.
Introducing
ICANN
The
Internet Corporation for Assigned Named and
Numbers
A threat to world
democracy?
.
A
battle is being waged over who exactly governs
the global Internet itself.
Will the Internet be run by some private corporation,
or will the voting public have the final say? Will we
ever see a network government governing with the consent
of the governed? Will we ever mature into a full
electronic democracy under a global Internet
Constitution? These are questions left unanswered
today.
Pioneered and opened to the public by the U.S.
Government, the Internet's technical and political
administration is being privatized by the White House
through a nonprofit corporation, the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), via a contract
with the U.S. Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration
(NTIA).
International protests and budget shortfalls threaten
to kill the venture. We risk worldwide Internet
instability if ICANN crashes, warn backers. Critics say
such warnings are just an excuse to hold onto power. Who
else can we trust with the indispensable network
functions that ICANN can, or would, govern for us
all?
Making sure that computers anywhere on earth can talk
to each other, that the worldwide network of networks
stays "interoperable," that all email and browser
commands are routed to the right computer, that's a
critical task.
ICANN seems the natural choice for the job because the
organization was conceived by the late Internet pioneer,
Jon Postel, who personally managed technical
administration of the numerical addressing system making
the Internet possible. Just before passing on, Postel
drafted ICANN's Bylaws and selected its initial Board of
Directors. Postel deserves respect and even reverence for
his long years of generally thankless devotion, agree
even his severest critics, but Postel's brainchild has
tragic flaws. We can do better.
For the same
reasons* that I
opposed the "gTLD-MoU" governance proposal in Global
Sense, ICANN's right to hold power is called into
question by its actions.
Tally the Board's closed-door meetings, the Board's
stealth appointments of questionable players to key
postings, the Board gerrymandering membership in advisory
committees and supporting organizations and its at-large
council to favor "gTLD" players, the Board rewriting its
ICANN Bylaws as suits its needs, the Board funding itself
through taxation without representation by declaring a
fee (tax) on every domain name registration, the Board's
self-destructive streak, shown by alienating Network
Solutions, the Board backing reactionary censorship
plans, the Board stonewalling all attempts to organize
true independent review, and this just a sampling. Each
new week seems to bring some fresh cause for
complaint.
Why do critics voice objections similar to those heard
two years ago about the "generic Top Level Domain names
Memorandum of Understanding" (gTLD-MoU)? Because the
players behind the gTLD now seem to be in command at
ICANN. Many of ICANN's critics, who'd earlier decried the
arrogance of the gTLD backers, today object to an
imperial attitude among the ICANN Board members. Who has
faith ICANN can govern the Internet fairly or
accountably?
The Board dismisses charges of despotism by pointing
to its Bylaws, requiring them to obtain advice from
recognized constituencies. Players are encouraged to
wrangle among themselves until they can agree on
consensus recommendations, submitted to the Board. That's
not real democracy, counter critics, because the Board is
not required to adopt such recommendations, doing as it
pleases. All the infighting distracts critics and players
alike from what the Board is doing elsewhere. And if you
want more, what of the billions without any voice at all
in ICANN councils? And thus the
arguments fly back and forth.
Protesting
ICANN
Despite Esther
Dyson telling the press, The world doesn't understand
us, few will deny that Board fumbles have caused
distrust, fueling the torches of enemies preparing to
beat down the closed doors of ICANN like angry peasants
storming the castle. The risk of revolutions, now as
then, is that the overthrow of ICANN may not yield a real
improvement, the new boss the same as the old boss.
What's the use of stopping ICANN -- like the gTLD was
stopped -- if those same players can still use their
clout to seize control of anything else the rest of us
create?
Scarier, ICANN opponents now express growing fears of
secret deals to channel the flow of domain name system
profits into gTLD coffers in the cyberspace land rush.
With billions being bet on the rules for Internet
expansion as more top-level domains beside ".com"
are introduced, critics voice conviction that ICANN has
been "captured" by gTLD interests, that ICANN is not
honestly representative.
ICANN lacks accountability, critics assert, and
ICANN's decision-making process is a sham democracy. Rule
of law or rule by committee? Is ICANN illegitimate? Can
the ICANN Board aptly be dubbed, the committee that
would be king?
Opponents to ICANN range from consumer advocate
Ralph Nader to Rep.
Tom Bliley (R-Va.), chair of the House
Commerce Committee, which held public a hearing in
July 1999, "System privatization: Is ICANN Out of
Control?" Articles and essays about ICANN quote the same
critics on the DNS mailing
lists who fought the earlier "gTLD-MoU" movement
to get control of the domain name system. ICANN foes are
gaining ground. Recent listserv postings include threads
with subject lines like, "Why fail on purpose?" and "A
post-ICANN world."
ICANN's greatest enemy is Network
Solutions, (with its monopoly on ".com,
.org, .edu"), and by refusing to pay ICANN
its registration fee/tax, Network Solutions is gutting
ICANN's multimillion budget, placing ICANN in jeopardy of
bankruptcy. The U.S.
Commerce Department promised to locate "interim"
funds to maintain critical ICANN operations (like IP
addressing and root servers). Major corporations have
begun loaning hundreds of thousands of dollars to ICANN,
presuming ICANN's power to set policies that will effect
these corporations. The phrase, "influence peddling," is
being mentioned more more frequently lately.
The potential risk of a "meltdown" in critical
systems, the chance of disrupting Internet traffic, is
offered as a key reason to keep ICANN going. If ICANN
fails, predict supporters, the entire global network
could "fall down, go boom!"
All the fear-mongering and stopgap measures on earth
do not settle the issues raised by critics, who challenge
ICANN's right to say it has any authority at all over the
Internet. If governments derive their legitimacy from the
consent of the governed, governments are defacto owned by
the people electing them. If so, does the U.S.
Government, or any other nation al power, have a legal
right to privatize an international public utility owned
by peoples all around the world?
Think of the Internet like a city
square where we can enjoy private space, like merchants
putting up stalls on market day. ICANN would take command
of the public square, the merchants and the city itself,
caution critics, usurping powers never ceded to it by
anyone, trying to become a "policy oversight
committee."
There's never been any vote consenting to a transfer
of our public Internet into private hands. Does
Internet privatization violate our natural human
rights?
What
Does ICANN Actually Do?
To understand the
potential impact of ICANN, we need to understand how
ICANN wants to manage the network infrastructure.
Under U.S. Government sponsorship, ICANN is assuming
total responsibility for four essential tasks:
(1) Managing the evolution of the Internet
Protocols (IP), the global technical interface
standards that enable interactions among computers
anywhere, like a handshake among friends. This would be a
massive coordination project on any planet. Without
globally standardized Internet Protocols, the network of
networks can't function. We talk, but no one hears us.
Other world standard-setting bodies, like the Motion
Picture Experts Group (MPEG) influence the IP standards,
but ICANN would become the central coordinator of
all Internet protocols.
(2) Managing the assignment of numerical IP
addresses. A digital identification assigned to each
online computer around the world (i.e., 555.123.456) is
like its telephone number. IP addresses are stored within
databases on mirror computer file servers, referenced by
other computers for routing email and URL requests.
Assigning IP addresses all day could get boring, and any
mistakes can be costly. (Oops... No email today, folks!)
The technical and demanding task long was the sole
province of the late Jon Postel at the University of
Southern California, who ran the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA).
Before passing, Postel persuaded the U.S. Commerce
Department to transfer the contract for IP addressing
from IANA to Postel's final progeny, ICANN.
(3) Managing the root zone file servers.
Visualize the Internet as a branching tree drawing up
substance from its roots. The "root zone," or "the
root," is the shared database on high-speed file servers
that's accessed by other computers worldwide for matching
domain names to their given IP numbers in routing email
and URL requests. The domain name system overlays the
root zone. Both databases are on a network of mirror file
servers, so if any server goes down, there's redundancy
as a safety backup takes over. Distributed architecture
goes back to the original Internet model of connected
nodes to avoid having any single point of failure.
ICANN is allowing or encouraging the misperception
that the root is a single point of failure for the entire
Internet, accuses ICANN watcher Gordon Cook. ICANN is
exploiting fears of a global network crash, he says, to
argue for an "authoritative root," delivering control of
the Internet infrastructure to WIPO trademark interests,
to ISOC. (per the 1995 Landweber master plan), and to
aligned government bureaucrats with their own reasons for
wanting control.
ICANN wants our global Internet to have a common root
controlled by ICANN, but some players imagine multiple
roots that interconnect, a distributed network. Both
ideas are viable in terms of yielding profits, but
multiple roots appear more in keeping with the Internet's
distributed architecture, a characteristic dynamic.
Meanwhile, rival root server confederations are
battling over who gets to add more top level domains to
the root zone. If any of the seven gTLDs are added,
caution critics, that event will launch a cyberspace land
rush as zillions of new domain names are registered under
any new TLDs, (e.g., "amazon.mall").
(4) Managing the domain name system
(DNS). Everything involved with the words we used instead
of numeric IP addresses for email and websites. Each
domain name consists of one registered name, a dot
("."), and a top-level domain (TLD), such as
"media-visions.com." Other TLDs include
".org, .edu, .gov, .mil," or
country codes (like: name.co.uk.)
Demand grows for more TLDs (like: .shop,
.web, .inc), so more domain names can be
registered -- for a nice fee, of course.
The instant more commercial top level names are added
to the root zone, lots of businesses and individuals want
one of these names. In the cyberspace land rush, ICANN
would lay out the rules for the claims offices raking in
annual fees from registering domain names. Network
Solutions has 5 million names at $35 each. The potential
market is at least one domain name for each person on the
planet.
ICANN also would fix policy for handling disputed
names. ICANN would stop claim jumpers from
"cybersquatting," registering any known trademark domain
name with the idea of later selling it back to the true
trademark owner at a tidy profit. By the same token,
ICANN would safeguard small domain name holders from
having their addresses abducted by bigger players, but
critics charge that ICANN isn't focused on such thuggery,
that ICANN only cares about its allies.
The root and the domain name system are the real
prizes. If you crave to enjoy the perquisites of
power, secure control of something everyone needs, then
see how much you can get away with. Can such cynical
egoism, as ICANN critics allege, actually be motivating
Board members' behavior? Disturbing thought.
The question surfaces again, on what basis does ICANN
assert authority over these functions? ICANN's contact
with NTIA covers the IP system, but the rest seems an
usurpation. How can an interim Board presume to set
policies affecting these critical tasks? Why is the
un-elected Board refusing to leave crucial matters alone
until an elected board is in place to take such
decisions? The answer, says critics, is that ICANN is
trying to do its masters' bidding while it still can.
Critics assert that all four tasks can be taken from
ICANN without harm to the Internet. Yet they warn that
all four tasks stay vital to network operations,.So,
we'll need a deliberately smooth transition from ICANN to
something better.
What's
at Stake?
The entire battle
centers around control of the domain name system (DNS),
the individual names that identify each email and website
address. A hot domain name (e.g., ask.com) can
mean a fortune, so registering a domain name is like
staking a claim to a gold mine, with the same perils of
failure, yet what's to prevent claim robbers from taking
over? Since fabulous wealth depends on the system in
place for registering domain names and resolving disputed
name ownership claims, given the vital role of the DNS in
global network growth, whomever controls the domain
name system controls the Internet. This is why some
critics campaign to decentralize the DNS instead of
relying on a monolithic ICANN structure prone to
despotism.
Each new domain name (e.g., media-visions.com)
represents a region of virtual space where a domain name
holder can create something from nothing, like an
electronic magazine on the social effects of interactive
media, or a website about Mozart sonatas, or a web
superstore selling everything from teen fashions to the
latest fad fungi in tropical fish foods. Web pages become
electronic destinations, as if a physical town was
concocted from pure imagination with libraries, museums,
schools, hospitals, theaters, amusement parks, every
imaginable sort of enterprise. ICANN would become the
central authority governing all of this growth.
Will the settlement of cyberspace be like the
settlement of the Old West, a riotous land rush where the
ruthless prevailed? Powerful players have a vested
interest in controlling who wins the expansion game.
ICANN is being accused of catering to favored players
while disenfranchising the millions online and the
billions not yet online who have absolutely no say in
ICANN politics, who have never heard of ICANN. If true,
logically, your life is being altered without your
okay.
The Internet is making the biggest dent in the human
psyche since tongues first spoke words. Increasingly a
crucial aspect of all the communications weaving our
social fabric, the Internet increasingly will impact
society, especially as the network goes broadband with
the convergence of the computer, television, and
telephone. Today's narrowband phone line Internet, given
its open nature, already is exerting a democratizing
influence within cultures worldwide. Look at such
authoritarian regimes as Iraq and China restricting
Internet access. Considering the power of interactive
media to change our lives and transform our world, any
global Internet governance system operating as an
autocracy or technocracy could foster copycat despotic
regimes in our local to national governments.
Could ICANN undermine the worldwide pro-democracy
movement?
ICANN is relying on us being ignorant of its
actions, caution critics, so do not be scared away by
all of the "techie" jargon you read. The risks and
benefits are worth the time and effort to get a basic
understanding of how ICANN's plans could forever change
your own life and the future of our world, like it or
not. The stakes are far larger than we can imagine. Are
you willing to give up your rights without a vote? Are
you willing to sleep while the Internet is taken from
you?
What's the baseline? Unless we say "NO," ICANN becomes
the Internet government.
Now that you know about the situation, what are you going
to do about it?
Get
Informed & Get Involved!
If how we govern
the global Internet truly does affect how we govern our
world, do you feel content trusting your own fate and the
fate of humanity to a private corporation with some board
of directors that you have never voted into power? What
happens next is up to you,
In our interactive world, by design or default, each
of us makes all the difference in the world.
Why not act by design? Please use this website as your
tool to get informed and
get involved! Follow the
links here to go exploring on your own. Reach your own
conclusions.
Is ICANN a boon to society or a subversion of our
natural rights? You decide.
*Note:
Among many opposing
gTLD-MoU, I challenged it through my essay,
Global
Sense (mirroring the
arguments in Common Sense by Thomas
Paine), which was
posted here in a section on network
democracy when
Media Visions Journal was first published in July
1997. In early 1998, I added a new section,
Voices
from the Committees of
Correspondence, after
I'd collected statements from DNS players into a report
for Esther Dyson,.I published the report here (with
permissions) to help educate the public. Through this
update in 1999, I'm analyzing "ICANN Inc." as our system
of network governance, closing with recommendations on
what to do about ICANN. Please do your homework on the
issues, and then make up your own mind.
 .PRIOR
SECTION
|
INDEX
| NEXT
SECTION
|
.
|
.
|
|
Rule of
Law
or Rule by Committee?
|
|
Does
network privatization violate our natural
rights?
|
|
Understanding
Network
Democracy
