ICANN

URL = http://www.icann.org/

Description

Susan Crawford:

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, coordinates name and number identifiers for the Internet. In a nutshell, ICANN coordinates actors who make sure that there is only one .com in the list of top level domains (like .com, .net, .org, and .edu) to which most Internet access providers around the world refer. ICANN also makes sure that these top level domains are linked to the “right” Internet Protocol addresses of the machines that have information about second-level domains underneath them (like google.com). It’s also responsible for coordinating the allocation of IP addresses, although the Regional Internet Registries do the work. It has contracts with the registries and registrars who provide, respectively, wholesale and retail services in connection with registering domain names. (It has looser relationships with the country-code top level domains like .de and .fr.) ICANN’s source of contractual authority comes from its status as a provider of services to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

And that’s it. Names and numbers; very simple; and it used to be that just one man with a long white beard named Jon Postel did this work on his own. Now, as of mid-2008, ICANN has a US$61 million budget and more than 100 employees." (http://publius.cc/2008/05/20/susan-crawford-icanns-constitutional-moment/)

Details

Rob Beckstrom:

"ICANN and its governing bodies were created to keep the global Internet secure, stable and interoperable, and this is critical to ensure that the world stays connected. Its principle function is to coordinate the domain name system and Internet protocols and parameters, the backbone of the Internet.

You need a numerical IP address to connect to the Internet, and as humans we need names to make sense of those numbers. You can only have one name on a network or your browser would end up at a different website each time and your email would pop up in someone else’s inbox.

So how does ICANN actually do this?

Here is a very oversimplified answer. Imagine the Internet as a big three-layer cake. At the bottom layer are the pipes and protocols that connect devices and define how communication takes place.

The second layer is the traffic, where devices are identified with specific addresses that are turned into names so that we humans can navigate around the Internet. This is the layer ICANN is involved in.

And the top layer is applications and content: your company’s website, your child’s computer games, your email program.

Living as we do in layer two, ICANN does not engage in how ISPs build or run their networks in the first layer, nor do we get involved with the content and applications of the third. By providing a functioning, evolving and neutral second layer, we facilitate changes in the other two, independently, accurately and often extremely swiftly. We make sure that addresses are unique and connect you to the person or website intended. And that means that the Internet works reliably, predictably and smoothly.

The ICANN model: structure and values

ICANN was set up in 1999 by the US government with support from the Internet community because both recognized that they needed an organization to manage this complicated relationship between machines and humans.

With great insight, it was decided that ICANN would be private sector led and multi-stakeholder, while recognizing the legitimate role of governments in public policy. Its approach was – and remains – inclusive. If you are interested in the Internet, you are welcome to take part at ICANN. There is no other requirement.

So a series of groups representing many different stakeholders was created. The business community, non-commercial organizations, the technical community, the domain name industry, Internet registrars, registries and individual Internet users are all represented. A Governmental Advisory Committee was formed along with a policy-setting Board of Directors made up of elected representatives from each group. And the door is always open for other groups and individuals to take part.

This multi-stakeholder model is at the heart of our accountability to everyone who cares about the future of the Internet. It is responsive. It is transparent. It is multi-layered and includes international, national, and even local interests.

In some ways this is much like TÜTED. Both organizations are a forum for the interests of many stakeholders, and we all understand that this requires a careful balancing act. In the ICANN context it can create some raucous moments as controversial views are aired and challenged. But this transparent and balanced policy process is part of the model, and a principal reason for ICANN’s success.

It is important to note that no one is in charge of the Internet. ICANN works toward a common good – a stable, secure and unified global Internet - but without the central authority of a government or governmental body. Many organizations and individuals play a role in its success.

The Internet is governed indirectly through consultation, consensus and the contributions of a broad and diverse community of people around the world. The key to success is to have as many people as possible contributing to that process. One of the most important things ICANN does to keep the system working is to stay out of the way.

If governance were to become the exclusive province of nation states or captured by any other interests, we would lose the foundation of the Internet’s long-term potential and transformative value. Decisions on its future should reflect the widest possible range of views and the wisdom of the entire world community – not just governmental organizations. The multi-stakeholder model represents a unique form of governance: global reach and outlook; bottom-up decision-making; decentralized control; inclusive and at times unruly processes; and attention to voices of the community as much as voices of power.

ICANN is itself a community, with a consensus-driven approach and solid commitment to a series of ideals:

• Universality, because the Internet is global and we must be, too. • Inclusiveness, because everyone using the Internet has a right to be heard in its governance. • Unity and connectivity, because the ability of anyone to connect to anyone anywhere depends on keeping the Internet whole. • Transparency, because you can’t have real accountability without it and ICANN is accountable to its stakeholders. • Innovation, because the Internet is changing rapidly and the domain name system must keep up. • Security, stability and reliability are our core values, because the Internet must keep running. Too much is at stake for us to fail.

ICANN works closely with groups such as the Internet Engineering Task Force - an incredible network of engineers that developed most of the Internet Protocols we rely on today. We have agreements with a wide range of organizations, from UNESCO to the African Telecommunications Union, the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization, Universal Postal Union and many others, and we are always open to constructive partnerships that advance the public interest.

ICANN is also an active participant in the Internet Governance Forum, another example of our strong commitment to international collaboration. The IGF is an important public forum created under the auspices of the United Nations, where interested parties come together equally to address Internet governance issues for the common good. Its greatest values are its egalitarian philosophy and its inclusiveness, and it is an effective building block in the governance of the global Internet." (http://www.icann.org/en/presentations/beckstrom-speech-izmir-turkey-17may11-en.pdf)

Discussion

How good is the current governance model of ICANN (2008)?

Susan Crawford:

"This year, 2008, is a constitutional moment for ICANN, and I suggest to you that ICANN is now getting less attention than it deserves.

ICANN is often pointed to as a model of private governance for internet resources. First, it adopts “consensus policies” that bind the private actors that provide domain name registration services, and the idea is that these policies are actually formed by consensus of relevant internet stakeholders rather than being crammed down by the Board. Second, it is supposed to open up new top level domains to encourage competition with .com, which gained an enormous advantage in the early years of domain name registrations. And third, it was designed to keep governments at bay. The idea was that the U.S. government would act as a good steward for the rest of the world, so that no government would be able to carry out its content-related desires by using the domain name system as a chokepoint. Kenn Cukier is right that the stated plan of the U.S. government at the time of ICANN’s founding ten years ago was that ICANN would eventually become a fully-private organization; as of mid-2008, it is not clear that this plan will actually be carried out in the near future.

I am personally concerned that ICANN’s actual operation is not matching its design in all three of these areas. This prompts a question: was the model unworkable, or has its execution not had adequate oversight? And a second question emerges: Is private governance of things that people think are “critical internet resources” possible?

First, on the “consensus policy” point. Right now, as a condition of registering a domain name individuals have to make public their address and other contact information. This seems like a lure for spammers and an affront to personal privacy, and there is no worldwide consensus in favor of retaining this policy. But because intellectual property interests and law enforcement authorities would like to keep this database public, and because the retention of such a public database is the status quo, it has been extremely difficult to change this policy. The idea behind the consensus policy regime was that ICANN would be a forum for the creation of those very few global rules that were necessary for stability and security of the internet, and everything else would be left to local control. Yet here we are, with a special-interest rule that imposes costs on people around the world and is seemingly impossible to change.

Second, ICANN does not have a very good track record with respect to opening new top level domains, and it is on the verge of adopting a thickly-restrictive, full-of-compromises regime for this process going forward. It is almost as if ICANN would like to perform desired censorship for anyone with an objection to a proposed string – to keep those objecting from being upset with ICANN. I find this difficult to understand; no one is forced to look at the list of top level domains to which network access providers point.

Third, ICANN can no longer be said to be keeping governments at bay. Both the U.S. government and other governments exert a great deal of power within ICANN through the Governmental Advisory Committee, a sort of mini non-treaty organization of governments that must be consulted in detail before ICANN can do much of anything. The most recent step down this path is an apparent agreement to short-circuit ICANN’s policy processes in favor of governments who would like a “fast track” for adoption of internationalized (non-ascii) top level domains that they would control. This is a superficial summary of a long story, but the reality remains: governments have a great deal of say over ICANN’s processes.

So: was the model unworkable? Should centralized resources of internet names and addresses become subject to government control, because this is the kind of thing for which governments are traditionally responsible? Was the private model subject to such non-democratic pressure by large companies that it could never have worked in the first place? Or has the implementation of the ICANN model been the problem?

Let me try to answer the questions I’ve posed. Is the theory that rules imposed globally should be rare and supported by almost everyone wrong? No. Is the mechanism of using contracts to ensure enforcement on a global basis wrong? No. Is the theory that non-governmental parties will be better at developing dynamic policies that reflect knowledge of the technology wrong? No. Is the theory that opening up more competition for top level domains would be good wrong? No. So what’s the problem?

The creators of the ICANN model may have underestimated both the tendency of people to turn institutions to their own ends and the tendency of governments to ensure that their needs are addressed. ICANN the institution may have had the right theories at its core, but it needed to be peopled with those who cared about preserving the free flow of information online and were willing to put energy behind a private model. Kenn Cukier is right that ICANN is continuing to muddle along; its budget continues to grow, and its meetings are well-attended. But what is it accomplishing, and how are its activities undermining the “avoid chokepoints” model? There are great challenges ahead. At any rate, before the ICANN experiment is pointed to as a model of private internet coordination it should be examined carefully. Its actions this year are likely to be revelatory." (http://publius.cc/2008/05/20/susan-crawford-icanns-constitutional-moment/)

More Information

1. Internet Governance
2. Links and papers on ICANN reform: http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/links.htm
3. basic history of ICANN: http://www.caslon.com.au/icannprofile1.htm