The domain name industry descends on Hyderabad this week for ICANN's 57th annual public meeting, with a mixed sentiment of excitement and determination as ICANN stands on its own two feet absent US Government oversight. We'll have to get used some new acronyms as a result: PTI -- Public Technical Identifier; and the CSC -- Customer Standing Committee, but otherwise I don't think many of us will notice the difference.
Last month, in a much heralded international event, the agreement that ICANN held with the United States Department of Commerce was permitted to lapse and so ICANN became an independent manager of the Internet's addressing system. While some argued that the organization was not "ready" for the transition, the majority of ICANN's multi-stakeholder community, including Afilias, agreed that sufficient accountability measures were in place to ensure that ICANN remains a responsible (and responsive) international organization.
Following a very successful series of workshops held during IETF meetings, the next Registration Operations Workshop (ROW) is now being held during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Hyderabad, India. While the previous workshops were of advanced topics attended by industry experts, the current one will be more of a tutorial and is open to all interested parties.
October 2016 marks a milestone in the story of the Internet. At the start of the month, the United States Government let its residual oversight arrangements with ICANN over the operation of the IANA lapse. No single government now has a unique relationship with the governance of the protocol elements of the Internet, and it is now in the hands of a community of interested parties in a so-called Multi-Stakeholder framework. This is a unique step for the Internet and not without its attendant risks. How did we get here?
Observers of IANA transition may have found a remarkably interesting fact that both supporters and opponents of the transition like citing China, along with a small number of other countries, as evidence in favor of their arguments. For supporters, take Larry Strickling as an example, blocking transition benefits China in that it will "intensify their advocacy for government-led or intergovernmental management of the Internet via the United Nations." On the contrary...
The transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions is finally in the history books. After almost two years of working groups and multiple rounds of meetings, most of us want to take a long vacation and never hear the acronym "IANA" again. However, the transition is just the beginning. Now is the time for the multistakeholder community to exercise its new authorities and responsibilities to ensure ICANN remains accountable to every internet user.
On August 16 of 2016, the US Government announced its intention to transit the stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function to the multistakeholder community upon the expiration of the IANA function Contract as of October 1 of 2016, barring any significant impediment... This announcement attracts the close attention of Internet community around the world and also in China.
I recently sent a letter to congressional leaders including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid expressing the Domain Name Association's support of the U.S. Administration's planned transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to the global multi-stakeholder community under the stewardship of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
Of all the patently false and ridiculous articles written this month about the obscure IANA transition which has become an issue of leverage in the partisan debate over funding the USG via a Continuing Resolution, this nonsense by Theresa Payton is the most egregiously false and outlandish. As such, it demands a critical, nearly line by line response.
Harvard Professor Karl Deutsch, the late nestor of political science, described world history as the "history of side effects". Political actions, according to his theory, always have side effects which go out of control and constitute new history. The history of the Internet is full of side effects. But this time, we could have special unproductive side effects. A failure of the IANA transition could trigger a process towards a re-nationalization of the borderless cyberspace...