US to relinquish control of Internet
lear at cisco.com
Wed Mar 19 07:51:39 UTC 2014
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.
> 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
2. How does it impact operators?
3. What do operators want out of the evolution that is likely to take
Discussions are taking place now in a few fora, including on the IAB's
internetgovtech mailing list, 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 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. There is a separate
1net mailing list 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. So have others.
More information about the NANOG