Happy Birthday, Internet!

Above: ARPANET logical map, March 1977 (by ARPANET [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

ARPANET went LIVE between UCLA and Stanford Research Institute on this day in 1969:

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet switching network and the first network to implement the protocol suite TCP/IP. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. ARPANET was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense. Packet switching was based on concepts and designs by Americans Leonard Kleinrock and Paul Baran, British scientist Donald Davies and Lawrence Roberts of the Lincoln Laboratory. The TCP/IP communications protocols were developed for ARPANET by computer scientists Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf, and incorporated concepts by Louis Pouzin for the French CYCLADES project. (Wikipedia)

ARPANET facts:

• Location: United States
• Protocols: NCP, TCP/IP
• Established 1969; 46 years ago
• Current status: Evolved into NSFNET
• Commercial? No
• Funding: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (U.S. government)

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN Board and CWG address IANA Trademarks and Domain Name

The ICG requests that the CWG [-Stewardship] communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue [IANA trademarks and domain name] by July 2 at 23:59 UTC.--ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group), June 19, 2015

The CWG-Stewardship (Names community) and the ICANN Board of Directors have both now responded to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) on the subject of the IANA trademarks and domain name:

The CWG-Stewardship response (included in its entirety at the end of this post) essentially states:

•  ICANN is currently the registrant for the iana.org domain and the owner of the IANA trademarks, and since PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, the CWG-Stewardship sees no reason PTI would be unable to make use of the domain name and IANA trademark as needed;
• Addressing the domain name registration and trademark issues is beyond the remit of the CWG-Stewardship alone; 
• The CWG-Stewardship proposal does not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademark[s][and domain name] and therefore in "our firm view" is specifically not in conflict with the CRISP or IANAPLAN (IETF) proposals.

The ICANN Board response, via ICANN Board member Wu Kuo-Wei, on the internal ICG mail list:

ICANN currently holds IANA.ORG and the IANA trademark for the benefit of the community and in support of ICANN's performance of the IANA functions. The [ICANN] board recognizes that the community is considering different models for the maintenance of the iana.org domain name and the related trademarks. The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to use the intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be granted without delay to the new operator or to an entity the operational communities unanimously designate. It is important that any new model should maintain the stability of the technical operations of the IANA functions and continued ability to use the intellectual property associated with IANA for all of the operational communities.

The CWG-Stewardship co-chairs have extended an offer to have a call on July 7th to the leaders of the numbers (CRISP) and protocols (IETF/IANAPLAN) communities. The ICG next meets Wednesday, 15 July at 19:00-21:00 UTC.

Background:

In the IANA Stewardship Transition, the issue of the IANA trademarks and domain name iana.org, have become an issue which Domain Mondo previously reported on, see: IANA Transition: IANA Trademark and Domain Name Controversy Erupts (June 19, 2015) and IANA Trademarks and Domain Name, ICANN or IETF Trust? (June 21, 2015).

ICANN is the lawful owner of the IANA trademarks, and registrant of the domain name, which were originally property of the University of Southern California (USC) where Jon Postel worked, but later assigned and transferred  by USC to ICANN after it came into existence and became the "IANA functions operator."

The IANA trademarks and domain name are not mentioned in the RFP issued by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) to the three "operational communities"--names (CWG-Stewardship), numbers (CRISP), protocol parameters (IETF / IANAPLAN). The CRISP and IETF proposals submitted in January do not provide for any substantive change in their respective contractual relationships with ICANN in regard to the IANA functions--each community (numbers and protocols) has its own separate agreement with ICANN which either party can terminate. The protocols (IETF) proposal did not request any change or transfer of the IANA trademarks and domain name. The CRISP plan however included in its proposal the following:

With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition.

Subsequently, the ICG asked the IETF, sole beneficiary of the IETF Trust, if the Trust would agree to accept transfer of the IANA trademarks and domain name, and the IETF consented.

The CWG-Stewardship response to the ICG via the CWG mail list, July 2, 2015 (emphasis added):

Dear Alissa, Patrik & Mohammed [ICG Co-Chairs]

In response to your request on 19 June, we would like to provide you with additional clarification on the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal text with regard to the IANA trademark.

In order for PTI to operate the IANA naming function as envisioned by the CWG-Stewardship, PTI assumes it will be able to make use of both the iana.org domain and the IANA trademark in the performance of its work. Because ICANN is currently the registrant for the iana.org domain and the owner of the IANA trademark, and since PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, the CWG-Stewardship sees no reason PTI would be unable to make use of the domain name and IANA trademark as needed.   

Beyond the expectation described above, addressing the domain name registration and trademark issues is beyond the remit of the CWG-Stewardship alone, particularly in so  far as these may relate to how the use of the iana.org or IANA trademark impact the work of the other two operating communities. The text within the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal that refers to the trademark is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship, save for as presented as Annex S in the Final Proposal.

In effect, the Final Proposal does not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademark. Therefore it is our firm view that it is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject. To reaffirm this, and to discuss a potential consolidated position, we have extended an offer to the leadership of the other two operational communities for a call on Tuesday, 7 July. We then intend to provide an update for discussion to the CWG-Stewardship at our next meeting on Thursday, 9 July. We are happy to provide you with a subsequent update on the outcomes of both discussions. 

Best wishes,

Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson

Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship

Follow @DomainMondo

Why ICANN Is Fighting for Permanent Control of IANA

In the last few days, the chatter, email "mail lists," and news in the IANA stewardship transition process (convened last year by ICANN as directed by the US government's NTIA), has been swirling around Professor Milton Mueller's postings--see: ICANN wants an IANA functions monopoly – will it wreck the transition process to get it? --about ICANN wanting permanent control of the IANA functions:

Will ICANN staff wreck the IANA transition process to preserve its monopoly on IANA functions provision? http://t.co/jXEVJppe9d

— Milton Mueller (@miltonmueller) April 28, 2015

So why would ICANN care about "monopoly" or permanent control of IANA a/k/a the "IANA functions"?

For the answer, Domain Mondo recommends reading Controlling Internet Infrastructure: The "IANA Transition" and Why It Matters for the Future of the Internet, Policy Paper, April 30, 2015, by Danielle Kehl and David Post (pdf)--excerpt below, emphasis added--

"... NTIA could (and did) extract specific, contractually-enforceable promises from ICANN concerning its governance and decision-making structure and operations, and it included those in ICANN’s “Statement of Work” under the contract. More importantly, because the contract was for a limited period of time (subject to extension by mutual agreement of NTIA and ICANN), NTIA retained the option of re-opening the procurement and awarding the contract to some other party if it was unhappy with ICANN’s performance. NTIA’s ability to re-open the IANA contract procurement was a serious and credible threat to ICANN’s central role in DNS management. It was a serious threat because it would have had severe, and probably fatal, consequences for ICANN. ICANN’s power ripples downward from the Root through the DNS hierarchy. Without the ability to specify the contents of the Root Zone File, ICANN could no longer guarantee TLD operators that their domains would continue to exist in the DNS; those TLD operators could therefore no longer guarantee to 2nd-level domain operators that their domains would continue to exist in the DNS; and so on down the line. And if that were the case, why would a TLD registry operator choose to comply with any ICANN policies or directives, or pay ICANN a fee?... nobody can say for certain how ICANN would have behaved had NTIA not retained ultimate authority over the IANA Functions and the leverage that provided—precisely the question that now occupies center stage..." (Id. at p. 23)

This is precisely why the editor of Domain Mondo proposed an external Trust solution to the CWG-Stewardship which it unwisely discarded in favor of an internal solution based on a model of which one of its own authors admitted:  "While I personally hate the idea of splitting IANA, and think it is a disastrous thing to do, it remains possible in this model as was foreordained by the ICG." (emphasis and link added)

The ICANN stakeholders, in their three separate proposals--Names [now in public comment stage], and Protocols and Numbers as submitted to the ICG--IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group--all incorporate the same "ICG foreordained" disastrous outcome: separating or splitting the IANA functions. Of course, in that eventuality, under each of the three proposals, the wider global multistakeholder community has no standing or voice if and when the IETF ("Protocols"), RIRs ("Numbers"), or ICANN's "Names" (domain names) stakeholders, each decide to separate and/or split IANA or the "IANA functions" or who or what organization(s) end up with the "prize"--control of the Internet Root. What happens then? What prevents "capture" of one or more of the "IANA functions" under that scenario? Who will then control the Internet Root? Where will they be located, under what laws will they be subject, which TLDs will be recognized, and which TLDs will be dropped from the DNS?

Follow @DomainMondo

IANA CWG Chair Tells ICANN 2nd Draft Proposal Incomplete, Needs Work

On 25 April 2015, the ICANN Board held a panel discussion during its Workshop in Los Angeles on the IANA Stewardship Transition proposals from the three communities designated by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) pursuant to the ICANN convened process as directed by the U.S. Department Commerce's NTIA in its March, 2014 announcement (audio above, edited transcript further below):

Numbering Resources (CRISP Team) RIRs "Numbers"
Protocol Parameters (IANAPLAN Working Group) IETF "Protocols"
Domain Names (CWG-Stewardship) ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC, GAC "Names"

Numbers and Protocols submitted their respective proposals in January, 2015, as requested by the ICG timetable. However the Names proposal is still "a work in progress"--its 2nd draft proposal was posted for comment last week (comment period ends May 20). Complicating things further, the Names proposal has "dependency" on the outcome of work now underway by another separate group within ICANN-- CCWG-Accountability--which is developing its own separate proposal for "enhancing ICANN accountability."

CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability have been working "overtime" to meet unrealistic deadlines and timetable imposed by ICANN (note comments of Jonathan Robinson below about "exhaustion") even though Larry Strickling of NTIA has said there is no September 2015 deadline and "the community should proceed as if it has only one chance to get this right." Instead, both working groups, CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability, are "rushing" to meet the ICANN Board/Staff-imposed timetable so the IANA contract, which terminates in September, does not have to be renewed with NTIA. Apparently ICANN is extremely fearful of the Republican-controlled U.S. House and Senate, as well as the possibility of a Republican winning the Presidency in 2016. Or perhaps it is the possibility of international intervention that has them "spooked." In any event, note below the continuing inquiry of the Board: "what can the Board do to help to keep the project on time?"

Participating in the discussion from the respective communities via remote were:
- Andrew Sullivan, (IAB) (Protocols)
- Jonathan Robinson, Co-Chair, CWG-Stewardship & GNSO Chair (Names)
- Jari Arkko, ICG Member and IETF Chair (Protocols)
- Izumi Okutani, Chair, CRISP Team (Numbers)
- Axel Pawlik, NRO Chair (Numbers)

Sally Costerton, Senior Advisor to the President, Global Stakeholder Engagement moderated the discussion.

ICANN Board Workshop–Community Panel Discussion on IANA Stewardship, April 25th: (transcript edited, emphasis added)

Andrew Sullivan: ".... the IETF is pleased to welcome everybody else into the same sort of arrangement that we've had. We've got an arrangement that has never involved the NTIA, and it's running and it's working...."

Jonathan Robinson: "... from a CWG [CWG-Stewardship] transition perspective. And you know that this week we put out a substantially coherent proposal for public comment, 28-day public comment. It's got some rough edges, so that worries me a little. It's not entirely complete. There does need to be some work. And the concern with that is that it depends how those responding to that decide that the refinements both that the group undertakes and that the public comment expects the group to undertake, whether those are deemed to be not so material as to require another public comment. So that's clearly the big issue. Whether or not from a timing point of view we can deal with one public comment, process those public comments, put them into a revised proposal, get them out to the community ahead of Buenos Aires, and then get chartering organization support for that proposal ... Another one [issue] is that one or more chartering organizations feels that they simply haven't had the opportunity to digest the process and deal with the content and the ramifications of it. I think that would be tough because the organizations have had a lot of prior exposure, both through membership of the CWG and repeated communications and output of the group. And then the third issue that we face is this dependency and linking with that of the accountability track.So for me, those are the three challenges. And the challenge with the third one is that group had begun their work a little after the CWG on the stewardship, and yet there is a strong linking between the two. And so that will provide us with potential challenges if there isn't a belief that that work is sufficiently mature from the CWG
on accountability ... I think the Board can help by giving insight into timing. There's some push-back from the community, with good reason in part, from exhaustion and effort and, you know, requirement to commit. So I think to the extent that the timing pressures can be explained and understood, that's helpful."

Sally Costerton: "... one of the questions that came up was the impact of any delay in submission to the NTIA ..."

Jonathan Robinson: "I'm not sure I understand the question. I can speak broadly to timing and timing related issues or...."

Sally Costerton: "The question is whether you had any observations about the impact of any delay, if there is a delay, from the dates that have been stated by the NTIA."

Jonathan Robinson: "I don't think I want to speculate as to the impact of the delay ...."

Izumi Okutani: [CRISP proposal] "... One of their points that we observed as -- caused a misunderstanding about our proposal is that the numbers community want to move away from ICANN as the IANA operator. And concerns have been expressed that this might cause instability in the IANA function. And I really want to encourage them that this is not true ... But at the same time, we find it is very important that our community has the ability to choose the IANA operator, which is actually (indiscernible) already stated in the NTIA's contract with ICANN on the IANA function today. So NTIA has the ability to choose the IANA operator, and we're just replacing the
NTIA with the RIR, which is representing the numbers community. And this is very much in line with the requirements that the NTIA had put in transitioning this stewardship to the open global multistakeholder community...

Sally Costerton: "... I turn this over now to the ICANN board members. And I'm happy either for
you to address a general comment to the room or to the individual -- to the individual participants.
Would anybody like to kick off?... Never have I ever seen us so quiet here..."

Erika Mann: "... I just have a very, very simple question. How do you see the -- if there would be
progress made so that we could have a -- could move forward with the transition period as we ideally hoped in September. So what I would really love to hear from your point of views and the different views and communities you are reflecting on, if you could highlight maybe the major barriers in achieving this and what would have to be done, if at all possible, from the side of the Board and management to help you achieve this?

Sally Costerton: "Thank you, Erika. So who would like to answer Erika's question, which what can the Board do to help to keep the project on time?
If at all. 

Who would like to comment on that?
Nobody would like to comment on that.
Okay. ..."

(read the complete transcript here)

Also, apparently ICANN is now having second thoughts about the proposals from Numbers and Protocols.

Follow @DomainMondo