US to relinquish control of Internet

Paul Ferguson fergdawgster at mykolab.com
Fri Mar 21 18:41:23 UTC 2014


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On a related note, another great way to keep track of new ICANN
registry agreements is the gTLD Tech mailing list:

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-tech

...and the gTLD Notification list:

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtldnotification

I have found both to be quite informative.

$.02,

- - ferg



On 3/19/2014 12:51 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:

> Patrick:
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> <http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control>
>>
>> 
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>
>> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14mar14-en.htm>
>>
>> 
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm>
>> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14mar14-en.htm>
>>
>>
>> 
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 interested. 2.  How does it impact operators? 3.  What do
> operators want out of the evolution that is likely to take place?
> 
> Discussions are taking place now in a few fora, including on the
> IAB's internetgovtech mailing list[1], 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[2]
> 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.[3]  There is a separate 1net mailing list[4] 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.[5]  So
> have others.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> [1] https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech [2]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-iana-framework-01 [3]
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12562.html
>
> 
[4] http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> [5] 
> http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/cisco-supports-u-s-department-of-commerce-decision-to-transition-internet-management-functions/
>
> 
> 
> 
> 


- -- 
Paul Ferguson
VP Threat Intelligence, IID
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlMsh9MACgkQKJasdVTchbK6lAD/Y490eHIfDUE8uBGCvyzYsc7x
zH8VDmDqfGHeZHJ3mTIA/iI1Sw5CX1MFnJHXoiRfSCm+vEz04lNbUoM9gtHpYawE
=Li5v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the NANOG mailing list