The board of directors at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) certainly created a contentious air at its semi-annual
meeting, deciding to phase out five of its publicly-elected director spots
Wednesday.
But more importantly, the words of the country code top-level domain
(ccTLD) operators and regional Internet registries (RIRs) should have ICANN
officials worried.
ICANN’s role as governing body over all domain names on the Internet is
secured only by the cooperation of the foreign domain registries, who
control the foreign TLDs (like .au, .uk and .de). The organization has so
far managed to keep the cooperation of the foreign bodies only through its
governance of the U.S. root server, which controls the three major domain
names — .com, .net and .org.
ccTLDs and RIRs are beginning to think they can do better on their own,
rather than take guidance from an organization they feel is shutting them
out of any policy decisions affecting the domain name business.
Peter Dengate Thrush, one of those ccTLD operators, spoke at the Shanghai
meeting this week, threatening to establish its own Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority, which manages the IP addresses behind every domain
name. Currently, ICANN has management of the only IANA right now, but its
contract with the U.S. government expires next March.
According to one Web blog following the meeting, Thrush said ccTLDs may
prefer “to attend ITU (International Telecommunications Union) meetings
instead of ICANN meetings.” The ITU is a United Nations agency that adopts
telecom regulations and standards.
The ccTLD committee passed a resolution at the Shanghai committee, stating
they would look elsewhere for competent management of the IANA.
“In view of the continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its
stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD
database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop a
plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root entries
and database entries. It is expected this plan will be developed in
parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO (country code
supporting organization), and to be available in the event that is
unsuccessful.”
Hans Klein, chairman of the Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility, said if you take away the ccTLDs and RIRs, the only people
left in ICANN are the global TLDs (gTLDs) like .com and the other six
approved by ICANN. It would create an organization that doesn’t represent
the entire Internet and eliminates much of its authority.
“I think legitimacy matters, (ICANN directors) don’t,” he said. “If you
kill the legitimacy of an organization, you put the organization at
risk. ICANN has decided that legitimacy doesn’t matter; it’s done away
with many of the mechanisms that ensured its legitimacy.
“If people start leaving the organization, it will be ruined,” he added.
ICANN critics say ICANN is becoming increasingly more closed, despite
by-laws created by the U.S. Department of Commerce requiring an open
process. Nowhere is that more evident than ICANNs reform decision to
eliminate five sitting board members from the 18-person directorate. The
five seats eliminated were those to be filled by publicly-elected members
of the Internet community.
One of those seats belonged to Karl Auerbach, the North American
representative on the ICANN board of directors and a long-time critic of
ICANN policies. Since December of 2000, he has tried to get access to the
organization’s financial and budget records, even successfully
suing ICANN through the California courts to get the records.
The matter is still pending.
Auerbach, whose term was due to expire next year regardless, was held as
one of only a few public representatives giving voice to the average
Internet users. Critics say the decision to eliminate five of the 18 board
of director slots is outrageous, and further proof that ICANN staffers are
weeding out the voices that don’t represent government or big business.
“What’s outrageous is that because the ICANN staff can’t stand to have its
actions questioned, it’s making sure it never has to face the user
community in an election again,” said Michael Froomkin, one of the editors
of industry watchdog Web site ICANNwatch.org. “In fact, in the new
‘reform’ plan, ICANN’s insiders have put themselves in charge of the
process that will select their successors.”
Klein doesn’t feel quite as strongly, but wonders at the decision ICANN has
made over the past year.
“I feel it’s almost in ICANN’s interest to make such a mess of things that
people are terrified that doing anything but staying with the current
leaders would be dangerous,” he said. “I don’t know if they planned this
out it just happens. The real question is, whether there’s any alternative
to ICANN?”
ICANN officials were unavailable for comment at press time, though Stuart
Lynn, ICANN president, will speak to reporters at a post-meeting press
conference Thursday.
