News Update: ICANN domain control issue settled

With time running out before the start of the U.N. Summit in Tunis, the international community has agreed upon a framework for control over internet domain names, a decision that most see as a striking win for the United States. Under the agreement, the U.S. based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers will retain working control over the Internet's address structure, and the international community will be given more influence in an advising position under ICANN. The conflict over ICANN, as Wired News' article tells it:

"is the United States' control of the "root zone file," the master list of allowed top-level domains -- currently numbering at nearly 300, including generic domains like .com and .info, and hundreds of two-letter county codes like .uk and .au.

Control of the root means that the United States could, in theory, wipe another country's top-level domain out of the system for political reasons, leaving it largely unreachable to web and e-mail traffic. "Maybe countries that don't support the war on terror are kicked off the internet, for example," says Wu... "As long as the root is controlled by the United States, there's this psychological feeling that the United States owns the internet," says Wu. "It's symbolic, but symbolic things can matter when it comes to questions of nation-state legitimacy.""

And there is quite a lot of symbolic importance in the WSIS' text on Internet Governance, the document agreed to shortly before going into the summit- but the BIG issue of who OWNS the root goes to the United States. And the issue drives a lot deeper than just symbolism. Kenneth Neil Cuckier outlines some of the more pragmatic consequences of internet governance in a Nov/Dec 05 Foreign Affairs article entitled "Who Controls the Internet?", writing,

"although... what techies call "Internet governance" -- seems nerdy, it can have an important impact on mainstream policy issues. For instance, countries that place restrictions on the types of domain names that can be used effectively hamper free speech. The personal information of registrants of addresses with generic suffixes such as ".com" and ".net" are made publicly available online, which jeopardizes people's privacy. Telecom operators need access to Internet Protocol numbers to deploy services, making them a major asset for companies and an economic interest of countries. Technical standards can be designed either to foster openness or to permit censorship and surveillance. In short, the Internet, before it is physically constructed from routers and cables, is made up of values. And the domain name system is the central chokepoint where control of the Internet can be exercised."

Value? Architecture? I'm not sure how much I buy Cuckier's argument- ICANN's been controlling the internet for a while now, and China still seems to be able to use Cisco's product and the willingness of internet companies to crack down on free speech Regardless, . Granted, its important to keep the domain name system (DNS) open, but its only really one level of the internet. Regardless, the resolution that has been set forth allows for an international forum to take place within existing structure- namely, the international community will be able to engage in dialogue over all sorts of tricky issues through the Governental Advisory Committie of ICANN. GAC does not have control over ICANN policy, but does have influence- there has never been advise given by GAC that ICANN has not accepted and acted on.

So is it good news? Sure... the EU and International Community receive a symbolic victory, and its not like they've lost the 'nuclear weapon' option to create a parallel system of internet governance, they've simply choosen not to use it at this time. Hopefully, this will resolve the question of internet governance for the time being, and get the Summit back on pace, dealing with issues like closing the digital divide and fighting cybercrime.