IP: US says ICANN should pull back a bit

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctf568.htm
>
> U.S. seeks to limit Net-board's power
>
> By Will Rodger, USATODAY.com
>
> The Commerce Department Friday moved to rein in a little-known Internet
> group critics claim could become a government unto itself.
>
> For even though the Clinton Administration has instructed the
> private-sector Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to deal
> with little more than introducing competition into the virtual-monopoly
> business of Internet address registration, detractors warn it could use its
> control over domain names to force their owners to go along with any number
> of Internet-related policies on censorship or privacy at their sites.
>
> Domain names, which typically incorporate company names in phrases such as
> yahoo.com, are the basis of all widely used Internet addresses today.
>
> ICANN officials insist they've never talked about anything beyond domain
> names. Critics says the latest marching orders from Commerce will give that
> promise real teeth.
>
> "It's a really fruitful avenue for resolving some of these issues," said
> Michael Froomkin, an ICANN critic and professor of law at the University of
> Miami. "It just shows you why governments are still so important."
>
> In letters to the ICANN board and the House Commerce Committee, Commerce
> Department officials said the group should:
>
> Hold all meetings in public. Until now, the group has had open meetings in
> places such as Reston, Va., Berlin and Singapore, but arrived at
> conclusions behind closed doors.
>
> Assemble a permanent Board of Directors to be elected by various
> constituencies including new domain registrars, technical experts and end
> users.
>
> Drop a $1-per domain-name fee ICANN wants to levy in order to fund its
> operations, until the permanent board can vote on the matter.
>
> Perhaps more importantly, Commerce told ICANN to draw up binding contracts
> with domain-name services that would ban them from going beyond their
> mission. Those contracts, if drafted correctly, should give any Net user
> anywhere the right to sue if ICANN oversteps its bounds.
>
> ICANN officials say they're happy to comply. "It's actually quite a
> positive development," said ICANN Counsel Joe Sims. "What happens is the
> debate takes place among the same small group of knowledgeable people, and
> each of them have their own axes to grind. Unless we're doing an absolutely
> awful job, getting light shone on it ought to be good."
>
> Even as Commerce Department officials told ICANN to change its ways, they
> also said they remain convinced ICANN is acting in the best interest of
> Internet users.
>
> "When you think about it, this is a new medium that has a wide number of
> different constituencies, and is global in nature," said Commerce
> Department General Counsel Andrew J. Pincus. "If you look at what they've
> managed to accomplish, it's pretty astounding."
>
> Nonetheless, the private-sector group has come under close scrutiny from
> Capitol Hill in recent months, in part because of a lack of clear legal
> standards by which to measure the transfer of responsibility for
> registration of Internet domain names.
>
> In their letter to the House Commerce Committee, Commerce Department
> officials also took to task Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), the company that
> now holds a virtual government-created monopoly over registration of  .com,
> .net and .org addresses. Among other things, the company has refused to
> sign a contract recognizing ICANN's authority and has lobbied the Commerce
> Committee to hold domain-name hearings, which are expected to be held later
> this month.
>
> Commerce Counsel Pincus chastised NSI for dragging out the process.
> Competition "cannot occur until all purveyors of those services abide by
> the same rules," Pincus wrote.
>
> Commerce officials criticized NSI for claiming it can hang onto the .com,
> .net and .org virtual monopolies forever if it cannot reach an agreement
> with ICANN. For even though the company took over the task as a government
> contractor in 1992, it continues to insist it "owns" the three address
> endings. That interpretation, Commerce suggested, would lead to disaster
> once NSI's government contract expires in Sept. 2000. In that case,
> Commerce officials wrote, NSI could charge any fee it wanted, stop
> recognizing registrations from other registrars, or even decide who, on the
> basis of trademark claims, should be awarded a domain name and who should not.
>
> ICANN has moved to break that government-sanctioned virtual monopoly over
> domain-name registration. In effect the custodian of the Internet's central
> nervous system, NSI, charges $35 a year and more to companies and
> individuals that would otherwise be invisible on the Net.
>
> But thanks to ICANN, three groups -- including register.com, the Internet
> Council of Registrars and Australia's Melbourne IT -- are already
> registering addresses on a test basis. Seventeen others are supposed to
> join the fray by July 16. Another 37 are slated to join later this year
> pending completion of technical tests and continued cooperation from NSI.
>
> The federal government gave NSI its lock on .com, .net and .org in 1992 as
> a part of a government contract. The theory then was the company would
> operate the registries as a service to users of what was then largely a
> federally-owned and funded network.
>
> NSI has ridden the explosion in Net use since then, racking up revenues of
> $100 million a year on the strength of a business few wanted back when it
> took over domain management in 1992.