Can ICANN?

Last week folks at the office were freaking out because various internet sites were either down, or working sporadically and email was stuck in everyone’s outbox. After a couple hours of troubleshooting and name calling it appeared the problem was due to a DNS (Domain Name Server) DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack on a DNS server located in the eastern United States. Sites including Twitter, CNN, Reddit, HBO Now, GrubHub Netflix and Spotify were amongst those crippled. By their nature, such DNS attacks bring good bang for the buck. DNS hacks are on the rise.

ICANN (the International Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names) is also in the news this month. ICANN is a non-profit corporation responsible for connecting website (or domain) names with IP addresses. ICANN maintains the Internet address book that allows us to connect to each other. Led by a sixteen-member Board of Directors, ICANN is comprised of multiple stakeholders that include technies, government and business representatives from around the globe.

Up until very recently, the U.S. had managed ICANN since 1998 under a contract with the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration. That contract has expired and control going forward is without direct U.S. government oversight. This change has not been without controversy.

Proponents of the move say that the internet should allow for a free flow of information and an international consensus, unhindered by government (U.S.) intervention. Also, they say a move away from the U.S. would alleviate pressure on ICANN to join up with the U.N. agency ITU (International Telecommunications Union. Like anything associated with the UN whose constituents include a few very repressive regimes, a move to ITU could politicize the internet and make it a pawn.

ICANN Board Chair Stephen D. Crocker has stated that “This community validated the multistakeholder model of internet governance. It has shown that a governance model defined by the inclusion of all voices, including business, academics, technical experts, civil society, governments and many others is the best way to assure that the internet of tomorrow remains as free, open and accessible as the internet of today.”

The ICANN move was approved, with modulated enthusiasm, by the Internet Governance Coalition, a group that includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Verizon. “A plan has been implemented that includes strong accountability measures and upholds the bottom-up approach that embodies the very nature of the open internet we experience today,” the group said. “Although this is an important step in the transition process, there is still much work that needs to be done to ensure the accountability and transparency of ICANN. We look forward to working with the multistakeholder community on these ongoing efforts.”

Those against the changes at ICANN fear that the move is premature and that first, changes to its governance structure, processes and accountability need to be tested. A Wall Street Journal article questioned ICANN’s unusual agreement with Verisign that gave them the “.com” contract. GOP senators are concerned that ICANN’s move away from the U.S. will result in the internet falling into the wrong hands leading to limited access to and exchange of information. Senator Cruz has called it an “internet give away” and fears the change will wreak havoc on free speech.

Both sides of the argument believe their position is the one that will preserve free speech, it’s just a question of how and by whom.

It will be interesting to see what moves ICANN makes going forward and how its policies intersect with efforts to combat escalating internet security concerns.