.

.

.
From gTLD-MoU
. . . . . to ICANN

A short course in power politics.

.
Before ICANN was invented and implemented, we had the gTLD-MoU, the "generic Top Level Domain names Memorandum of Understanding." Knowing how we moved from gTLD to ICANN gives insights into global power politics.

The gTLD-MoU and ICANN both track back to one person -- the late Jon Postel. A professor at the University of Southern California, Postel operated the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), contracting with the U.S. Government to assign the numerical IP addresses used to identify each specific computer on the Internet. Postel was in a position to see the big picture.

Realizing before most others that the popular ".com" top-level domain (TLD) could never contain the exploding demands for commercial domain names, in May 1996 he published "draft Postel," proposing the creation of 50 new domain name registries with each one administering three new TLDs, for a total of 150 new TLDs. Postel was a trustee of the Internet Society (ISOC),which requested revisions to "draft Postel," which the Internet Society endorsed in June 1996.

ISOC then formed the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) to develop an agreement on implementing "draft Postel." However, the task force developed something very different from what Postel had envisioned.

The IAHC "generic Top-Level Domain name Memorandum of Understanding" (gTLD-MoU), backed by ISOC, set into motion a plan to add seven generic top-level domain names (.firm, .web, .info, .art, .rec, .nom, .shop.) to the root zone file servers referenced for matching domain names to IP addresses when routing all network traffic. Backed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), both in Geneva where IAHC was based, the committee slated mid-March 1998 for its generic TLDs to be added to the root. The move also enjoyed support from a group organized by IAHC, the Council of Registrars (CORE), which today is influential in ICANN.

Despite all the signatories endorsing the gTLD-MoU, adding the seven new gTLDs to the root did not happen, not then, and so far, not yet, but still . . .

 

"Stop gTLD-MoU!"

The IAHC faced relentless protests from around the planet, accusing the "gTLD gang" of using despotic tactics to profit personally at the expense of the Internet community. As evidence of the arrogant and dictatorial attitudes of the gTLD clan, critics pointed at IAHC members and fellow travelers on the DNS listservs who constantly launched abusive personal attacks against their detractors as a standard method of answering arguments against the gTLD-MoU. If you think we're doing something wrong, there must be something wrong with you.

Among the strongest critics of IAHC was the respected Internet veteran, Tony Rutkowski of the World Internetworking Alliance (WIA), who personally lobbied leaders worldwide. Delivering effective testimony during U.S. Congressional hearings was the founder and first president of the Association for Interactive Media (AIM), Andrew Sernovitz, who initially raised the battle cry, "Stop gTLD-MoU!"

The Congress was interested. Why? In July 1997 the White House had issued a Presidential Directive along with a "Global Framework for Internet Commerce," unofficially attributed to Vice President Al Gore. The framework mapped out the Clinton administration's vision for an emerging digital marketplace, declaring a set of principles, presenting a series of policies, establishing agendas for international discussions and agreements to facilitate the growth of electronic commerce. The world did not rejoice. One critic called the plan, "NAFTA redux in cyberspace."

While the gTLD express hurtled ahead, the U.S. government was analyzing the IAHC plan in terms of its e-commerce framework. Two weeks after IAHC had initially intended to launch its generic TLDs, opposing pressures having caused a postponement, the U.S. Commerce Dept.'s National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration (NTIA) issued its Green Paper, "A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses," proposing that a new nonprofit corporation be created to take over management of the domain name system. The Green Paper derailed the gTLD locomotive, but the commercial players riding the IAHC train soon found a way to get themselves back on track through the Council of Registrars (CORE)

The Green Paper would have expanded the top level domain name space with generic TLDs while simultaneously recognizing some of the proprietary TLDs (which remain in contention). Protests from overseas governments featured warnings against the U.S. Government proceeding unilaterally. The Europeans complained the loudest, but they were not alone.

Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued a directive that temporarily "reoriented" the path used for copying the root zone file to the various root servers, briefly establishing a new master root server. By exerting his personal power over the root zone (in league with root server operators), showing the potential for disrupting world Internet traffic. While his defenders say no real and lasting harm was done, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The combination of international protests and Postel's bold action effectively killed the momentum behind the Green Paper proposal. Back to the drawing board.

Through the leadership of Ira Magaziner, the White House now saw a chance to fulfill its twin ambitions of privatizing the Internet while expanding electronic commerce. The White House further saw a chance to answer protests against Network Solutions' monopoly by introducing competition in the ".com" registration marketplace. Moving from a proposed policy to actual rulemaking, in June 1998 the NTIA folded both purposes into a White Paper, which invited the private sector to help the federal agency create a new body to manage the domain name system.

Going from the Green Paper to the White Paper signaled a change in thinking. Whereas the Green Paper promoted libertarian competition in the "name space," one critic wrote, the White Paper now advanced a more authoritarian "socialist" model of centralized Internet control. If this perspective is accurate, the complaints about ICANN autocracy may be traced back to the White Paper. How? We return to Jon Postel.

 

Postel's Legacy

In response to the White Paper, in a letter dated 2 October 1998, Postel proposed to NTIA the creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Bolstered by encouragement and support from the administration, Postel then wrote bylaws for ICANN and selected an interim Board of Directors. After Postel's heart failed on October 16, his ICANN Board met for the first time in New York City on October 25 with Esther Dyson seated as the chair. That session was difficult emotionally, from all accounts, but the work commenced.

In November 1998, the Board inked a Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and NTIA, replacing IANA with ICANN in the eyes of the U.S. Government, thereby unilaterally transforming the Internet governance system for everybody on earth. There has never been a public vote giving permission for ICANN, a private corporation, to rule the public Internet.

In passing the holy mantel to a new generation of Internet technocrats, Postel reincarnated himself. While admired and blessed for decades of thankless fidelity and his penetrating understanding of the network, even his best friends may concede that Jon Postel was not into "participatory management." His will was law. Does Postel's personality live on in ICANN?

Critics now charge that the gTLD faction, fronted by the Council of Registrars (CORE), has won secret control of ICANN policymaking, once again expropriating Postel's plan to their own ends, just as they took control of "draft Postel" and transmuted it into their gTLD-MoU. Is history repeating itself? Could Jon Postel be rolling over in eternal sleep, muttering about the root?

Yet the journey from gTLD to ICANN has more resounding implications.

Look how one individual willing to stand up for his beliefs has changed the world. You may not value what Postel has done, but you have to admire his gumption. Here we see personal power applied to the game of power politics. The outcome may not please us, but the penetrating power of interactivity is evident for all to see.

In trying to fathom how we've landed in today's situation with ICANN, note how everything of significance has occurred through human interactions -- whether by email, snailmail, cellphone, or a handshake in the cloakroom. Take a lesson here.

Feeling powerless may be keeping you from getting involved, but changing the world is easy. We do it with every interaction. A smile or frown at a store clerk alters life for all the customers in line behind us. Watch the emotional effect on a child of asking instead of telling. Practicing personal democracy transforms the nature and direction of power politics.

.PRIOR SECTION | INDEX | NEXT SECTION

Media Visions Journal will always be free to read, but the site is not free to produce. Please help sustain my independent publishing. NOTE: Business and educational publications may be tax deductible. Choose Your Subscription level [$10] Subscription - Friend [$25] Subscription - Ally [$50] Subscription - Partner [$100] Subscription - Patron [$500] Subscription - Angel [$1000] Subscription - Archangel . Please read Global Sense by Judah Judah Ken Freed An update of Common Sense for these times that try our souls. .

.. GET INFORMED & GET INVOLVED! In any Interactive universe, every act has power. .

.

.

.

.