“”The IANA functions include (1) the coordination of the assignment of technical Internet protocol parameters; (2) the administration of certain responsibilities associated with the Internet DNS root zone management; (3) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and (4) other services related to the management of the ARPA and INT top-level domains (TLDs).”
“”The Solicitation will result in a single, no cost (to the Government) contract. The contract will consist of a three-year base period and two separate two-year option periods for a total period of performance of seven years. “”
Therefore the winner of this contract gets no money for operating IANA from the government while imposing on the the operator all the costs of operating it including “necessary personnel, material, equipment, services and facilities, to perform the contract requirements without any cost to the Government. ”
“The Contractor must perform the required services for this contract as a prime Contractor, not as an agent or subcontractor. ”
The Contractor must be a wholly U.S. owned and operated firm
Its a seven year contract.
I’m at the ICANN conference in Dakar where this news is a topic of conversation.
Speculation as to who might want to bid for a zero compensation contract includes major US telecomm and Internet companies, to improve overall relations with DOC/NTIA, as well as universities with endowed technology chairs seeking a higher and more prestigious profile.
Still, the overall thinking – for the moment – is that ICANN will ultimately get it, because to give it to another party would deprive ICANN of the entire technical foundation for its policy function. Still. there will likely be other bidders, and the process will make it easier for DOC to impose numerous “strings” if ICANN wins the re-bid.
“because to give it to another party would deprive ICANN of the entire technical foundation for its policy function”
Is anyone suggesting that is the point?
There is speculation to that end — still, the general presumption is that DOC is not ready to spike ICANN (yet).
Perhaps some folks at ICANN would secretly like to lose the IANA contract, if it means they get to shut down and keep the $50 million reserve fund for themselves as Golden Parachutes….. 🙂
It’s been some time since I looked into it, but I don’t believe one can walk off with the assets of a CA public benefit corporation upon winding it down. The assets must be distributed to a similar organization or organizations serving purposes similar to those for which the PBC was itself organized.
If NTIA and Mr. Strickling had the technical know-how, if they were long-time UNIX wizards, I think they would not hesitate to strip ICANN of its privileges.
I honestly think the only thing that keeps ICANN alive is the fear of disrupting the internet and not having the usual fixit crew on hand.
By analogy, it’s no different than any large company who is at the mercy of their IT department to keep things running smoothly. Even when that department’s competence is called into question, they cannot just start replacing key personnel on a whim.
Perhaps through the solicitation they will discover there are others in the community who could run IANA as well if not better than ICANN but with more transparency and ethical responsibility.
However in my opinion they have reduced this possibility by requiring that the contractor be a US company. This limits the size of the potential pool of qualified applicants.
Folks, there is no reason why someone else can’t run IANA. it won’t break the Internet if this new person is qualified. ICANN will still be able to fly all over the world and talk about stuff and spend lots of money. Just if they want to do something to the root they will need to work tha out with IANA first. Might be nice to have a modicum of checks and balances. I think it is an assumption that they are making that they will ultimately win the contract. When you assume, well you know ass-u-me.
Jp, I agree.
Let’s not forget “IANA” began as one person. At the core, it’s “work” amounts to keeping a list of names and numbers. No matter what anyone says, that is what it amounts to. The burden this carries is not in the technical requirements but in the duty to act transparently and ethically as being a definitive source for certain essential network information.
Sometimes I think ICANN/IANA is delighted to get new “things to do” (e.g. being responsible for the TZ data now, or having the root zone expand by thousands of entries) because it allows them to make more convincing arguments that what they do is complex and beyond the capabilities of anyone else.
I hope I am wrong to think that.