along with its core functionality of overseeing DNS) basically since all of this was set up when lots of people realized that perhaps relying on one guy (as brilliant as he was) to manage the entire internet wasn't the best solution. The fact that ICANN didn't breeze through the IANA RFP is an interesting result, and as Lauren Weinstein notes, it's as if ICANN has taken on quite an entitlement viewpoint:
The organization - which has run the IANA functions for over a decade - is also waiting to hear why the US government feels it has failed to meet the RFP criteria that defined a new, more open approach to the contract.
In a series of sudden and unexpected announcements earlier today, the NTIA first announced it was canceling the entire rebid process for IANA, then that it was canceling it because no one had met its criteria, and then that it was extending ICANN's IANA contract for six months to give it time to re-run the RFP process.
In my view, ICANN's behavior of late regarding the NTIA has been something like the Wall Street firms vs. their ersatz regulators -- a sense of entitlement and "we're too important to be replaced" plowing forward with the domain-industrial complex's "get rich quick" agenda, with only lip-service being paid to NTIA. As I said earlier today, I would expect ICANN to find a way to come into "technical" compliance for now. But I still also feel very strongly that we need a purpose-built replacement for ICANN that will not carry its ever increasing political and "domainer" baggage. Not the UN. Not the ITU. But a new international forum that cares about all the Internet's users, not mainly the monied domain exploitation interests at the top of the DNS food chain.If only there were real efforts being made to move in that direction...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Non Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non Government
I nominate the IETF. "We believe in rough consensus, and working code."
Mike, glad you finally got the message (re: Lauren Weinstein). He was on top of SOPA/PIPA long before all the rest of us were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm...
Why the hell does worldwide arbitration of domain and IP policing lie somewhere in the bowels of the US public service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm...
From their web site...
The ICANN Board of Directors consists of fifteen voting members ("Directors"). The Directors serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN, and not as representatives of the entity that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies. In order to ensure broad international representation on the Board, each of ICANN's five Geographic Regions shall have at least one Director, and at all times no region shall have more than five Directors on the Board (not including the President). Each of the following is considered to be a "Geographic Region": Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean islands; Africa; and North America.
There are bio pages for all of the board members so you can see for yourself their affiliations, their qualifications and seemingly more important to you, their nationality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yes well we must be careful...
But seriously they could end up causing even more harm by putting in someone that might like users, but hate content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yes well we must be careful...
I think if you look after the users the content will look after itself - If users want content then they will get it - if not ...who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the anti-piracy efforts taught us anything is that being a distributed network makes it much more resilient and impervious to external attacks. And the way the US are heading now, we need this badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DNSSEC might be distributed, but who defines the precise numbers in a DNS message which says it is a DNSSEC message? IANA.
Going even lower, who defines the precise number in IP packets which say they are a TCP or UDP or whatever packet? IANA.
And so on. All the protocol codes which define the common language spoken by the lower levels of the Internet are registered with IANA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of people have been complaining about ICANN, both that they did not used to allow for more gTLDs to be formed, then that they did. And both complaints have been valid; the original gTLD's are effectively just extra US ccTLDs (especially in legislative context, see Recent Events), but new ones like .biz and .xxx seem very much of the money-grabbing and even extortion-as-a-business-model type.
ICANN's role, is more political than technical, the actual running of the root servers is done by other parties, and IMHO they are doing a pretty good job. As such, one would expect ICANN to be shouted at no matter what they do.
But recently, shouting has occurred much more often, and much more loudly, and it is likely to be caused by policy changes. So it may very well be possible that the goal of this rejection is simply to put them 'back on track', as it were.
However, given the vague description they supplied, and again, given Recent Events, it may also be that they do indeed want to force new IP-related rules in there. Originally I was wondering how; this is the root zone, and they can hardly shut down an entire TLD if they don't agree with something, can they? If you want to lose control over everything really fast, this would be a good direction to take.
What I fear most is that they want to force these rules through proxy; enforce them in the contracts that are signed for the TLDs, thereby introducing SOPA/PIPA/etc. again, but as contract law instead of actual law.
But, if so, once again, really, are they *trying* to lose control? While most alternative proposals have been mostly naive and not ready, it really is easy to set up a different root, from a technical point of view. The 'root of the DNS' is based on trust; the world uses the current one because it is what the world uses, not because we can't use alternatives. The problem with alternative roots is creating critical mass to use it, and so far, they have done a good enough job so that critical mass won't be reached. But if they mess it up too well there may very well be a lot of incentive to agree upon a different root.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rent Out The IP Space
Uncooperative users, who insist on having a large address space without paying, simply get allocated some official address space by their ISP. If they generate any packets with a return address not in their official address space, those packets get dropped, as happens already. Routers at ISPs perform this function. The ISP controls their own routers, not the user. Thus, address conflicts do not occur.
Using NAT (Network Address Translation), even large organisations can happily exist with only small address spaces, due to the existence of 16-bit port numbers. These effectively extend the address space, however one computer typically has dozens or hundreds of ports open at the same time. The effective address space would be around 40 bits, or 1 trillion end computers.
This scheme would be similar to the way in which governments charge rent for radio spectrum space. The advantage of it is to delay the exhaustion of the IP V4 address space. Wasteful allocations have largely caused the present near-exhaustion situation. Wasting IP address space would become costly to users. The accountants would then talk sense into the users.
Of course, IP V6 renders the address space exhaustion problem moot, provided foolishly large allocations are avoided this time. However, IANA may still like to have the revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rent Out The IP Space
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rent Out The IP Space
With revenue, IANA could fund all kinds of worthwhile open source development projects, to the ultimate benefit of the public. Of course, any large pot of money will attract criminals. Situation normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rent Out The IP Space
Large portions of the IPv4 range is being wasted by small block sizes. At the same time, large under-utilized blocks are also wasting lots of IPs.
As for these large companies that have huge blocks, they don't pay anything for them as they were grandfathered in.
In order to make them pay for those IP blocks, the original contract would have to be changed. Unless you're saying it should be legal for one party of a contract to change the contract without permission from the other party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rent Out The IP Space
DNS has to be a bit more responsive to address changes. Users can keep stable internal IP addresses, using the magic of NAT. Broadband routers support that just fine today.
Sure old contracts come to an end. That happens with contracts all the time. Various people are going to have hissy fits. So? Situation normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?... Acronym nightmare
This one I got.
IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
This one I got as well, but after this was mostly lost reading the article. Only got the drift of it.
NTIA - National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Never heard of it, was forced to use the "Google Acronym Translator" to figure it out along with the following...
RFP - Request for Proposal
Has to to with government bidding for contracts.
And just when I wasn't confused enough we get...
ITU - International Telecommunication Union
The United Nations specialized agency for information and communication technologies.
I realize some of these things were from direct quotes, but most of us don't work in IT or spend time on Capital Hill to decipher the gibberish. First time I've ever read read a Techdirt article without completely understanding what
I have read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?... Acronym nightmare
RTFM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replacement for Jon Postel
In a sane world, IANA would be run by the Internet Society from tomorrow.
http://www.internetsociety.org/
Of course we don't live in a sane world, but one dominated by macho politics. IANA will remain with ICANN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, you should do a better job identifying the people you quote from. Understanding that this person does and stands for explains much of the way the story is written (almost more slanted than your posts!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanted: Internet Governance Group with only The Least Capable at the Helm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanted: Internet Governance Group with only The Least Capable at the Helm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Domainers and domainers are two different groups of people
The Domainers whose influence the article critique are not the same as the domainers who do the hard daily work of keeping the DNS working in the spirit of Jon Postel, R.I.P.
The problem people are the commercial domain-selling business execs who sit at the top of companies like Verisign and Afilias/NBT group and who often seem to put their personal profit above the infrastructure they are paid to maintain. These are the people who gave us .biz, the *.com record and lots of smaller such misfeatures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]