How the U.S. can address Internet governance concerns

It may shock some people to learn that the Internet (or to be more precise, Internet technology) belongs to the government of the United States.  This arises from the fact that much of the underlying technology that runs the Net was funded by the US government.  This is why the only central point of control on an otherwise “ungovernable” Internet is managed by a US government contractor.  That point of control is the domain name system (aka, the “DNS“) and the contractor is a California non-profit company called ICANN.

A recent column by Declan McCullagh describes the on-going battle over the DNS with foreign governments putting forward the notion that such a central Internet resource should be under the control of an international group, not a single country.

He concludes by saying:

The Bush administration’s negotiating skills will be severely tested. State Department officials will have to find a way to allay fears of a U.S.-dominated Internet while avoiding any path leading to a bifurcatedroot. It won’t be a trivial task, but the alternatives are even less savory.

There is in fact an alternative - a saner one that can put an end to the battle over the root.  It involves ICANN making itself insignificant by rendering domain names valueless.  This is done by aggresively introducing new TLDs.  Jon Postel once proposed adding 250 TLDs immediately.  That was about 10 years ago. 

New TLDs will get rid of the artificial scarcity in the name space that is perpetuated by trademark owners who erroneously believe they need to register their marks in each new TLD.  That’s not true.  In a situation where there are hundreds of TLDs, the mnemonic value of a domain name becomes attenuated.   This means, trademark holders become less vulnerable to cybersquatters (thereby allowing for the dismantling of the trademark-friendly UDRP).

With the value of each domain name going down, TLD operators will focus less on capitalizing on IP-like claims to TLDs (e.g., .TV or .TM or .mobile) and more onservices.  This means less money will go to support ICANN.  That’s okay because ICANN should quit its global ambitions and strive instead to become a 4-man operation doing nothing but approving new TLDs with no more fanfare than a domain name registration.  It should be on-line.

Imagine a world where if you want to have your own TLD, you just log onto ICANN’s website, register on-line and pay using your credit card.  You will then look for a TLD operator to manage your TLD (these guys will take care of 2nd level registrations for your TLD).  Competition in the DNS business shifts to improved services instead of maintaining monopolies over “scarce” TLDs.  This makes for lower prices and better service.

Is this a unique model on the Internet or for that matter, ICANN?  I was once told by a one-time ICANN intern that port assignments are handled by one person in IANA - a lady whose name escapes me.  He said, if she calls in sick, that whole office just stops dead in its tracks.

Well, I think ICANN should reduce itself to this scale and make TLD additions to the root convenient, transparentm, open and more importantly, commonplace.

Once ICANN gives up on its global ambition, it makes itself less important and the DNS less of a battle ground for control over the Net.  If ICANN reduces itself purely to coordination and gives up its policymaking functions, there’s less reason for other countries to believe the DNS is a venue for Internet governance.

So, the alternative is for ICANN to go small — very small. ICANN can focus instead on network and coordination efficiencies.  Instead of telling foreign governments “The things you want do not fall within our view of policymaking”, ICANN can say “We’re not concerned at all with policymaking.  We’re just running a service here and are concerned only with technical issues.”

This removes the politics from ICANN and insulates it from competing claims by foreign governments and averts a showdown in Tunis.  The root remains in US hands but then again, noone else would want it.