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.