IP Address News

Providing you with a single site about IP Addresses News and Usage

IP Address News - Providing you with a single site about IP Addresses News and Usage

IANA Stewardship Transition

NRO logoLast week the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP team), released their final report to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).   The CRISP team was formed to create a unified transition plan for the RIRs for global stewardship of number resources.

This processes started in March 2014 with the US government announcing its intention to not renew its existing IANA functions contract.  The USG called for the Internet community to create a plan to handle the stewardship functions that the USG currently performs.  ICANN & the Internet community responded by eventually creating the ICG group to coordinate the response requested by the USG for a transition plan for the stewardship functions.

The RIRs eventually created mailing-lists to start the discussion from which several governance ideas were considered.  The CRISP group was then modeled based on the existing NRO model to create a unified transition plan in response to the ICG’s request for proposals.

The final proposal calls for only minor changes to the current structure of IANA stewardship functions.  Primarily, it calls for a new contract to be created between the RIRs and the IANA operator to replace the current US government contract (via the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) with ICANN for the IANA functions.   The response to the ICG does not call for a separate oversight organization and presumes that the current IANA operator, ICANN, will be contracted to fulfill the existing functions.  The proposal also makes it clear that the RIRs are the contracting party in this relationship and should have the power to change the IANA number resource functions operator in the future if it deems this is necessary.

The IETF IANA Plan working group has also finished its proposal to the ICG with regard to Internet protocol identifiers which are also currently managed by the IANA under the same ICANN contract.

Still outstanding is the response from the most complicated area of governance, the names region.  Its Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions is still working on its response to the ICG.

Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community (Copy)

Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA protocol parameters registries  (Copy)

US government to move away from its current role in Internet governance

The US government announced on Friday that they will not renew the existing contract between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN for the IANA functions.  The current contract expires on September 30, 2015.  This announcement is good news for those who have called for the USG to relinquish their “special oversight ” status in Internet governance.

It is unclear what, if any, effect this will have on the IP addressing world.  IP addressing has always seemed to be at the edge of ICANN’s concerns.

The announcement called for building a plan for the transition and ICANN responded with an announcement about their response to the announcement.

Additional commentary from other news sources:

IPv6 Deployment Survey

The NRO has posted a new survey of IPv6 Deployments worldwide.

A few highlights that I noted while reading through the survey report.

  • The survey includes responses from 1515 respondents from 131 countries
  • 61% of respondents still indicate issues with vendor support
  • Cost and business case as a factor to not deploy IPv6 continues to drop
  • IPv4 run-out appears to be a driver to deploy IPv6 according to some respondents
  • Biggest issues to IPv6 deployment continue to be user demand & technical problems
  • The number of respondents using or planning to use CGN (Carrier grade NAT) is increasing from 15% in 2012 to 18% in 2013

IPv6 Deployment Survey   (copy)

WCIT-12 Wrap up

Back in December, I wrote a short post during the middle of the WCIT-12 in Dubai.  At that point, it was still unclear which way the final acts of the treaty negotiations were going to go.  I had intended to write a follow up post shortly after the meeting finished, but various things got in the way and I kept collecting articles from about the outcome.  The articles kept piling up and I delayed writing this post.  It seems now that most of the commentary about the WCIT-12 has been written and the focus is now starting to shift to how the Internet Governance world moves forward.

In the end, it appears to me that the outcome was not really what most of the stakeholders wanted.  The US and other western democracies walked away from the treaty after language was inserted into the treaty which appeared intended to bring Internet governance into the scope of the ITU-T.  The USG also appears to have objected to the procedural methods of the final treaty text negotiation.  The only thing that seems clear is that the various nation-states and other stakeholders around the world have different visions on how the Internet should be regulated and managed going forward.

Here is the rather large collection of articles and a few select quotes, with a number of differing viewpoints, I’ve collected over the past 2 months since the end of the meeting.

U.S. Rejects Telecommunications Treaty

Talks on a proposed treaty governing international telecommunications collapsed in acrimony on Thursday when the United States rejected the agreement on the eve of its scheduled signing, citing an inability to resolve an impasse over the Internet.

While the proposed agreement was not set to take effect until 2015 and was not legally binding, Mr. Kramer insisted that the United States and its supporters had headed off a significant threat to the “open Internet.”

The United States has consistently maintained that the Internet should not have been mentioned in the proposed treaty, which dealt with technical matters like connecting international telephone calls, because doing so could lead to curbs on free speech and replace the existing, bottom-up form of Internet oversight with a government-led model.

U.S. Refuses to Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions

US and UK refuse to sign UN’s communications treaty

Ambassador says US “cannot sign the ITU regulations in their current form”

Internet Safe From Globalized Censorship as UN Treaty Fails

ICANN Blog: WCIT…In Conclusion

I [Fadi Chehadé] used this opportunity to engage with the many delegations in Dubai in support of our remarkable multistakeholder model. I was pleased that we received public assurances from ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Touré that neither Internet resources nor ICANN would be the subject of the WCIT treaty. During the past fortnight there has been much debate on many issues – much discussion, argument and many long nights. In the end, however, we are pleased the final text of the International Telecommunications Regulations does NOT include reference to ICANN’s work.

The UN’s telecom conference is finally over. Who won? Nobody knows

Hamadoun Touré, the ITU Secretary-General, suggested it was ridiculous to exclude the internet when it comes to global communications policy.

“If the word internet was used frequently here in Dubai, it is simply a reflection of the reality of the modern world,” he said. “Telecommunication networks are not just used for making voice calls, so our two worlds are linked.”

The treaty was supported by 89 countries in the 193-member U.N. telecom union. About 55 did not vote, including about 20 Western nations and the United States. Other nations did not have representatives with enough rank to cast a vote.

WCIT-12 Disappoints, More Work to Be Done

America’s First Big Digital Defeat

The open Internet, available to people around the world without the permission of any government, was a great liberation. It was also too good to last. Authoritarian governments this month won the first battle to close off parts of the Internet.

At the just-concluded conference of the International Telecommunications Union in Dubai, the U.S. and its allies got outmaneuvered. The ITU conference was highly technical, which may be why the media outside of tech blogs paid little attention, but the result is noteworthy: A majority of the 193 United Nations member countries approved a treaty giving governments new powers to close off access to the Internet in their countries.

U.S. diplomats were shocked by the result, but they shouldn’t have been surprised. Authoritarian regimes, led by Russia and China, have long schemed to use the U.N. to claim control over today’s borderless Internet, whose open, decentralized architecture makes it hard for these countries to close their people off entirely. In the run-up to the conference, dozens of secret proposals by authoritarian governments were leaked online.

ITU head Hamadoun Touré, a Mali native trained in the Soviet Union, had assured that his agency operates by consensus, not by majority vote. He also pledged that the ITU had no interest beyond telecommunications to include the Internet. He kept neither promise.

WCIT Denouement

US Department of State: World Conference on International Telecommunications

There are a number of issues that were critical to the United States in these negotiations. Number one, recognized operating agencies versus operating agencies. The United States consistently sought to clarify that the treaty would not apply to internet service providers or governments or private network operators.

Number two, spam. The United States position remains that spam is a form of content and that regulating it inevitably opens the door to regulation of other forms of content, including political and cultural speech.

Number three, network security. The United States continues to believe that the ITRs are not a useful venue for addressing security issues and cannot accede to vague commitments that would have significant implications but few practical improvements on security.

Number four, internet governance. In several proposals, it was clear that some administrations were seeking to insert government control over internet governance, specifically internet naming and addressing functions. We continue to believe these issues can only be legitimately handled through multi-stakeholder organizations.

And finally, number five, the internet resolution. This document represented a direct extension of scope into the internet and of the ITU’s role therein despite earlier assertions from Secretary General Hamadoun Toure that the WCIT would not address internet issues.

WCIT and Internet Governance: Harmless Resolution or Trojan Horse?

ITU Phobia: Why WCIT was derailed

This blog post asks you to discount both the happy talk coming from the ITU and the ridiculous claims from the US and its allies that the ITR revisions constituted an aggressive new push into Internet regulation by states. Below, we cut through the spin and explain how a phenomenon we will call ITU-phobia contributes to the polarization of Internet governance.

This much is clear: the real crux of the US-led objectors was not the substance of the ITRs. There are a few strident, increasingly strained attempts to find demons in the ITR language, and to come up with ever more outlandish scenarios regarding the potential for trouble in the future. But these scenarios, as we shall see, lack plausibility. In reality, rejectionism was fueled by the debate over Resolution #3 and the decision by the ITU to rely on voting rather than consensus.

NRO Observations on WCIT-12 process

Neither the content of this conference, nor its conduct during this critical final period, have met community expectations or satisfied public assurances given prior to the event.

Internet stakeholders around the world watched the WCIT preparations closely, and were hopeful, throughout those processes, of two things: that WCIT would have no bearing on the Internet, its governance or its content; and that the event would allow all voices to be heard.  The ITU Secretary General himself made these assurances on multiple occasions, and reiterated them in his opening remarks to the conference.

Regrettably, expected WCIT discussions on traditional telecommunication issues were eclipsed by debates about Internet-related issues.

Looking forward to a future Internet

Much Ado About WCIT-12 and Multi-Stakeholderism

The US based its arguments and opposition to the final treaty on five key issues, namely: (i) a perceived risk of applying the treaty to Internet Service Providers, governments or private network operators, (ii) spam, (iii) network security, (iv) Internet governance, and (v) the extension of the scope of the ITRs to include the Internet. Although the US arguments are fervent and sound coherent, many of them on closer examination are found to have more holes than Swiss cheese. Indeed, much of the sanctimonious noise from the US is mainly about protecting its national interest, and not genuine multi-stakeholderism.

Let’s keep this dead horse alive, so we can beat it some more

A lot of people invested tons of money and effort to characterize the ITU’s WCIT, which was organized to revise the 1988 International Telecommunication Regulations, as an attempt to regulate or “take over” the Internet. That Godzilla-sized threat quickly shriveled to the size of a small, squashable bug in December, as the US and its supporters got the ITU to accept almost every U.S. demand to keep the telecom regulations away from the Internet. As noted in a earlier blog post here, the revised ITRs not only do not “take over” the Internet, they say nothing about the Internet at all. And still, the US and 54 allies refused to sign it, because they objected to a nonbinding resolution which allowed the ITU to keep discussing Internet governance.

The Continuing ITU Meltdown

2012 WCIT Meeting Beginning of Long Internet Cold War Between Authoritarians and Liberal Democrats

“Multi-Stakeholderism” and the Internet Policy Debate

Recent ITU-sponsored processes, such as the revision of the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) at the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), have stimulated much debate about the manner in which telecommunications policies, particularly international frameworks for telecommunications policies, are formulated. One view is to use our existing institutions and forums to consider such matters, and use traditional representation-based mechanisms to bring various national perspectives into an international context of policy formulation. Another perspective that has come to prominence in recent years is to use a framework of direct participation in policy formulation, and directly involve the various stakeholders in the process of formulating common policies.

 

IANA Contract Awarded to ICANN

After a withdrawal in the contracting process in March, the US Government via the National Telecommunication & Information Administration (NTIA) renewed its contract with ICANN for the IANA operations functions earlier this month.  The new contract begins in October of 2012 with an initial 3 year term.  Two 2-year terms are included as options in the contract.  There was some speculation back in March as to the reasoning behind the awkward process, but a reset appears to have renewed the contract as was originally expected.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-management-key-internet-functions-icann

Copies of the contract are linked from the NTIA’s website for those who want to dig into the details of the new agreement.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal

ICANN has also posted their proposal to the US Department of Commerce on their website.

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-09jul12-en.htm

 

IANA Contract renewal – any effect on the IP address world?

On March 10th, the US Department of Commerce, through the NTIA, released a statement that they were cancelling the RFP for the renewal of the IANA contract.  ICANN was seen as the “shoe-in” to receive this contract but according to various reports the process was cancelled because the USG felt the bid did not meet the specifications of the expanded RFP.  There is plenty of speculation about what is happening, specifically around the expansion of the global Top Level Domains (gTLDs), but only time will tell how the contract renewal plays out.  As a result of the cancellation, the existing contract with ICANN for the IANA services was renewed for 6 months presumably to start the process over or to step back from the current structure and look at some new structure.

So what does this have to do with IP addresses, isn’t ICANN all about DNS?  Well to the largest extent ICANN’s main coordination has been about the DNS, but the last “N” in ICANN has always been “Numbers.”

What does this potentially mean for the RIRs?  Since most of the RIRs were formed before ICANN existed, there has always been a bit of an arms length relationship between the RIRs and ICANN.  The current relationship is governed by an MOU that was signed in 2004 between ICANN and the NRO.   Under the current agreement the NRO acts as the ICANN ASO – Address Supporting Organization.  To date, the role of the ASO has been limited largely to certifying global IP number policies (which direct IANA to perform functions related to IP numbers) and appointing two seats to the ICANN board.  Does this open an opportunity for the  RIRs & NRO to part ways from ICANN and move forward by allowing the NRO to become a global coordinating body?  Or is this just another hurdle in the development of “Internet Governance”?

Additional Commentary: