Hi Stef,
What you describe is a *best* case scenario.
I suspect that this contract is the first transfer
of assets from the USG to ICANN. Unless this contract
states otherwise, I doubt that the USG is planning on
retaining any control over these ISI functions.
If I am correct, ICANN will be placed in a supervisory
role over all IPv6 assets as described in this recent
IETF draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-iana-tla-01.txt
The IAB and IESG have authorized the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) as the appropriate entity to
have the responsibility for the management of the IPv6
address space as defined in [ALLOC].
[The IETF appears to be vesting its authority in the IANA.
NIST appears to be transferring control of the IANA to ICANN.
In other words, the IETF appears to be vesting its authority in
*ICANN*. I'm copying this to the IETF for obvious reasons.]
I further suspect that the USG will claim that their
control over the "A" root is the continuing supervision
called for in their MoU.
Then again, maybe I'm just being cynical.
Jay.
At 1/12/99, 03:39 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Thanks Roeland for helping us to understand what that Commerce
>Business Daily beastie is;-)... I had come separately to the same
>conclusion in more general terms, to wit:
>
>ISI really wanted to get out of the legal line of fire, as they have
>been gun shy ever since the IOD suit in which USC discovered just how
>big their liability risk was regarding bad decisions made by IANA,
>with or without Jon Postel.
>
>So, all that is happening here is a contract is being let through
>ICANN to IANA, and I expect that ICANN's authoprity over IANA will be
>about the same as ISI's was -- Namely nil. Becky at NTIA will remain
>in control of real decisions while ICANN will administer the details
>of keeping IANA going.
>
>And, Remember, IANA is also funded by ISOC for RFC Editing;-)...
>I expect this also is being shifted to flow through ICANN.
>
>So, in some sense this is just a little plumbing repair job;-)...
>
>Cheers...\Stef
>
>From your message Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:26:09 -0800:
>}
>}Hello Stef,
>}
>}I just spent a few moment looking at this. FWIW, here is my analysis. It is
>}not as badd/good as we think it is. I'm copying Gordon Cook becasue he's an
>}old USG hack and can backup/refute my analysis.
>}
>}At 06:07 PM 1/10/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>}>Hi Elliot -- It looks very much like we in ORSC have been ssandbagged
>}>yet again by NTIA delaign 3with ICANN without public notice of planned
>}>events.
>}>
>}>We were given to understand by Becky Burr that ICANN woudl not get the
>}>nood until they had demonstrated adequate consensus in the Internet
>}>Community.
>}>
>}>So far, I and many otehrs see absolutely no progress and have no
>}>confidence whatever in ICANN management of our affairs.
>}>
>}>Please explain what this is and what we should expect next.
>}>
>}>Bear in mind that we trusted Becky to protect us from what now looks
>}>like a simple hand over following a short delay without any progress
>}>on the part of ICANN.
>}>
>}>I assure you this is not going to go well out here in the Internet.
>}
>}First point, they almost *have* to do this. There is hope in here as well
>}as worry.
>}
>}>>From Commerce Business Daily, January 6, 1999 PSA-2256
>}>INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY
>}>Category : <D> (Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunication Services)
>}>Address : National Institute of Standards & Technology, Acquisition &
>}> Assistance Div.,100 Bureau Drive Stop 3572, Bldg. 301, Rm B117,
>}> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3572Sol. no. : 52SBNT9C1020
>}>Contact : Teresa A. Reefe, Contract Specialist (301) 975-6364 or Lisa K.
>}> Jandovitz, Contracting Officer (301) 975-6344Due : 18 Feb,
>}>1999
>}> SOL 52SBNT9C1020 DUE 021899 POC Teresa A. Reefe, Contract Specialist
>}> (301) 975-6364 or Lisa K. Jandovitz, Contracting Officer (301) 975-6344
>}> WEB: NIST Contracts Homepage, http://www.nist.gov/admin/od/contract.htm.
>}> E-MAIL: NIST Contracts Office, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The National Institute
>}> of Standards and Technology (NIST), on behalf of the National
>}> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) intends to award
>}> a contract under the authority of 41 USC 253(c)(1), only one responsible
>}> source, to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>}> (ICANN) for operation of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. The
>}> Department of Commerce has initiated an effort to transition the
>}> technical management of Internet Names and Addresses from the Government
>}> to the private sector.
>}
>}Up to here, it is standard boiler-plate. The "one responsible source"
>}language is an every awarded contract, even if there were a 100 bidders.
>}The theory is that whoever "wins" the contract is the one responsible
>}source by default. The only way this is otherwise is when the contract gets
>}split, as in th 1988 FAA contract with IBM/Raytheon. In that case there
>}were two responsible parties and the duties were split (IBM handled the
>}computer-side and Raytheon handled the RADAR/Sensor side). Hughes Ground
>}Systems Group (HAC/GSG Fullerton, California) was the other major bidder.
>}Another example is the Space Station contract, McDonnel Douglas was a major
>}player and so is Ford Aerospace. There are a number of responsible parties
>}on that one, each with their own part.
>}
>}> In June, 1998, the Department issued its
>}> Statement of Policy which outlined the steps of the transition. The
>}> Department through NTIA has since entered into a joint project agreement
>}> (15 U.S.C. 1525) with ICANN, a non-profit entity. Pursuant to this JPA,
>}> the parties will "jointly design, develop and test the mechanisms,
>}> methods and procedures that should be in place and the steps necessary to
>}> transition management responsibility for DNS functions now performed by
>}> or on behalf of the U.S. Government to a private sector non-profit
>}> entity". NTIA is initiating this contract action to fulfill its need for
>}> continuity of services related to the technical management of Internet
>}> Names and Addresses during the transition described in the Statement of
>}> Policy and the JPA.
>}
>}This, so far, is consistant with the MoU between NTIA and ICANN from last
>}Nov98.
>}
>}> This particular aspect of the technical management,
>}> the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), is currently covered in
>}> a contract between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
>}> and the University of Southern California (USC) in project known as
>}> Teranode Network Technology (TNT). On December 24, 1998, USC, entered a
>}> transition agreement under which ICANN acquired the expertise and
>}> resources to perform the IANA function described in the TNT contract.
>}
>}Again, this covers ICANN absorbing ISI last Oct-Nov98. They had to do this
>}in order to continue funding IANA. Without it, IANA would have died due to
>}lack of funds. ICANN didn't have the funding to support IANA and the USG
>}had already cut their budget from NSF/NTIA/DARPA/whatever. I would wager
>}that this was done as an emergency measure. BTW, does any one have access
>}to the original TNT contract?
>}
>}> Pursuant to its agreement with USC, ICANN now possesses the unique
>}> attributes and characteristics specific to the IANA functional tasks. To
>}> ensure the success of the transition described in the Statement of
>}> Policy and the JPA, the Department must ensure the continuityof the
>}> services necessary to support the IANA function.
>}
>}As I stated above, the second part of this statement is true. However, the
>}first part would not be true had ICANN not already absorbed the IANA.
>}
>}> Further, ICANN has
>}> unique attributes to fulfill these tasks in compliance with the
>}> principles in the Department's Statement of Policy, including
>}> comprehensive, public, and transparent processes, mechanism and
>}> structures for making policy determinations that the U.S. Government
>}> seeks to have performed during the transition.
>}
>}Here is where it is marginally defensible. They are stating here that ICANN
>}meets the SOP. I believe that FACA has something to do with their SOP and
>}ICANN is not compliant, at all, as Dave Farber has pointed out. I might
>}point out that USG contract-speak is every bit as bad as Internet
>}techo-speak. Someone might want to ask Farber or maybe Tony can clarify.
>}
>}> The period of performance
>}> is estimated to be from date of contract award through September 30,
>}> 2000. Posted 01/04/99 (W-SN284696). (0004)
>}
>}This is the good news. Long-term contracts are 60 months, medium term is
>}24-36 months, and anything less is a short-term contract. This is
>}definitely short-term. Note that the end date coincides with the NTIA MoU.
>}They said two years in the NTIA MoU and it looks like they meant it. Two
>}years from Sep98 comes out to Sep00.
>}
>}The upshot is that iff ICANN doesn't meet FACA, for a substantial portion
>}of the duration of the contract, they could lose the contract, even if the
>}USG has to take IANA away from them to do so. The bad part about this is
>}that the USG is very much prone to status quo. In order for that to happen
>}there has to be a *substantial* amount of noise about opaque processes in
>}ICANN, for most of the two year term of this contract. This shouldn't come
>}a surprise to anyone. I've been saying this since Nov98. Remember how
>}depressed I was over this a few weeks ago, Stef? This is why. I think Chris
>}is seeing this too.
>}
>}We need verification that FACA is part of NIST/SOP. If it isn't, we have a
>}much harder trail then we think.
>}
>}
>}___________________________________________________
>}Roeland M.J. Meyer -
>}e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>}Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
>}Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
>}Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
>}___________________________________________________
>}I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing...
>} -- Thomas Jefferson
>}
>}
>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
