ICANN: Difference between revisions

While ICANN has its roots in the U.S. government, it is now, and continues to strive to be, an international, community-driven organization. Their management of an interoperable Internet covers 180 million domain names, the allocation of more than 4 billion network addresses, and the support of approximately a trillion [[DNS]] look-ups everyday across 240 countries.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic/strategic-plan-2010-2013-19feb10-en.pdf ICANN Strategic Plan June 2010 June 2013]. ICANN.</ref>

ICANN collaborates with companies, individuals, and governments to ensure the continued success of the Internet. It holds [[ICANN Meetings|meetings]] three times a year, switching the international location for each meeting; one of these serves as the annual general meeting when the new [[ICANN Board]] members take their seats.<ref name="meetings">[http://meetings.icann.org/about ICANN About Meetings]. ICANN.</ref>

It is central to ICANN's mission that the organization itself is structured in a way that welcomes a variety of voices and seeks to represent the extremely diverse constituencies with continued interest in the Internet's development, from [[Registry|registries]], to [[:Category:Companies|corporations]], to individual Internet users. In relation to ICANN's structural development, there have been critics who have taken issue with its closed-door sessions, the role of the [[DOC| U.S. Department of Commerce]], and other structural and procedural rules.<ref>[http://sunburn.stanford.edu/~eroberts/courses/cs181/projects/the-domain-name-system/icannorg.html ICANN Organizational Structure]. Stanford University.</ref> ICANN has been described as being in a contentious oversight situation; with some countries calling for all U.S. influence to be removed from the organization by subordinating it to the U.N.'s jurisdiction, or suggesting similar solutions.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022803719.html?hpid=topnews Obama administration joins critics of U.S. nonprofit group that oversees Internet]. The Washington Post. Published 2011 March 1.</ref> ICANN's structure and process is outlined in the [[ICANN Bylaws]].

ICANN is governed by a [[ICANN Board|Board of Directors]] made up of 15 voting members,<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/ Board Review]. ICANN.</ref> and the President and CEO, who is also a voting member. The board is further aided by five non-voting liaisons.<ref name="bylaws">[http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm ICANN Bylaws]. ICANN.</ref> From ICANN's inception to December 2011, being a board member was a voluntary position. At that time, the [[ICANN Board]] responded to mounting pressure regarding conflicts of interest and the notion that compensation would create a more professional and accountable body by awarding themselves a $35,000 annual salary.<ref name="nxt">[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/13/icann-board-dec-minutes ICANN Board awards itself $35,000, developing countries $138,000, and adds to confusion with 'secondary timestamp']. dotnxt. Published 2011 December 13.</ref>

The 15 current directors, and the current CEO, are listed below, along with the organization which nominated them and the length of their term:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/board.html Board of Directors]. ICANN.</ref>

The [[Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO) brings together smaller stakeholder groups, which in turn bring together constituencies and other groups,  together into one [[SO|Supporting Organization]] to develop policies, form consensus, and make recommendations related to [[gTLD]]s to the [[ICANN Board]].<ref>[http://gnso.icann.org/ Generic Names Supporting Organization]. ICANN.</ref>

The [[Country Code Names Supporting Organization]] (ccNSO)  is an advisory body within ICANN created by and for [[ccTLD]] managers, which are the entities that oversee a given nation's own Country Code Top Level Domain. The ccNSO is a consortium of working groups and the ccNSO Council, and it works in conjunction with other supporting organizations and bodies within ICANN. It was founded in 2003. It is a forum for global discussions and debates regarding issues related to ccTLDs.<ref>[http://ccnso.icann.org/about About]. Country Code Names Supporting Organisation.</ref>

The [[Address Supporting Organization]] (ASO) is one of the supporting organizations that was formed, according to ICANN's bylaws, through community consensus in 1999. The main objective of the ASO is to review and develop [[IP|Internet Protocol]] recommendations, address policy, and advise the [[ICANN Board]].<ref>[http://aso.icann.org/ The Address Supporting Organization]. ICANN.</ref> Its members are appointed by the world's 5 [[RIR|Regional Internet Registries]] (RIRs), which manage and allocate IP addresses in their respective continental regions.<ref>[http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC About APNIC]. APNIC.</ref><ref>[http://aso.icann.org/people/address-council/address-council-members/ Adress Council Members]. ASO.</ref>

ICANN holds week-long meetings three times per year; one of these meetings serves as the organization's annual meeting, where new board directors take their appointed seats. These meetings are held in a different location each time, with each global region hosting a meeting before the regional cycle is started anew.<ref name="meetings"></ref> The next meeting will be the 41st meeting in Singapore. The 41st meeting was scheduled to be held in Amman, Jordan, before it was moved due to security concerns.<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2011/02/middle-east-developments-interfere-with-icann-41-jordan-meeting/ Middle East Developments Cause Cancellation of ICANN Jordan Meeting]. ICANN Blog. Published 2011 February 18.</ref> Singapore was then selected to host that meeting.<ref>[http://www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=13838 ICANN Confirms June Singapore Meeting]. Goldstein Report. Published 2011 February 27.</ref>

A fellowship program is in place to bring in individuals who have a desire or need to attend but do not have the financial backing to attend on their own.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/ Fellowship Program]. ICANN.</ref>

ICANN has mechanisms in place for any individual or entity to solicit a reappraisal of any board decision that affects them. The [[Board Governance Committee]] is in charge of reviewing all reconsideration requests, which are submitted electronically and must be responded to within 30 days. The boards actions are also reviewed by an [[IRP|Independent Review Panel]], which has the power to call attention to discrepancies between the [[ICANN Bylaws|bylaws]] and actions taken by the board, and recommend that the board readdress certain issues. Furthermore, ICANN's structure and operations, including every supporting organization and committee, is also subject to occasional reviews.<ref name="bylaws"></ref>

On July 1st, 1997, U.S. President Bill Clinton directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the management of the [[DNS]], which had heretofore been managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ([[DARPA]]), the National Science Foundation ([[NSF]]) and other U.S. research agencies.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.htm Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 February 20.</ref> The goal was to open the Internet to greater international participation, and to bolster it as a new medium of commercial competition and exchange.<ref name="icann-mou"></ref>

On July 2nd, the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] requested public input regarding [[DNS]] administration and structure, policy input regarding new registrars and the creation of new [[TLD]]s, and concerns regarding trademarks. More than 1,500 pages of comments were received.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 June 5.</ref>

In January 1998, an agency of the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] ([[NTIA]]) issued what has become known as the "[[Green Paper]]." The document was a proposal which made clear that the agency intended to empower a non-profit entity to take control of the Internet and its [[DNS]] system.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm ICANN White Paper]. ICANN.</ref> The proposal drew criticism from some American lawmakers and other concerned individuals who saw the American-fostered Internet about to be handed over to a Swiss entity.<ref name="greenwhite">[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00800.html The Green Paper vs. The White Paper]. ICANN. Published 1999 October 18.</ref> The revised "[[White Paper]]" addressed some of those concerns but still posited the need for an Internet organization which could respect and foster stability, competition, bottom-up coordination, and international representation, while also establishing appropriate protocol and administrative mechanisms.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/principles.html How do the NTIA White Paper and the ICANN By-Laws Impact Membership?]. Harvard Law. Published 1999 January 19.</ref> The "[[White Paper]]" did not clarify all of the divisive issues but instead called for the proposed entity to utilize its self-governance to decide on the issues at hand itself.<ref name="greenwhite"</ref> The White Paper spurned the creation of the [[International Forum on the White Paper]], which involved the creation and meeting of four globally regional forums, and brought together some 1,000 Internet stakeholders. The IFWP did not create any specific proposal in response to NTIA's White Paper, but it did create a valuable body of thought and laid the foundations for future Internet governance and multi-stakeholder conferences and organizations.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/bosgrp/submission-letter.html Letter from Boston Working Group to Ira Magaziner].  National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 September 28.</ref>

Once again, these responsibilities would be undertaken and guided by the principles of stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation.<ref name="icann-mou"></ref> The agreement established ICANN as an entity that would encourage transparency in its dealings and would create ample room for appeals for any binding decisions it would make. The Department of Commerce later noted that it was comfortable ceding its control to ICANN, as it seemed like the best step towards true privatization while still binding the authority of the institution to the American policies found within the [[MoU]].<ref name="congress">[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing].Published 1999 July.</ref> The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.<ref name="icann-mou"></ref> The [[MoU]] has been amended several times.

The three original supporting organizations include: <ref name="caslon">[http://www.caslon.com.au/icannprofile2.htm#dnso ICANN Profile, Structure and Personnel Review]. Caslon Analytics.</ref>

* '''[[DNSO|Domain Names Supporting Organization]] (DNSO)''' provides policy advice to the [[ICANN Board]] on issues related to the [[DNS|Domain Name System]] (DNS) and IP addresses. The ICANN Board established the Bylaw provisions for the basic structure of the DNSO on March 31, 1999.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/dnso/dnso1.htm DNSO Background]. ICANN.</ref> The DNSO was composed of the Names Council, General Assembly and Constituencies including ccTLD registries, gTLD registries, commercial and business entities, [[ISP]]s and connectivity providers, registrars and intellectual property.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#1 Resolution on DNSO Constituencies]. ICANN.</ref> On July 9, 2003 the DNSO was restructured and its responsibilities were transferred to the [[GNSO|Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO).<ref>[http://www.dnso.org/ DNSO Website]</ref> The organization ceased operation after the ICANN Board adopted Article XX: Transition Article of the New Bylaws on December 15, 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-appb-15dec02-en.htm Appendix B to Minutes of Board Meeting]. ICANN. Published 2002 December 12.</ref>

* '''[[ASO|Address Supporting Organization]] (ASO)''' is responsible for providing advice to the [[ICANN Board]] on issues related to the operation, assignment and management of Internet addresses. It is composed of an Address Council and representatives from the [[RIR|Regional Internet Registries]] (RIRs), including the [[APNIC|Asia Pacific Network Information Centre]] (APNIC), [[ARIN|American Registry for Internet Numbers]] (ARIN) and [[RIPE|Reseaux IP Europeens]] (RIPE).<ref name="bylawsamended">[http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws/bylaws-29oct99-en.htm#V ICANN Bylaws As Amended and Restated]. ICANN. Published 1999 October 29.</ref><ref name="caslon"></ref>

* '''[[PSO|Protocol Supporting Organization]] (PSO)'''  advised the ICANN Board on issues related  to the assignment of parameters for Internet protocols through the PSO Council, which was composed of the [[IETF|Internet Engineering Task Force]] (IETF), [[W3C|World Wide Web Consortium]] (W3C), the [[ITU|International Telecommunications Union]] (ITU) and the [[ETSI|European Telecommunications Standards Institute]] (ETSI).<ref name="bylawsamended"></ref>

ICANN was immediately faced with two pressing, opposing issues: the task of reigning in [[cybersquatting]] by creating policies necessary to protect recognized trademarks, and conversely the need to expand the number of entities accredited to function as [[registrar]]s. Following the release of the [[White Paper]], [[WIPO]] began its own research into how to protect trademarks and intellectual property within the changing [[DNS]]. A congressional hearing some 7 months after the empowerment of ICANN recognized the steps that the new entity had already taken to protect intellectual property, recognized the headway WIPO had made in creating further proposals, and called on intellectual property owners to become involved in ICANN.<ref name="congress"></ref>

The report also made recommendations regarding the process of accrediting new registrars, called for the creation of a concrete dispute resolution process for intellectual property issues within the [[DNS]], and also recommended that the creation of any new [[gTLD]]s should proceed slowly and with caution. These recommendations precipitated ICANN's [[Accreditation Guidelines]], the creation of the [[UDRP]], and the continued debate over how and when to increase the number of [[gTLD]]s.<ref name="congress"></ref>

A month before the [[MoU]] officially recognized ICANN, the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and [[NSI]] amended their cooperative agreement. The agreement had previously maintained the [[NSI]] as the only registrar for the [[.com]], [[.org]], and [[.net]] domains.<ref name="accreditation">[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm Registrar Accreditation: History of the Shared Registry System]. ICANN.</ref> The three amendments to the agreement removed the exclusive rights of NSI; amendment 11 called for the creation of a [[SRS|Shared Registry System]], whereby an unlimited number of competitive registrars would have access to one system managed by NSI.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm Amendment 11]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 October 7.</ref> Amendment 12 gave more time to NSI to complete important milestones in the liberalization of registry services; the final phase, which called for equal access to the [[SRS]] by all accredited [[Registrar|registrars]], was now given a deadline of  about one year, October 25th, 1999.<ref name="amend12">[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amend12.htm Amendment 12]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration.</ref> Amendment 13 attached a $9 fee for each [[SLD|second level domain]] name registered, payable as $18 for new registrations and $9 per year on the anniversary of the original registration.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amendment13.htm Amendment 13]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration.</ref>

On February 8th, 1999, ICANN posted its Draft Guidelines for [[Registrar]] Accreditation for public commentary.<ref name="accreditation"></ref> The guidelines were formed through consultation with the [[DOC]] and [[NSI]], and further tailored after the session of public commentary.<ref>[http://www.mail-archive.com/list@ifwp.org/msg01253.html Press Release: ICANN Releases Draft Accreditation Guidelines]. Mail Archive. Published 1999 February 8.</ref> Some issues raised during the period of public commentary include: concerns regarding the inherent bureaucracy, inadequate protections for intellectual property, and the reasoning behind accrediting registrars before the [[DNSO]] was constituted.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/scribe.html ICANN Public Meeting Details]. Harvard Law.</ref> The ICANN board accepted the revised [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement|Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]] at their March, 1999 meeting in Singapore.<ref name="accreditation"></ref>

The [[Registration Accreditation Agreement]] was unanimously amended by the ICANN board in May, 2009.<ref name="accreditation"></ref>

Numerous technical problems plagued the testbed period of the [[SRS]].<ref name="andrewmclaughlin">[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/update-14jun99.htm Registrar Competition: Testbed and Accreditation Update #2. ICANN. Published 1999 June 14.</ref> The aforementioned Amendment 12 established the testbed period as Phase 1 of the deployment of the SRS, and set a start date of April 26th, 1999, and an end date of June 25th, 1999.<ref name="amend12"></ref> [[Register.com]] finally became the first of the 5 competitive [[Testbed Registrars|testbed registrars]] to successfully implement its interface with the SRS, which happened 6 weeks into the 2 month testbed period. The technical difficulties also extended to the deployment of the required [[Whois]] system.<ref name="andrewmclaughlin"></ref> Throughout the testbed period general applications for the later phases were being accepted.<ref name="accreditation"></ref> The [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and the [[NSI]] extended the testbed period about 4 times,<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook/milestones.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook/milestones.html]. Harvard Law.</ref> the final extension finally expired on November 5th, 1999.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/nsi/factsheet.htm Fact Sheet on Tentative Agreements among ICANN, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc.] ICANN.</ref>

One of the discussions and propositions which was involved in the debate surrounding "ICANN 2.0" was the introduction of a body which could represent individual Internet users.<ref name="caslon"></ref> This became known as the At-Large Committee, or [[ALAC]], and while it was finally introduced through amendments to the bylaws in 2002, it had been a hot topic for debate for years.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/ ICANN ALAC]</ref>

A new Conflict of Interest Policy was released on December 8th, 2011, effective immediately. The policy requires that all Board Members, as well as those in various other postions, disclose any and all potential conflicts of interest to the [[Board Governance Committee]]. They must then abstain from any ICANN activities related to the conflict of interest,<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/coi/ ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy]</ref> Board members also may not join business with a new gTLD registry until 12 months after the registry's application has been voted on.<ref name="dotnxt"></ref>