GAO On ICANN

Nater writes "I guess it's official now that ICANN is the authority on domain names in the U.S. This article is about a report made by the General Accounting Office that validates the Department of Commerce's authority to designate ICANN. According to the article, the report was prompted by certain members of Congress who didn't like that Commerce put the DNS in the hands of an international body." Not too many surprises in this. Here's the GAO report itself.

Interestingly, the report waffles on whether the government actually has the authority to transfer ownership of the A root server to ICANN. Here's their 180-word answer:

"The question of whether the Department has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN is a difficult one to answer. Although control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement, the government has long been instrumental in supporting and developing the Internet and the domain name system. The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server. It is uncertain whether transferring control would also include transfer of government property to a private entity. Determining whether there is government property may be difficult. To the extent that transition of the management control to a private entity would involve the transfer of government property, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer. Since the Department states that it has no plans to transfer the root server system, it has not examined these issues. Currently, under the cooperative agreement with Network Solutions, the Department has reserved final policy control over the authoritative root server." (p. 4)

Translation:

"Nobody knows."

That second-to-last sentence is interesting. It's repeated on p. 45 more explicitly:

"The Department also states that it has no current plans to transfer policy authority for the authoritative root server to ICANN, and therefore it has not developed a scenario or set of circumstances under which such control would be transferred."

I'd assumed, perhaps like many, that ICANN wanted to end up with some kind of control over the A root server itself. Whoever knows that machine's root password controls the internet. But there are a lot of other ways that control can be had; I suppose it's possible that a private corporation like NSI will continue to administer the machine, with ICANN exerting the force of law from a distance.

On the other hand, as TBTF comments:

"This may only reflect the reality that NSI's contract with Commerce runs for another three years before the question of control of the root server even comes up again."

Or hey, if you're in the mood for conspiracy theories, it might mean something else. Set phasers to speculate.

Comments

are we doomed?

[chowda]

Are we doomed to suffer with this hierarchy forever? will there always be an A root server? "The person who has that machines root password controlls the internet" now if thats not a scary statement I don't know what is....

This just released

[stienman]

[Redmond, WA]The privately held company, ICANNOT, has announced its plans to merge with ICANN. ICANNOT, whose owners are currently unknown, indicated that this is just a "...logical extension of their growth into the new, innovative market of Domain name sales."

An unnamed owner of ICANNOT began the online chat room press conference by stating, "We would like to help businesses protect their trademarks, names, and other holdings by preventing individuals from purchasing domain names, which may infringe on any current company or product, or which may be used in the future by a company or for a product. This will help consumers know they are dealing with a good company: they wouldn't have a domain name if they weren't good for the consumer."

Few questions were asked, though: the unnamed owner of ICANNOT signed off right after that statement, about the time a mysterious user, TPensonJackfield, signed on.

-Adam

Some people are going to leave a mark on this world, while others will leave a stain.

What do you expect from a bunch of accountants?

[FriendlySolipsist]

The big question, in my mind, is not what the GAO says. They were attempting to answer a set of specific questions given to them by the Congress, mainly related to whether ICANN had the power to assess fees upon registrants or whether such a scheme would constitute an unauthorized (and therefore unlawful) tax.

Rather, I think that any challenges to the legitimacy of ICANN and its structure will end up having to be settled in either the legal or political arena. By this I mean that, if the Congress does not provide clear policy on the issue soon, the question will end up in court. There are numerous disgruntled parties who are dissatisfied with the situation as it is evolving under ICANN, not least the international (non-US) constituency who do not appreciate everything being run from California.

It also seems unlikely to me that the Congress will be able to resist the temptation to meddle in Internet governance. Although the average member of Congress may not quite "get it," every one of them understands by now that there are billions of dollars at stake with a direct impact on national competitiveness.