[bc-gnso] NTIA says ICANN does not meet requirements for IANA renewal

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This just in…

http://domainincite.com/ntia-says-icann-does-not-meet-the-requirements-for-iana-renewal/

NTIA says ICANN “does not meet the requirements” for IANA 
renewal<http://domainincite.com/ntia-says-icann-does-not-meet-the-requirements-for-iana-renewal/>
Kevin Murphy<http://domainincite.com/about>, March 10, 2012, 15:21:51 (UTC), 
Domain Policy<http://domainincite.com/category/domain-policy/>

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has dealt a 
stunning blow to ICANN in its bid to carry on running the internet’s critical 
IANA functions.

The NTIA said this hour that it has canceled the RFP for the new IANA contract 
“because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the 
global community”

NTIA thinks that ICANN’s bid was unsatisfactory, in other words.

The NTIA 
said<http://ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/notice-internet-assigned-numbers-authority-iana-functions-request-proposal-rf>:

Based on the input received from stakeholders around the world, NTIA added new 
requirements to the IANA functions’ statement of work, including the need for 
structural separation of policymaking from implementation, a robust companywide 
conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local 
country laws, and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to 
increase transparency and accountability to the international community.

The government may cancel any solicitation that does not meet the requirements. 
Accordingly, we are cancelling this RFP because we received no proposals that 
met the requirements requested by the global community. The Department intends 
to reissue the RFP at a future date to be determined (TBD) so that the 
requirements of the global internet community can be served.

However, it has 
extended<http://ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/notice-extension-internet-assigned-numbers-authority-iana-functions-contract>
 ICANN’s current IANA contract until September 30, 2012.

This means ICANN still has its IANA powers over the DNS root zone, at least for 
another six months.

While the NTIA has not yet revealed where ICANN’s bid for the contract fell 
short, it is known that the NTIA and ICANN’s senior management did not exactly 
see eye to eye on certain issues.

One of the key sticking points is the NTIA’s demand that the IANA contractor – 
ICANN – must document that all new gTLD delegations are in “the global public 
interest”.

This demand is a way to prevent another controversy such as the approval of 
.xxx a year ago, which the Governmental Advisory Committee objected to on the 
grounds that it was not the “the global public interest”.

Coupled with newly 
strengthened<http://domainincite.com/gac-gets-more-power-to-block-controversial-gtlds/>
 Applicant Guidebook powers for the GAC to object to new gTLD application, the 
IANA language could be described as “if the GAC objects, you must reject”.

If the GAC were to declare .gay or .catholic “not in the global public 
interest”, it would be pretty tough for ICANN to prove otherwise.

But ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom has previously stated that he believed such rules 
imposed by the US government would undermine the multistakeholder process.

He told the 
NTIA<http://domainincite.com/icann-fights-government-gtld-power-grab/> last 
June that the draft IANA contract language stood to “rewrite” ICANN’s own 
process when it came to approving new gTLDs.

The IANA functions contract should not be used to rewrite the policy and 
implementation process adopted through the bottom-up decision-making process. 
Not only would this undermine the very principle of the multi-stakeholder 
model, it would be inconsistent with the objective of more clearly 
distinguishing policy development from operational implementation by the IANA 
functions operator.

Since then, language requiring ICANN to prove “consensus” on new gTLD 
delegations was removed, but language requiring it to demonstrate the “global 
public interest” remains.

The game is bigger than petty squabbling about new gTLDs, however.

The US government is worried about International Telecommunications Union 
treaty talks later this year, which many countries want to use to push for 
government-led internet governance.

A strong GAC, backed by an enforceable IANA contract, is one way to field 
concerns that ICANN is not responsive enough to government interests.

It’s tempting to view the deferral of the IANA renewal as an attempt to wait 
out Beckstrom’s tenure as CEO – he’s set to leave at the end of June – and deal 
with a more compliant replacement instead.

UPDATE: Shortly after this story was published the NTIA belatedly released its 
rationale for the decision. Read about it 
here.<http://domainincite.com/ntia-says-icann-does-not-meet-the-requirements-for-iana-renewal/>