- Thu. Aug. 28, 2008
|
Search Sponsor:
|
ISSUE OF THE WEEK
ICANN Gears Up For Transition, But Some Are Skeptical
After almost a decade, leaders of the California-based group that administers the Internet-addressing system believe that change will do them good.
That change, they say, is transitioning the coordination of technical functions of the Web to the private sector -- and some believe that loosening the reins of government is going to be a chore.
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush issued a statement last week that the United States "has been and remains a staunch advocate for an Internet that is based on values of freedom, enterprise and crucially coordination -- not control." His comments were read at a National Telecommunications and Information Administration summit on the topic.
NTIA is reviewing progress made by ICANN as part of a three-year agreement to extend a contract between them, which expired in September 2006. Last week's forum was held to discuss written submissions sent by Internet stakeholders during a recently concluded public comment period. NTIA plans to issue a report, the timing of which is currently uncertain.
ICANN Panel To Consider Plan
In his comments, Thrush said he would ask a top-level ICANN strategy committee to formulate a plan for guiding the transition. That group will meet in April and begin conversations with the Internet community. Further discussions about the change will take place in June at ICANN's next major meeting in Paris, France.
ICANN was established in 1998 as little more than a set of bylaws and a board of directors. It has matured and expanded, thanks to an actively involved and growing population of players from industry, government and nonprofits around the world.
The group has routinely faced criticism, but has worked to overcome those obstacles.
"There seems to be agreement that ICANN has improved markedly in areas to do with transparency and some major elements of accountability," Thrush said. Submissions to last week's forum also cited improved operational efficiency and an appreciation for ICANN's updates to the accreditation process for firms that register domain names.
Stakeholders who support the private sector transition - such as the Internet Governance Project; Internet Alliance; and the governments of Canada and Latvia -- want the existing NTIA-ICANN link to sunset after a hearty debate, Thrush said.
And even those who do not want the contract to end are interested in discussing how a transition could occur, he added.
Some Fear Security Vulnerabilities
The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse, the Information and Technology Innovation Foundation and the Internet Commerce Association - among others -- have expressed concerns about potential security vulnerabilities that could arise. They also worry that relaxing NTIA's involvement could lead to ICANN's "capture" by foreign governments, Thrush acknowledged.
The main theme conversations at the NTIA event - as well as in written comments - was that ICANN has made great strides in recent years, but that more work needs to be done to reach the objectives outlined under the joint project agreement.
Following is a summary of key technology players' testimonials. A full list of written comments can be found at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html.
• Network Solutions, a seller of Internet addresses, said it is premature to state that ICANN has fully met the joint project agreement's requirements. Network Solutions recommended that ICANN change its bylaws to provide sufficient board oversight; improve the budgeting process and financial disclosures; mandate public review of material contracts; and improve competition by introducing new top-level domains and internationalized domain names.
• GoDaddy, which also sells Web addresses, submitted similar comments. The company said ending the joint project agreement would "undermine current and future developments in the domain name registration industry." If the contract with NTIA expires, "it is not clear that [ICANN] can remain independent or resist attempts to bring it under control of some other government structure," GoDaddy said.
• VeriSign, which administers Internet addresses ending in .com, urged NTIA to maintain its historic commitment to domain name security and stability. Over the past 10 years, the agency has "struck and routinely calibrated a delicate balance," according to VeriSign. The firm did not address the extent to which ICANN has fulfilled its obligations under the joint project agreement, saying it was "confident that the [Commerce] department will make its own sound assessment in that regard."
• Technology lobbying group TechNet warned that a hasty end to the joint project agreement would be "contrary to the best interest of the Internet." ICANN has fallen short of developing the infrastructure needed to maintain a stable, secure Internet and the contract has been an important tool to measure accountability in the ICANN process.
• The Center for Democracy and Technology said the U.S. government must continue its oversight role, but should immediately "address and resolve the question of governmental interference." Efforts to exert control over the domain name system "only fuel calls for ending the U.S. role" and could escalate the influence of governments less committed to innovation, competition and free expression, the group said.
• The NetChoice Coalition, which represents e-commerce companies, said ICANN's "bottom-up, private sector-led structure has ensured a secure, stable, open and free Internet; and it must be enshrined and protected for the future." A private sector-led approach "must be retained if we are to bring the Internet to billions more users in the developing world," the coalition said.
• Think tank iGrowthGlobal said the fact that ICANN may be making progress "does not imply that the [joint project agreement] is no longer needed." The agreement and ICANN's ties to NTIA "may account for ICANN's good performance" and terminating the agreement "is likely to lead to unanticipated and undesirable consequences." iGlobal Growth contended.
• The Information Technology Industry Council, which represents major IT firms, championed "a transparent, accountable, and bottom-up policy development process that adequately addresses the economic and security impacts of any particular ICANN decision." In the absence of an effective replacement for the joint project agreement, the current regime is "the most effective backstop" to guarantee that ICANN will keep advancing.
• IP Justice's Robin Gross said it is crucial that ICANN move away from "oversight by a single nation. However, the organization has yet to demonstrate that it has sufficiently evolved to the point that it should be left without any oversight and accountability. Internet users "still remain outside of the ICANN decision-making process, such that the concerns of individuals, who have no 'business' stake in ICANN policy are not adequately taken into account," she said.
• The Internet Governance Project said it does not believe that ICANN is ready to be fully independent, despite major improvements in its functioning. "The simple fact is that ICANN's remaining problems are not related to any specific task on the [joint project agreement] checklist. The problem is more fundamental and systemic. It can be summed up in two words: external accountability," the group said.