Latest .Nxt news

ICANN's failure to deal with a flaw in its computer software speaks to a bigger problem with the organization itself

It was supposed to be ICANN's swansong. A program more successful than anyone had dared to expect. An expansion of the Internet that would put the organization at the heart of a revolution; where anyone could apply for any Internet extension they wished.

Even considering its size and scope, the new gTLD project had not been an easy ride. Delays measured in years rather than months. Heated policy debates. High-level politics. And then, just weeks before it was due to go live, a Washington broadside that saw no less than three national newspapers, two Congressional hearings and one highly critical FTC report, all say the same thing: hold off, you're not ready. Despite the pressure, and even admitting that the program was unfinished, ICANN threw itself into the hands of fate and launched on 12 January.

The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the IANA contract has been reissued, with no substantive changes to the meat of the requirements of the IANA function, but plenty of additional contractual clauses added to govern the organization that performs the function.

The key changes at a glance:

• Most obvious: date changes for the submission deadline (now 31 May 2012) and for the new IANA contract dates (now 1 Oct 2012 - 30 Sep 2015).
• Most amusing: the Department of Commerce has, since the November RFP, decided that toxic chemical spills are an unlikely by-product of the IANA function and has removed the relevant contract clause (If you're interested, IANA contractors now don't have to worry about 52.223-13 Certification Of Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (Aug 2003)).
• Most intriguing: the US Government's rights to IANA deliverables are reinforced in multiple ways, from Section F.5, "Government Rights to Deliverables" to Sections H.3, "Patent Rights—Ownership by the Government" and H.5, "Rights in Data—Existing Works".
• Most likely to put non-lawyers to sleep: 21 new contract clauses are listed in Section I. Non-lawyers who don't fall asleep, however, will be rewarded by the idiosyncratic inclusion of Section I.24, "52.223-18 Encouraging Contractor Policies To Ban Text Messaging While Driving (Aug 2011)".

On 17 April, the NTIA reissued its request for proposals for the IANA contract, having unexpectedly cancelled the previous RFP on 10 March noting that no bidder has reached its criteria.

We have carried out a close review of both RFPs and below is a full summary of the changes. We have also produced an analysis of what these changes may mean both for the current IANA contract holder, ICANN, and for the IANA contract itself.

Sections A through to D are unchanged, apart from fixing up a numbered list that included C.4.2 three times in a row, instead of C.4.1 through to C.4.3.

Page 26:

One new sentence added to end of Section E.1, "Inspection and acceptance":

"The Government reserves the right to inspect the premises, systems, and processes of all security and operational components used for the performance of all Contract requirements and obligations."

Page 29:

ICANN's new CEO will be named next week, with a final decision on the final four candidates made at a special Board "workshop" this weekend.

Strikingly, none of those in line for the top job have any hands-on experience of ICANN, coming instead from the political, telecoms, business and PR worlds.

It is an unusual bias given the complex and insular world that ICANN inhabits, as well as the fact that the organization is in the middle of a number of significant challenges including: rollout of the new gTLD program; challenges to its authority in the United Nations; redrafting of its key RAA contract; and organizational changes to improve accountability and transparency.

The final selection means that all candidates from the Internet community have been passed over in favor of an outsider.

That decision is believed to stem from the chair of the selection committee, George Sadoswky. Three of the four final candidates have close ties to Sadowsky; as chair of ICANN's Nominating Committee for a number of years, he is known to have a formidable contact book.

Whoever is chosen will come under close scrutiny, and one candidate in particular likely to prove controversial if chosen. Regardless of the final choice, the process has been significantly more thorough than the one used to select the current CEO - a decision widely felt to have weakened the organization at a critical time.

Here then are the final four candidates:

The group tasked with deciding on changes to the annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has finally released its report, complete with 56 recommendations.

The Commission on Science and Technology for Development's Working Group (CSTDWG) improvements report is due to be discussed at the 15th Session of the CSTD on Tuesday 22 May at the United Nations in Geneva.

The working group began with a hostile and combative environment at its first meeting in Montreux, unable to bridge ideological differences separating initial proposals submitted to the WG. But skillful chairing, the movement of divisive discussions on "enhanced cooperation" to a separate venue, and increased levels of trust built between the stakeholder groups over six meetings finally helped produce recommendations that all members could live with.

It is rare that the verbose and determinedly unsexy world of Internet governance hits the mainstream press. So how has it happened twice in one month?

First, on 9 March, there was The Huffington Post warning us that "Internet freedom is again under fire".

Of course, the Huffington Post's editorial policy is based more on how important the author is than what they actually have to say (in this case Washington insider and high-end lobbyist Ed Black).

Internet governance issues hit the mainstream press

But then, in this month's Vanity Fair nothing less than a full and lengthy article titled World War 3.0 has appeared. Internet governance is about to enter the broader populace's minds.

ICANN has formally approved a process for deciding which applications for new Internet extensions will be given priority.

The "digital archery" approach was approved at a special Board meeting last week with details released late Friday. It follows the approach outlined by ICANN staff a fortnight ago at the organization's meeting in Costa Rica - where it was met with significant criticism.

File, sorry, fire when ready

If there are "significantly more" than 500 applications for new gTLDs, ICANN will break applications into batches of 500. It is widely expected there will be between 1,000 and 1,500 applications, and consequently three different groups of applications.

Domain name system overseer ICANN will create a two-tier Internet later this year with thousands of new Internet extensions required to follow different contractual obligations than the existing 21 "generic top-level domains" or gTLDs.

Under the terms of a new contract for the Internet's largest registry - dot-com - published this week for public comment, current owner Verisign will not be obliged to follow many of the new provisions created for new gTLDs.

As operator of the dot-com registry, for example, it will not have to abide by the new trademark protections included in the new gTLD process: the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process (PDDRP), and Trademark Clearinghouse (TC).

It will also not be contractually affected by the radical market shift that ICANN has decided upon where suppliers of domain names (registrars) and operators of Internet extensions (registries) will no longer have to be entire separate entities.

Since the dot-com contract acts as the forerunner of any changes to the other existing registry contracts, it is extremely unlikely that the contractual changes developed over six years for new gTLDs will be applied to any existing extensions.