[Second of eight commentaries in a sub-series on ICANN and Internet governance]

The US government still has a high but diminishing degree of authority over ICANN's work, through terms set out in the original Memorandum of Understanding that give it a final say in certain decisions, and linked to ICANN’s US legal status. Almost anyone who follows the discussion agrees that the US government needs to back away from ICANN control. And most agree that ICANN and the Domain Name System (DNS) need some kind of oversight, but correct shape of that and proper allocation of responsibilities are highly debated.

Controversy over the root zone file

An important aspect of the US authority is tied to oversight of the root zone file. The DNS Root Server System lies at the heart of the domain name system, distributing to the world the DNS root zone file. The root server system consists of 13 computers that are operated by uncompensated volunteer organizations that assumed those responsibilities in the pre-commercial days of the Internet. Some of the root server operators are directly within the effective or contractual control of the US government, but most are not. Currently the root server operators accept the special role of the US Department of Commerce to approve changes to the root zone file, and therefore, as a practical matter, any additions or deletions to it require its permission. Thus, the US government may have effective power to trump ICANN and act unilaterally to change the list of registries comprising the Internet’s DNS. However, to date, the US government has respected the decision-making processes of ICANN and its predecessors, so there has never been a crisis that would test whether the US government has the practical ability to exercise control over the DNS root zone file.

Many experts argue that fears about US control are groundless, because any attempt by the US government to exercise unilateral control requires the consent of the DNS root server operators to be effective. If the US government abused its authority, the argument goes, the fragile consensus at the heart of the DNS would shatter, leading to a divided Internet and, to the detriment of everyone, technical chaos. In addition, the power of the non-US root server operators has been strengthened in recent years, due to a set of new technical solutions that help to balance the situation. Specifically, these DNS root server operators have deployed 103 clones of the root servers operating around the world (including in Kenya and South Africa). Like their parents, these clones are beyond US control (and their numbers are growing rapidly). Installed as an initiative of the DNS root server operators to increase the overall stability and speed of DNS resolution, these clones effectively increase the ability of the non-US-controlled root server operators to refuse arbitrary and unilateral decisions by the US government. Should ICANN or the US do something too radical the root server operators could ignore it, though that the potential price of dividing the globally unified Internet.

Will the US government relinquish power?

The US government's previously-stated intentions to internationalize and privatize ICANN were expected to result in full independence for the organization when the current MOU is slated to end in 2006. But recently, the US has made conflicting statements that have raised uncertainties about its willingness to relinquish power. The US Department of Commerce cited concerns about security and the stability of the network as reasons that it must continue in its current supervisory role. But some argue that the only way to ensure security and stability is through internationalization, where everyone treats the Internet as a global resource. If the US government behaves as if the Internet is a US asset, other governments can be expected to take similar positions with their own national sovereignty interests in mind, which is likely to lead to fragmentation of the Internet. Recently, concerns about US domination of ICANN have been in the spotlight. In the 11th hour of approval for the pending .xxx TLD, the US government stepped in and requested that ICANN delay its decision. While some conservative governments (who had also voiced concerns through the GAC) agreed with this US move, it was a clear demonstration of US clout that made many uncomfortable.

Internationalizing ICANN oversight

There are many questions about how to set limits on oversight responsibility and how to enforce those limits. Some suggest that internationalization of ICANN processes means involving more governments (for example, through ICANN's Government Advisory Committee), while others argue that an international agreement which sets out basic rules and judicial processes for oversight is the more appropriate way to internationalize. And while technical solutions are a crucial element of the solution, there is recognition that they must be backed by policy and law. Some experts feel that the real problem is not ICANN itself, but the concentration of power that could result if its decentralized structure is not maintained; they feel that the current situation -- where ICANN’s ultimate authority and control is ambiguous -- is preferable to a structure with more stability through government controls, but without accountability or competition.

What do you think?

• Do you think ICANN processes require the kind of oversight currently provided by the US government?
• Do you think that current US government oversight power represents a risk to African interests in the Internet? Why?
• How should internationalization be implemented as the US government steps back from oversight functions?

Please share your views with us via email or post them in the "comments" box under this commentary. (Email responses will be posted to the website too.)

Want to know more about ICANN and Africa?

See the CIPESA public briefing on ICANN, Internet governance and Africa, 7 October.