Central internet resources could be privatised

The debate around internet governance is entering a new phase with a proposal by US academics for privatising root zone management, spurring discussions in the run up to the international NetMundial conference in Brazil, in April. Syracuse University researchers Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis filed their proposal with NetMundial about splitting up the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), assigning the different tasks to ICANN and a newly set up Domain Name System Authority (DNSA) and removing US oversight over it.

The new DNSA shall be funded and controlled by top-level domain registries and the operators of the 13 root servers of the Domain Name System (DNS) would manage the so called DNS root zone.

Root zone oversight is one of the so called IANA functions, currently performed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under contract with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

NTIA's watchdog role over IANA and day-to-day changes in the root zone have resulted in several rounds of diplomatic skirmishes since the first World Summit on the Information Society, in 2003. Recently, the European Commission in a new Communication (see our guest post on this) asked for a roadmap to internationalise that very oversight role.

Instead of multilateral IANA oversight: private DNS authority

The US has maintained control over ICANN long after it promised to let go, Mueller and Kuerbis wrote in the announcement of their proposal. “This has invited other governments, including authoritarian ones, to demand equal oversight authority over the DNS. Unless we take a consistent and principled approach to non-governmental internet governance,” Mueller claimed, “it is only a matter of time before other governments succeed in bringing the coordination and management of the internet under the control of intergovernmental treaty organisations.”

In essence, Mueller and Kuerbis recommend that the proposed institution DNSA takes over from IANA to process root zone changes. This includes additions of new top-level domains that have been passed by ICANN or simple changes to name servers by existing top-level domain registries, including the roundabout 200 country code domains. DNSA would also be in charge of the operational part, according to Mueller and Kuerbis, taking over from VeriSign which, under an additional US government contract, acts as the so called root zone maintainer.

Beside avoiding the unsolvable question of “multi-lateralising” root zone oversight, according to the two academics, another major advantage would be the split of policy making and operative functions. Policy making would remain with ICANN's constituencies, including governments.

Critics warn against weakened oversight

While some support has been expressed for the proposal, for example in one of the NetMundial filing by the civil society platform Best Bits, reactions were rather critical. Experts in the field like Avri Doria and others gathered at the IETF meeting in London this week mainly warn against handing oversight and operations to the very parties – registry industry – that should be overseen.

Others, like John Curran, President of ARIN, the North American IP address registry, referred to the fact that there was more to IANA than root zone oversight, namely the allocation of IP addresses to the five regional internet registries (RIRs) and the operation of the registry for protocol numbers, a service that IANA provides under a Memorandum of Understanding for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the technical community platform.

Concerns about the ‘fox watching the hens’ put aside, the number one argument against the proposal definitely is a reluctance to end oversight by the US administration deeply rooted in Washington business circles. Several DC lawyers were quoted by US media criticizing the proposal pointing to the US administrations role to uphold security and stability of critical internet resources. 1

Fears about cutting ties to the US

The IANA proposal moreover adds to fears that the US might lose its grip over the system with ICANN's president Fadi Chehade pushing ahead the ‘globalisation’ of the policy body. Just days before the ICANN board had passed a resolution to explore a potential change of the legal status of the organisation. Chehade reiterated during a meeting with French politicians that the organisation was considering a parallel legal structure outside the US.

The idea of a lose ICANN has called for some stark reaction already, Washington Layer Phil Corwin wrote a long paper firing a broadside against Chehade. “ICANN's President & CEO, with the full knowledge and backing of its Board, has seized on Edward Snowden's unauthorized revelations of NSA intelligence activities involving the Internet as a rationale for seeking to sever its remaining tie to the U.S. government embodied in the contract to operate the IANA function,” he wrote. While ICANN could terminate its Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) and give up its US headquarters, it is currently constrained by the IANA contract, Corwin writes.

ICANN has also attained "international status" in Switzerland that may presage its intent to abrogate the AOC and transfer its headquarters from Los Angeles to Geneva. ICANN may terminate the AOC at any time by providing 120 days' notice but is constrained from doing so as long as the US remains counterparty on the IANA functions contract, Corwin noted, and the latter was “a strategic asset of the United States and cannot be transferred without U.S. acquiescence.” Congress would have to act, Corwin explains, for any changes to happen. That, certainly, is not what those presenting their ideas hope for as a result of NetMundial.