Hello Jay -- First, the proper IETF list for this topic is the
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and not the main IETF list!
Also, I trimmed the CC list of individuals.
Next, your questions are, I think, quite pertinent, and are deserving
of an answer. I expect someone will offer some answers.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:02:56 -0500:
}
}
}
}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____________________________________________
