ABOUT ICANN
Grey Ribbon Campaign calls for Open ICANN Board Meetings
What is ICANN?
What does it really do?
What does the media report it does?
What the world thinks of it?
From Richard Wiggins
Icann's role in the DNS is overstated in the media -- if the media confuses Icann's management of the DNS with
managing all traffic on the Internet, and if that leads the ITU and Europe and others to the wrong conclusion about Icann.
Here are the headlines you will see 7/2/05:
US to Retain Oversight of Web Traffic
CBS News - 2 hours ago
US not to give up Internet control
Pakistani Newspaper, Pakistan - 16 hours ago
TechSpin: US Controls Web
Red Herring, CA - Jul 1, 2005
US decision on Internet's key computers draws mixed response from ...
DetNews.com, MI - 15 hours ago
US reneges on DNS pledge
VNUNet.com, Netherlands - Jul 1, 2005
US to Retain Oversight of Web Traffic
India Daily, NJ - Jul 1, 2005
Crispy vulture beats bald eagle
Register, UK - Jul 1, 2005
Web Oversight Decision by US Gets Thrashing
TechNewsWorld, CA - Jul 1, 2005
10:25 am: US decision to retain oversight of Internet's backbone ...
Santa Fe New Mexican, NM - Jul 1, 2005
US Keeps Control Of Internet Computers
NewsNet5.com, OH - Jul 1, 2005
Now, please folks, read today's headlines -- read the text of those headlines -- from around the world, and tell me what the world outside the United States now thinks of Icann, and Internet governance, and the United States.
Icann should make a statement clarifying what its role is, and what its role should be -- and what its role is not. I believe that statement should say that Icann's role is to resolve Internet domain names to IP addresses, and nothing more.
--
ICANN has never "managed the traffic on the Internet" ~ Karl Auerbach
I agree that ICANN has never "managed traffic" on the net.
However, ICANN has for years claimed that its role is the technical stability of DNS and IP address allocation. (I bet that people have forgotten that ICANN also claims that it exists to "reduce the burdens of government".)
(IANA, which is distinct from ICANN and is a jab that ICANN performs under delegation/contract from NTIA, the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration(!), and perhaps also the IETF. And the IANA function with regard to "protocol parameters" has no immediate direct impact on day-to-day traffic flows on the net.)
Now, what is this job of technical stability for DNS that ICANN is supposed to perform?
No person in their right mind would claim that the job includes the reliable operation of the entire DNS hierarchy - the genius of DNS is that it distributes responsibility while insulating most DNS users from the errors made at the leaves of the hierarchy.
However, technical stability of DNS certainly does entail certain aspects of the upper tiers of DNS.
And what are those aspects? Here's my list of the responsibilitys that ICANN has over the upper tier of DNS:
1. That the root zone file is properly prepared.
ICANN several years ago in its CRADA report said that it, or rather IANA, would take this job away from Verisign. I'm not sure of the current status of this.
2. That the root zone file is safely disseminated.
Again ICANN's old CRADA report said that ICANN wanted to do this, and there was a reasonable technical plan in place to do it. I'm not sure of the current status of this.
3. That the root servers operate well, meaning at least:
a) High availability of each server (or anycast server group)
b) Reasonably prompt updates of the root zone as changes are become available.
d) Prompt response to query packets.
d) Accurate response to query packets.
e) Reasonably consistent responses to queries made to different root servers at approximately the same time.
f) No discrimination in favor for or against any query source
g) No ancillary data mining (e.g. using the queries to generate marketing data that is then sold.)
h) Robust against threats, both natural and human.
i) Adequate backup and recovery plans in place and tested.
j) Adequate financial reserves and human resources so that should an ill event occur it is possible to recover.
k) Wide dissemination of the root zone file so that those in local communities can cache the data and create local temporar DNS roots during times of emergency when those local communities are cut-off from the larger part of the internet.
Notice that I do not define technical stability to include any of the stuff that ICANN has spent its time on: the business practices of DNS registries and registrars. To my mind that is a matter in which realcompetition and the existing regime of laws aganist anti-competitive practices and consumer protection provide a better answer than ICANN.
The root server operators, to their great credit, and despite the fact that they have nothing more than a moral obligation to do so, and often using only their own funds, have met many of the requirements I've listed above.
But ICANN has done little more than make a lot of sound and fury, but just as it did for MacBeth, it signifies nothing.
Simply put: ICANN is claiming credit for the work of others.
And those others, despite their best of intentions today, are either mortal humans or institutions that ultimately have responsibilities that could, under circumstances or war or emergency, be inconsistent with the items I've listed above.
ICANN claims that it benefits the public (and thus ICANN receives its tax exempt status) by virtue of ICANN's ensuring to the public that the upper tiers of the DNS operate with technical stability.
ICANN has done nothing more than waved its hands - and sat on a committee.
Those of us who use the internet obtain no actual assurance of technical stability from ICANN.
We have been fortunate so far - certainly due to the under
appreciated efforts of the root-server operators - and also due to a streak of luck that may someday end without notice.
ICANN's mission has certainly crept - in the realm of business and economic ICANN's system of regulation mimics the worst of the telco world of the 1950's and 1960's.
But ICANN's mission has also retreated. ICANN was to have ensured the technical stability of parts of the internet. It has retreated from that role (although it still claims that role). And the community of internet users have been left in the lurch and bearing the risk.
The fact that NTIA still believes that ICANN is performing this role is a sad commentary on NTIA"s self-inflicted blindness.
--
Is Icann's importance overstated in the media?
~ Esther Dyson July 2, 2005
ICANN really should manage nothing. it should be the organization where the members set *policy* for themselves. All it needs to manage is nonconformance with those policies.
That statement is perhaps a *little* too dry for reality, but it's the ideal. ICANN should be much lighter-weight than it is, and should leave most questions - and management - to its member organizations. It should not have a regulatory function, but more of a judicial one..... though it does need more than the nuclear option of banishment/disbarment/deaccreditation for recourse when its policies are not followed. As it is, any recourse would be so draconian that most bad behavior goes unchallenged.
Even in practice, yes, its importance is overstated. Most governments face more pressing problems than who sets policy for the Net. Most businesses should be running their businesses better rather than dreaming that a catchy domain name can ensure their success. Yet... good governance does matter - just not as much as some people think.
Esther Dyson (former chairman of ICANN, wish I had left a better legacy) June 3, 2005
yes, I would be much happier if they had approved a bunch of them, including .sex, .porn, .bank, .fin and the like... allowing for genuine competition among TLD operators with competing and *differentiated* rulesets. Right now much of the competition is mostly based on price and worst- wins sleazy business practices. Will every registrar have the right to register names in .xxx? (though that question might be more germane relating to .bank and .fin, which could compete on the basis of strong security) I also share the concern over the possibility of censorship as opposed to incentives.... pretty soon anything "troublesome" may well get pushed there, whether it's sex, politics, health advice or sheer bad taste.
"DNS Governance" - the 4 bugs by Mike O'Dell 11/3/02
- the first bug was creating a structure which *needs* governance
- the second bug was creating a monopoly to own the structure
- the third bug was creating yet another monopoly to provide "governance"
- and the fourth bug is not adopting distributed system technology to render the other three bugs irrelevant.
