Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Template:Infobox Non-profit Template:Internet

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN Template:IPAc-en Template:Respell) is a nonprofit organization that is responsible for the coordination of maintenance and methodology of several databases of unique identifiers related to the namespaces of the Internet, and ensuring the network's stable and secure operation.<ref name="ICANN Bylaws"/>

Most visibly, much of its work has concerned the Internet's global Domain Name System, including policy development for internationalization of the DNS system, introduction of new generic top-level domains (TLDs), and the operation of root name servers. The numbering facilities ICANN manages include the Internet Protocol address spaces for IPv4 and IPv6, and assignment of address blocks to regional Internet registries. ICANN also maintains registries of Internet protocol identifiers.

ICANN performs the actual technical maintenance work of the central Internet address pools and DNS Root registries pursuant to the IANA function contract.

ICANN's primary principles of operation have been described as helping preserve the operational stability of the Internet; to promote competition; to achieve broad representation of the global Internet community; and to develop policies appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes.<ref name="Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and Internet Corporation for assigned names and numbers"/>

ICANN was created on September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998.<ref name="kepler.ss.ca.gov"/> It is headquartered in the Playa Vista section of Los Angeles, California. On September 29, 2006, ICANN signed a new agreement with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) that moves the organization further towards a solely multistakeholder governance model.<ref name="doc"/>

History

Before the establishment of ICANN, the IANA function of administering registries of Internet protocol identifiers (including the distributing top-level domains and IP addresses) was performed by Jon Postel, a researcher at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI) who had been involved in the creation of ARPANET.<ref name="V. Cerf">Template:Cite ietf</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> The Information Sciences Institute was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, as was SRI International's Network Information Center, which also performed some assigned name functions.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

As the Internet grew and expanded globally, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated a process to establish a new organization to take over the IANA functions. On January 30, 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, issued for comment, "A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses." The proposed rule making, or "Green Paper", was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1998, providing opportunity for public comment. NTIA received more than 650 comments as of March 23, 1998, when the comment period closed.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

The Green Paper proposed certain actions designed to privatize the management of Internet names and addresses in a manner that allows for the development of robust competition and facilitates global participation in Internet management. The Green Paper proposed for discussion a variety of issues relating to DNS management including private sector creation of a new not-for-profit corporation (the "new corporation") managed by a globally and functionally representative Board of Directors.Template:Citation needed ICANN was formed in response to this policy.Template:Citation needed, and manages the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) under contract to the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and pursuant to an agreement with the IETF.<ref name="B. Carpenter, F. Baker, M. Roberts">Template:Cite ietf</ref>

ICANN was incorporated in California on September 30, 1998, with entrepreneur and philanthropist Esther Dyson as founding chairwoman.<ref name="kepler.ss.ca.gov"/> It is qualified to do business in the District of Columbia.<ref name="mblr"/> ICANN was established in California due to the presence of Jon Postel, who was a founder of ICANN and was set to be its first CTO prior to his unexpected death. ICANN formerly operated from the same Marina del Rey building where Mr. Postel formerly worked, which is home to an office of the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California. However, ICANN's headquarters is now located in the nearby Playa Vista section of Los Angeles.

Per its original Bylaws, primary responsibility for policy formation in ICANN was to be delegated to three supporting organizations (Address Supporting Organization, Domain Name Supporting Organization, and Protocol Supporting Organization), each of which was to develop and recommend substantive policies and procedures for the management of the identifiers within their respective scope. They were also required to be financially independent from ICANN.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> As expected, the Regional Internet Registries and the IETF agreed to serve as the Address Supporting Organization and Protocol Supporting Organization respectively,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> and ICANN issued a call for interested parties to propose the structure and composition of the Domain Name Supporting Organization.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> On 4 March 1999, the ICANN Board, based in part on the DNSO proposals received, decided instead on an alternate construction for the DNSO which delineated specific constituencies bodies within ICANN itself,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> thus adding primary responsibility for DNS policy development to ICANN's existing duties of oversight and coordination.

On July 26, 2006, the United States government renewed the contract with ICANN for performance of the IANA function for an additional one to five years.<ref name="United States cedes control of the Internet - but what now?"/> The context of ICANN's relationship with the U.S. government was clarified on September 29, 2006 when ICANN signed a new Memorandum of understanding with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC).<ref name="BenedekBauer2008"/> This document does give the DoC a final, unilateral oversight over some of the ICANN operations.<ref name="BenedekBauer2008"/><ref name="MacKinnon2012"/>

In July 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce reiterated an earlier statement<ref name="2005-07-us" /> that it has "no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN". The letter also stresses the separate roles of the IANA and VeriSign.<ref name="U.S. DoC letter to ICANN's Chairman"/>

Notable events

On March 18, 2002, publicly elected At-Large Representative for North America board member Karl Auerbach sued ICANN in Superior Court in California to gain access to ICANN's accounting records without restriction. Auerbach won.<ref name="eff"/>

In September and October 2003, ICANN played a crucial role in the conflict over VeriSign's "wild card" DNS service Site Finder. After an open letter from ICANN issuing an ultimatum to VeriSign, later supported by the IAB,<ref name="Wildcard entries in DNS entries"/> the company voluntarily shut down the service on October 4, 2003. Following this action, VeriSign filed a lawsuit against ICANN on February 27, 2004, claiming that ICANN had overstepped its authority. In this lawsuit, VeriSign sought to reduce ambiguity about ICANN's authority. The antitrust component of VeriSign's claim was dismissed in August 2004. VeriSign's broader challenge that ICANN overstepped its contractual rights is currently outstanding. A proposed settlement already approved by ICANN's board would resolve VeriSign's challenge to ICANN in exchange for the right to increase pricing on .com domains. At the meeting of ICANN in Rome, which took place from March 2 to March 6, 2004, ICANN agreed to ask approval of the US Department of Commerce for the Waiting List Service of VeriSign.Template:Citation needed

On May 17, 2004, ICANN published a proposed budget for the year 2004-05. It included proposals to increase the openness and professionalism of its operations, and greatly increased its proposed spending from US $8.27 million to $15.83 million. The increase was to be funded by the introduction of new top-level domains, charges to domain registries, and a fee for some domain name registrations, renewals and transfers (initially USD 0.20 for all domains within a country-code top-level domain, and USD 0.25 for all others).Template:Citation needed The Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR), which represents the Internet registries of 39 countries, rejected the increase, accusing ICANN of a lack of financial prudence and criticizing what it describes as ICANN's "unrealistic political and operational targets". Despite the criticism, the registry agreement for the top-level domains jobs and travel includes a US $2 fee on every domain the licensed companies sell or renew.<ref name="theregister"/>

After a second round of negotiations in 2004, the TLDs eu, [[.asia|Template:Not a typo]], travel, jobs, mobi, and cat were introduced in 2005.

On February 28, 2006, ICANN's board approved a settlement with VeriSign in the lawsuit resulting from SiteFinder that involved allowing VeriSign (the registry) to raise its registration fees by up to 7% a year.<ref name="icann"/> This was criticised by some people in the US House of Representatives' Small Business committee.<ref name="com"/>

In February 2007, ICANN began the steps to remove accreditation of one of their registrars, RegisterFly amid charges and lawsuits involving fraud, and criticism of ICANN's handling of the situation. ICANN has been the subject of criticism as a result of its handling of RegisterFly, and the harm caused to thousands of clients due to what has been called ICANN's "laissez faire attitude toward customer allegations of fraud".<ref name="TheRegisterICANNCriticism1"/>

On May 23, 2008, ICANN issued Enforcement Notices against 10 Accredited Registrars and announced this through a press release entitled: "Worst Spam Offenders" Notified by ICANN, Compliance system working to correct Whois and other issues.<ref name="icann1"/> This was largely in response to a report issued by KnujOn called The 10 Worst Registrars in terms of spam advertised junk product sites and compliance failure.<ref name="knujon"/> The mention of the word spam in the title of the ICANN memo is somewhat misleading since ICANN does not address issues of spam or email *****. Website content and usage are not within ICANN's mandate. However the KnujOn Report details how various registrars have not complied with their contractual obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).<ref name="icann2"/> The main point of the KnujOn research was to demonstrate the relationships between compliance failure, illicit product traffic, and spam. The report demonstrated that out of 900 ICANN accredited Registrars fewer than 20 held 90% of the web domains advertised in spam. These same Registrars were also most frequently cited by KnujOn as failing to resolve complaints made through the Whois Data Problem Reporting System (WDPRS).

On June 26, 2008, the ICANN Board started a new process of TLD naming policy to take a "significant step forward on the introduction of new generic top-level domains." This program envisions the availability of many new or already proposed domains, as well a new application and implementation process.<ref name="32nd International Public ICANN Meeting"/>

On October 1, 2008, ICANN issued Breach Notices against Joker and Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd.<ref name="icann3"/> after further researching reports and complaints issued by KnujOn. These notices gave the Registrars 15 days to fix their Whois investigation efforts.

In 2010, ICANN approved a major review of its policies with respect to accountability, transparency, and public participation by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.<ref name="icann4"/> This external review was in support of the work of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency Review team.<ref name="icann5"/>

On February 3, 2011, ICANN announced that it had distributed the last batch of its remaining IPv4 addresses to the world’s five Regional Internet Registries, the organizations that manage IP addresses in different regions. These Registries began assigning the final IPv4 addresses within their regions until they ran out completely.<ref name="icann6"/>

On June 20, 2011, the ICANN board voted to end most restrictions on the names of generic top-level domains (gTLD).<ref name="VOA"/><ref name="yahoo"/><ref name="zdnet"/> Companies and organizations became able to choose essentially arbitrary top level Internet domain names. The use of non-Latin characters (such as Cyrillic, Arabic, Chinese, etc.) will also be allowed in gTLDs. ICANN began accepting applications for new gTLDS on January 12, 2012.<ref name="VOA"/> The initial price to apply for a new gTLD is $185,000.<ref name="bbc"/> The renewal or the annual fee of the domain will further be $25,000.<ref name="icann7"/><ref name="mashable"/> It is anticipated that many corporations will apply for gTLDs based on their brands. ICANN expects the new rules to significantly change the face of the Internet. Peter Thrush, chairman of ICANN's board of directors stated after the vote: "Today's decision will usher in a new Internet age. We have provided a platform for the next generation of creativity and inspiration. Unless there is a good reason to restrain it, innovation should be allowed to run free."<ref name="guardian"/> Some would argue that the innovative freedom Peter Thrush refers to starts at $185,000, and thus is not accessible to everyone.<ref name="asmartbear"/>

The 2013 NSA spying scandal has led to ICANN endorsing the Montevideo Statement.

Structure

At present ICANN is formally organized as a non-profit corporation "for charitable and public purposes" under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. It is managed by a 16-member Board of Directors composed of eight members selected by a nominating committee on which all the constituencies of ICANN are represented; six representatives of its Supporting Organizations, sub-groups that deal with specific sections of the policies under ICANN's purview; an At-Large seat filled by an At-Large Organization; and the President / CEO, appointed by the Board.<ref>BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS | A California Nonprofit Public-Benefit Corporation. ICANN. Retrieved on 2014-04-28.</ref>

There are currently three Supporting Organizations. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) deals with policy making on generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) deals with policy making on country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs). The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) deals with policy making on IP addresses.

ICANN also relies on some advisory committees to receive advice on the interests and needs of stakeholders that do not directly participate in the Supporting Organizations. These include the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is composed of representatives of a large number of national governments from all over the world; the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which is composed of representatives of organizations of individual Internet users from around the world; the Root Server System Advisory Committee, which provides advice on the operation of the DNS root server system; the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), which is composed of Internet experts who study security issues pertaining to ICANN's mandate; and the Technical Liaison Group (TLG), which is composed of representatives of other international technical organizations that focus, at least in part, on the Internet.

Governmental Advisory Committee

The Governmental Advisory Committee has representatives from 111 states (108 UN members, the Holy See, Cook Islands, Niue and Taiwan), Hong Kong, Bermuda, Montserrat, the European Commission and the African Union Commission.<ref>https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Representatives GAC Representatives</ref>

In addition the following organizations are GAC Observers:<ref>https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Observers GAC Observers</ref>

• African Telecommunications Union
• Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
• Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (CTO)
• Council of Europe
• Economic Commission for Africa (ECA)
• European Broadcasting Union
• European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)
• European Space Agency
• International Labour Office
• International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
• International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)
• League of Arab States
• New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD)
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
• Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF)
• Pacific Islands Forum
• REGULATEL
• Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)
• Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL)
• International Criminal Court
• United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
• Universal Postal Union
• World Health Organization
• World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
• World Bank
• World Trade Organization

Democratic input

In the Memorandum of Understanding that set up the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. government, ICANN was given a mandate requiring that it operate "in a bottom up, consensus driven, democratic manner." However, the attempts that ICANN have made to set up an organizational structure that would allow wide input from the global Internet community did not produce results amenable to the current Board. As a result, the At-Large constituency and direct election of board members by the global Internet community were soon abandoned.<ref name="participation"/>

ICANN holds periodic public meetings rotated between continents for the purpose of encouraging global participation in its processes. Resolutions of the ICANN Board, preliminary reports, and minutes of the meetings, are published on the ICANN website, sometimes in real time. However there are criticisms from ICANN constituencies including the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) that there is not enough public disclosure and that too many discussions and decisions take place out of sight of the public.Template:Citation needed

In the early 2000s, there had been speculation that the United Nations might signal a takeover of ICANN,<ref name="U.N. Summit to Focus on Internet"/> followed by a negative reaction from the US government<ref name="2005-07-us"/> and worries about a division of the Internet.<ref name="Power grab could split the net"/> The World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia in November 2005 agreed not to get involved in the day-to-day and technical operations of ICANN. However it also agreed to set up an international Internet Governance Forum, with a consultative role on the future governance of the Internet. ICANN's Government Advisory Committee is currently set up to provide advice to ICANN regarding public policy issues and has participation by many of the world's governments.<ref name="icann_gac"/>

Some have attempted to argue that ICANN was never given the authority to decide policy, e.g., choose new TLDs or shut out other interested parties who refuse to pay ICANN's US$185,000 fee, but was to be a technical caretaker. CriticsTemplate:Who suggest that ICANN should not be allowed to impose business rules on market participants, and that all TLDs should be added on a first-come, first-served basis and the market should be the arbiter of who succeeds and who does not.Template:Citation needed

Activities

One task that ICANN was asked to do was to address the issue of domain name ownership resolution for generic top-level domains (gTLDs). ICANN's attempt at such a policy was drafted in close cooperation with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the result has now become known as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This policy essentially attempts to provide a mechanism for rapid, cheap and reasonable resolution of domain name conflicts, avoiding the traditional court system for disputes by allowing cases to be brought to one of a set of bodies that arbitrate domain name disputes. According to ICANN policy, a domain registrant must agree to be bound by the UDRP—they cannot get a domain name without agreeing to this.

A look at the UDRP decision patterns has led some<ref name="vjolt"/> to conclude that compulsory domain name arbitration is less likely to give a fair hearing to domain name owners asserting defenses under the First Amendment and other laws, compared to the federal courts of appeal in particular.

Proposed elimination of public DNS whois

The initial report of ICANN's Expert Working Group has recommended that the present form of Whois, a utility that allows anyone to know who has registered a domain name on the Internet, be scrapped. It recommends it be replaced with a system that keeps most registration information secret (or "gated") from most Internet users, and only discloses information for "permissible purposes".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>*****o</ref> ICANN's list of permissible purposes includes Domain name research, Domain name sale and purchase, Regulatory enforcement, Personal data protection, Legal actions, and ***** mitigation.<ref>Intellectual Property Solutions & Legal Support Services. *****A Global. Retrieved on 2014-04-28.</ref> Whois has been a key tool of investigative journalists interested in determining who was disseminating information on the Internet.<ref>Sjmc: Common Sense Journalism. Jour.sc.edu. Retrieved on 2014-04-28.</ref> The use of whois by the free press is not included in the list of permissible purposes in the initial report.

Criticism

Since its creation, ICANN has been the subject of criticism and controversy.<ref name="DLTR 2001-02-14">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Jeremy Malcolm">Template:Cite thesis</ref> In 2000, professor Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law argued that ICANN's relationship with the U.S. Department of Commerce is illegal, in violation of either the Constitution or federal statutes.<ref name="DLJ 2000-10">Template:Cite journal</ref> In 2009, the new Affirmation of Commitments agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce, that aimed to created international oversight, ran into criticism.<ref name="PC World 2009-10-01">Template:Cite web</ref> In December 2011, the Federal Trade Commission stated ICANN had long failed to provide safeguards that protect consumers from online swindlers.<ref name="CNN 2011-12-21">Template:Cite web</ref> That same year, seventy-nine companies, including The Coca-Cola Company, Hewlett-Packard, Samsung and others, signed a petition against ICANN's new TLD program (sometimes referred to as a "commercial landgrab"<ref name="The Guardian 2012-06-13">Template:Cite web</ref>), in a group organized by the Association of National Advertisers.<ref name="NPR 2012-06-14">Template:Cite web</ref> As of September 2014, this group, the Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight, that opposes the rollout of ICANN's TLD expansion program, has been joined by 102 associations and 79 major companies.<ref name="ANA CRIDO">Template:Cite web</ref> The Obama administration that had joined critics of ICANN in 2011<ref name="TWP 2011-03-01">Template:Cite web</ref> announced in March 2014 that ICANN's contract with the U.S. Commerce Department, that is due to expire in late 2015, will not be renewed.<ref name ="Human Events 2014-03-18">Template:Cite web</ref> In June 2014, France strongly attacked ICANN, saying ICANN is not a fit venue for internet governance and that alternatives should be sought.<ref name="AFP 2014-06-25">Template:Cite web</ref>

See also

Template:Div col

• Alternative DNS root
• Domain name
• Domain name registrar
• Domain slamming
• GeoTLD
• IANA
• IEEE Registration Authority
• Internationalized domain name
• InterNIC
• List of ICANN meetings
• Network Solutions
• OpenNIC
• Top-level domain
• Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy
• WHOIS

Template:Div col end

References

     | references-column-width 
     | references-column-count references-column-count-{{#if:1|2}} }}
   | {{#if: 
     | references-column-width }} }}" style="{{#if: 2
   | {{#iferror: {{#ifexpr: 2 > 1 }}
     | Template:Column-width
     | Template:Column-count }}
   | {{#if: 
     | Template:Column-width }} }} list-style-type: {{#switch: 
   | upper-alpha
   | upper-roman
   | lower-alpha
   | lower-greek
   | lower-roman = {{{group}}}
   | #default = decimal}};">

Further reading

• Brito, Jerry. "ICANN vs. the World." TIME. March 5, 2011. Retrieved on March 6, 2011.
• Franda, Marcus, The Emergence of an International Regime, ISBN 1-55587-999-3
• Wass, Erica, Addressing the World, ISBN 0-7425-2809-X
• Paré, Daniel J. Internet Governance in Transition, ISBN 0-7425-1846-9
• Mueller, Milton L. Ruling the Root, ISBN 0-262-13412-8
• Froomkin, A. Michael Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the Constitution, 50 Duke Law Journal17 (2000)

External links

• Template:Official website
• ICANN DNS Operations
• ICANN FY12 board member report of payments
• ICANNWiki.com (wiki with people and companies related to ICANN)
• National Telecommunications & Information Administration: ICANN
• ICANNWatch (co-founded by David J. Farber)
• Template:Wayback (site advocating the return of public representation in ICANN - apparently offline since April 2011)
• DomainTools: DailyChanges.com (free website reporting daily DNS changes and web hosting activity)
• The Guardian: Who holds the seven keys to the internet? – video

Template:ICANN structure Template:Authority control.