14-03-2016, 13:50 #1
[EN] US control of the Internet was just ended
At a luxury hideaway in Morocco, two years of talks on Icann’s running of the Internet finished with a deal to put multiple global stakeholders in charge
Monday 14 March 2016
It’s early March in Marrakech, and a gleaming conurbation of hotels run in the kind of rare equilibrium of slick organisation and genuine friendliness that Tyler Brûlé might dream about.
Inside, the people who run the internet’s naming and numbering systems have been meeting with some of the governments who would rather be doing the job themselves. Eventually they cut a deal, and then negotiators from countries mostly in the northern hemisphere staggered blinking into the sunlight and splayed like lizards around the azure swimming pools, almost too tired to drink. Almost.
What they have agreed is a plan for Icann, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, to end direct US government oversight control of administering the internet and commit permanently to a slightly mysterious model of global “multi-stakeholderism”.
Like any settlement of a long-running conflict, the trick is to spread the unhappiness evenly and not celebrate too much, lest anyone think they’ve lost more than they’d reckoned. Though the French government was still seething over a spat about “dot champagne”, it rallied the naysayers the weekend before the official meeting started. Yet the real worry was the United States.
Larry Strickling, assistant secretary at the US Department of Commerce, is a man who defines jovial calm, but I pity any rug salesman who tries to get one over on him at the medina. He has steadily navigated the US government towards fulfilling its original commitment to Icann’s independence almost 20 years ago, but he has a tough crowd back home. To avoid spooking Republican congressmen or presidential candidates, Icann won’t big up last week’s historic achievement. Make no mistake, though, Thursday 10 March 2016 was a bright shining day on the internet. Internet Independence Day, no less.
But why did we even need a carefully brokered deal to make managing the internet the world’s business, and not America’s prerogative?
When Icann was founded in 1998, the plan was to keep its anchoring contract with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for a year or two, and for Icann to become independent in 2000. But in the meantime, the internet became just too important for the US to let go of the reins.
Shielded by the US, Icann resisted attempts by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union to take over its job. Iana (the Internet Assigned Names Authority, the part of Icann that deals with country codes, internet numbers and protocols) went on being part of Icann, even as other countries felt sure the US must be abusing its power behind the scenes. And Icann’s “multi-stakeholder model” evolved; a hodge-podge of different interests, meeting by conference call, email list and in different cities around the world to manage the domain name system.
But as the millions of dollars of business transacted over the internet became trillions, and the first, second and then third billion people came online, it started to look a bit odd that one government had de jure control of a chunk of the internet. And that this oversight was done via a procurement contract.
Even as Icann staff travelled the world saying “we’re just a technical coordination organisation”, having a California not-for-profit organisation run part of the global infrastructure no longer passed the sniff test.
Under pressure from the EU and others, Icann and the US government took small steps, spelling out their relationship in a deceptively simple document, the Affirmation of Commitments, in 2009. Icann and the US would probably have muddled along together for another decade, with the occasional hand-wave towards global accountability.
And then Snowden happened.
In September 2013, just months after the first Snowden revelations confirmed long-suspected global internet surveillance by the US, the internet’s elders rebelled. Technical organisations around the world issued the “Montevideo Statement”. No one was more surprised than themselves when the sleeping giants of technical organisations woke up and growled that the “recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance” had undermined the trust of internet users around the world. It was time, they said, to hurry up and “globalise the Iana”.
In a prescient flash of political brilliance, Icann’s CEO, Fadi Chehade, made a pact with Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff. Still smarting over the NSA tapping her smartphone, Rousseff announced a global meeting to decide the future of the internet. But just a few weeks before the meeting in early 2014, the US leapt in to grab back the steering wheel from Brazil, announcing it was finally ready to let go of Icann/Iana. There were just a few conditions.
The new oversight model had to be multi-stakeholder. It had to be developed by the world’s internet community, whoever that is. It could not be run by governments. And only the US government could decide if the new model passed the test.
It has taken almost two years, one contract extension, 32,000 emails and 600 meetings to put the plan for the future of the internet together. It comes in two parts; one to transition Iana out of US control (Iana transition proposal) but keep it part of Icann, and the other for a much-needed beefing up of Icann’s anaemic accountability mechanisms.
Last week’s nail-biting days in windowless rooms were dominated by how to keep Icann honest when that’s no longer the NTIA’s job, and how to give governments a role but not a veto overall. The plan has plenty of ugly compromises and, yes, everyone is about equally unhappy with it.
What happens next? After some more intensive lawyering, the plan goes to the US NTIA in April. The NTIA must get it approved before Icann’s contract expires in September, and well before the Obama administration finishes. So far, the signals are good. But in a presidential election year, anything could happen.
Will the internet work any differently? All being well: no. Domain names will go on resolving. Internet protocol numbers will be distributed (IPv6 ones, anyway) And internet protocol parameters will … do whatever it is they do.
And can a multi-stakeholder system of lobbyists, geeks and idealists (but mostly lobbyists) really run a complex technical ecosystem the world relies on? Icann’s board says that just having come up with the plan is “a true demonstration of the strength and triumph of the multi-stakeholder model”. Time will tell.
Última edição por 5ms; 14-03-2016 às 13:52.
14-03-2016, 14:07 #2
What If IANA Transition Was Only a Mirage?
The U.S. government has long had a far-reaching control over the internet's technical center. What will happen now when ICANN's Board puts together a proposal on how to transfer responsibility for certain key functions within the domain name system to the internet community?
Mar 14, 2016
Last week, ICANN had its 55th conference in Marrakech.
The most important result of the meeting is that all parts of the so-called internet community approved that ICANN's Board will send a proposal to the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) which suggests how to transfer responsibility for certain key functions within the domain name system to the internet community (NTIA intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community).
In this plan, in the future, the U.S. will no longer have the special role it has had (ICANN administers IANA functions under a contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce).
The plan that will lead to a change was ordered by the NTIA in March 2014, and according to the timeline, the proposal would be completed already in 2015, so that the old agreement between ICANN and the NTIA did not need to be renewed after September 2015. The timing was very premature and optimistic, something I blogged about in August 2014.
What was the hurry? Because there was already momentum in 2015. Simply, a favorable political climate in the United States.
Why was it optimistic? Because they forgot that an IANA transition also demands that the receiving organization will accept responsibility, namely ICANN. Therefore, one needed to combine the IANA transition with ICAAN accountability to ensure that ICANN would be able to shoulder the responsibility and that there were rules and mechanisms in place if one wanted to hold ICANN accountable.
Now a proposal is finished that contains both parts (IANA transition and ICANN accountability).
In all the press around the plan, there is a reference to the enormous work that was put in before sending it to the NTIA. 600 meetings and telephone conferences, 32,000 emails and 26,000 global work hours. So it's a marathon race that has lasted two years. When the proposal was finalized and approved within the ICANN community, there was every reason to celebrate in the oasis of Marrakech.
What happens now?
The NTIA has received the documents and will evaluate the proposal. They write that several organizations within the U.S. Administration will be involved and also that the U.S. Congress is very interested in the evaluation.
There are a few question marks here. Can such a process move quickly? Just to understand all the documents takes time. Is the proposal finished? Critics would probably point to stream 2 to say that we don't know the total outcome.
Then the question is whether it's going to work. All the documents are basically just a description. Those who wish to be critical can ask themselves if we jeopardize DNS by replacing something that has worked all these years with something we are not sure will work. There is obviously room here for those who want to delay the process by asking for more evidence.
So how big is the chance that everything goes as these marathon runners want? Will we see an end to American dominance in September of 2016?
It may be that the timing is once again optimistic and I wonder how one handles the questions or even negotiations if changes are needed. Who negotiates for a multi-stakeholder community? Is it ICANN, ICG, everyone? Here is already a significant risk. ICANN is the coordinator to make a suggestion. It is done. But such a complex proposal certainly has elements that may be called into question. I hope that ICANN has made a plan to handle communications, arising issues and possible negotiation situations.
What happens if it's delayed? How does a community that has worked two years on a proposal react when the next step is unclear? Here is where ICANN needs a strategy. How do you keep everyone motivated to believe in the ICANN model? It's dangerous if the mood is deflated — ICANN could implode and the energy would be gone. After all, much has been built on the volunteer work of those who believe in a better future.
And the next question. What happens if the plan does not become a reality and American politics put an end to it? Is our view from the beautiful oasis in Marrakech just a mirage, and in reality a desert instead?
The NTIA sparked something in March 2014 which may lead to a serious crisis for ICANN, something that opens up the way for alternative internet governance models. There may be a sure winner here; those who by the new plan get a more independent ICANN without an agreement with the United States and as a backup plan, if it wouldn't work to push through the IANA transition plan, there would be evidence that the ICANN model doesn't work and that the ITU oasis looms.
The NTIA's request for a proposal has put pressure on the community, ICANN and the NTIA. We must hope that the NTIA has good running stamina.
14-03-2016, 16:25 #3
10 Mar 2016
Plano para a transição da supervisão das funções chave da Internet encaminhado ao governo dos Estados Unidos
Finalização do trabalho de dois anos da Comunidade da Internet Global
Marrakech, Marrocos… O presidente da Diretoria da Corporação para a Atribuição de Nomes e Números da Internet (ICANN), Dr. Stephen D. Crocker encaminhou hoje ao governo dos EUA um plano elaborado pela comunidade internacional da Internet que, se for aprovado, liderará a supervisão global de algumas funções técnicas chave da Internet.
"Este plano é um testamento do intenso trabalho da comunidade global da Internet e da força do modelo multissetorial", disse o Dr. Crocker, quem transmitiu um plano em nome da comunidade global. "O plano foi enviado agora ao governo dos EUA para sua revisão e, se ele cumprir os critérios necessários, teremos alcançado um momento histórico na história da Internet".
O plano oferece um pacote abrangente para fazer a transição desde o governo dos EUA da supervisão destas funções técnicas, denominada IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), que são críticas para o funcionamento fluido da Internet. Também propõe maneiras de melhorar a prestação de contas da ICANN como organização inteiramente independente. A transição é o passo final da tão longamente esperada privatização do Sistema de Nomes de Domínio (DNS) da Internet, mencionado pela primeira vez quando a ICANN foi constituída, em 1998.
A Diretoria da ICANN recebeu o pacote de mãos da comunidade durante sua 55 reunião pública em Marrocos e hoje a encaminhou à Administração Nacional das Telecomunicações e a Informação (NTIA) dos EUA.
Em março de 2014, a NTIA anunciou seu desejo de fazer a transição do papel de supervisora das funções da IANA à comunidade multissetorial global. O pacote é o resultado de um debate inclusivo e global entre os representantes do governo, micro e macro empresas, especialistas técnicos, sociedade civil, pesquisadores, academia e usuários finais.
"A comunidade da Internet demonstrou ter uma dedicação extraordinária para a transição da supervisão porque sabemos quão importante é finalizar esse processo", disse Alissa Cooper, presidente do Grupo de Coordenação da Transição da Supervisão da IANA (ICG), que coordenou a elaboração da proposta da transição. "Os usuários da Internet do mundo inteiro se beneficiarão das melhorias na estabilidade, segurança e prestação de contas da governança da Internet uma vez que a proposta ficar implementada".
A comunidade global da Internet trabalhou incansavelmente para elaborar um plano que cumpra com os critérios da NTIA, com mais de 600 reuniões e chamadas, mais de 32.000 trocas de e-mails e mais de 800 horas de carga horária.
O pacote combina os requisitos técnicos de uma transição coordenada pelo Grupo para a Transição da Supervisão da IANA (ICG) e as melhorias na prestação de contas da ICANN identificadas pelo Grupo de Trabalho Intercomunitário para a Melhoria da Prestação de Contas da ICANN (CCWG-Accountability). Ambos os dois grupos estiveram compostos de voluntários que representavam uma grande variedade de interesses de uma comunidade multissetorial mais ampla de Internet.
"Este plano desfruta do mais amplo apoio desta comunidade tão diversa e estou certo de que ele vai satisfazer os critérios da NTIA," disse Thomas Rickert, um dos copresidentes do CCWG-Prestação de Contas. "O trabalho deste grupo demonstra quão bem está funcionando essa proposta multissetorial inclusiva".
Agora, o governo dos EUA vai revisar o pacote para certificar-se de que cumpra os critérios da NTIA. Se o plano for aprovado, a implementação dele deverá ficar finalizada antes do vencimento do contrato entre a NTIA e a ICANN, em setembro de 2016.
Para ver mais comentários (citações) sobre a transmissão do pacote, clicar aqui: https://www.icann.org/resources/page...package-quotes [PDF, 46 KB]
Para acessar os contatos com a mídia das organizações de Internet, clicar aqui: https://www.icann.org/resources/page...press-contacts [PDF, 284 KB]
14-03-2016, 17:11 #4
"Os usuários da Internet do mundo inteiro se beneficiarão das melhorias na estabilidade, segurança e prestação de contas da governança da Internet uma vez que a proposta ficar implementada".
15-03-2016, 10:44 #5