ICANN

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN /ˈaɪkæn/ EYE-kan) is an American multistakeholder group and nonprofit organization responsible for coordinating the maintenance and procedures of several databases related to the namespaces and numerical spaces of the Internet, ensuring the network's stable and secure operation.[2] ICANN performs the actual technical maintenance work of the Central Internet Address pools and DNS root zone registries pursuant to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function contract. The contract regarding the IANA stewardship functions between ICANN and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce ended on October 1, 2016, formally transitioning the functions to the global multistakeholder community.[3][4][5][6]

Not to be confused with Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise.

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
AbbreviationICANN
FoundedSeptember 30, 1998 (1998-09-30)
FocusManage Internet Protocol numbers and Domain Name System root
HeadquartersLos Angeles, California,
United States
Key people
Sally Costerton (Interim CEO and president), Tripti Sinha (Chair of the Board), Jon Postel (founder)
Employees
428
WebsiteICANN.org
[1]
Internet
Visualization of Internet routing paths
An Opte Project visualization of routing paths through a portion of the Internet
General
Governance
Information infrastructure
Services
History
Guides
icon Internet portal
ICANN headquarters in the Playa Vista neighborhood of Los Angeles.

Much of its work has concerned the Internet's global Domain Name System (DNS),[7] including policy development for internationalization of the DNS, introduction of new generic top-level domains (TLDs), and the operation of root name servers. The numbering facilities ICANN manages include the Internet Protocol address spaces for IPv4 and IPv6, and assignment of address blocks to regional Internet registries. ICANN also maintains registries of Internet Protocol identifiers.

ICANN's primary principles of operation have been described as helping preserve the operational stability of the Internet; to promote competition; to achieve broad representation of the global Internet community; and to develop policies appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes.[8] The organization has often included a motto of "One World. One Internet." on annual reports beginning in 2010, on less formal publications, as well as their official website.[9]

ICANN was officially incorporated in the state of California on September 30, 1998.[10] Originally headquartered in Marina del Rey in the same building as the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI), its offices are now in the Playa Vista neighborhood of Los Angeles.

History

Before the establishment of ICANN, the IANA function of administering registries of Internet protocol identifiers (including the distributing top-level domains and IP addresses) was performed by Jon Postel, a computer science researcher who had been involved in the creation of ARPANET, first at UCLA and then at USC-ISI.[11][12] In 1997 Postel testified before Congress that this had come about as a "side task" to this research work.[13] The Information Sciences Institute was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, as was SRI International's Network Information Center, which also performed some assigned name functions.[14]

As the Internet grew and expanded globally, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated a process to establish a new organization to perform the IANA functions. On January 30, 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, issued for comment, "A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses." The proposed rule making, or "Green Paper",[15] was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1998, providing opportunity for public comment. NTIA received more than 650 comments as of March 23, 1998, when the comment period closed.[16]

The Green Paper proposed certain actions designed to privatize the management of Internet names and addresses in a manner that allows for the development of competition and facilitates global participation in Internet management. The Green Paper proposed for discussion a variety of issues relating to DNS management including private sector creation of a new not-for-profit corporation (the "new corporation") managed by a globally and functionally representative board of directors.[17] ICANN was formed in response to this policy.[18] ICANN managed the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) under contract to the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and pursuant to an agreement with the IETF.[19]

ICANN was incorporated in California on September 30, 1998, with entrepreneur and philanthropist Esther Dyson as founding chairwoman.[20] It is a nonprofit public benefit corporation "organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and public purposes."[21] ICANN was established in California due to the presence of Jon Postel, who was a founder of ICANN and was set to be its first Chief Technology Officer prior to his unexpected death. ICANN formerly operated from the same Marina del Rey building where Postel formerly worked, which is home to an office of the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California. However, ICANN's headquarters is now located in the nearby Playa Vista neighborhood of Los Angeles.

Per its original by-laws,[22] primary responsibility for policy formation in ICANN was to be delegated to three supporting organizations (Address Supporting Organization, Domain Name Supporting Organization, and Protocol Supporting Organization), each of which was to develop and recommend substantive policies and procedures for the management of the identifiers within their respective scope. They were also required to be financially independent from ICANN.[23] As expected, the regional Internet registries and the IETF agreed to serve as the Address Supporting Organization and Protocol Supporting Organization respectively,[24][25] and ICANN issued a call for interested parties to propose the structure and composition of the Domain Name Supporting Organization.[26] In March 1999, the ICANN Board, based in part on the DNSO proposals received, decided instead on an alternate construction for the DNSO which delineated specific constituencies bodies within ICANN itself,[27][28] thus adding primary responsibility for DNS policy development to ICANN's existing duties of oversight and coordination.

On July 26, 2006, the United States government renewed the contract with ICANN for performance of the IANA function for an additional one to five years.[29] The context of ICANN's relationship with the U.S. government was clarified on September 29, 2006, when ICANN signed a new memorandum of understanding with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC).[30] This document gave the DOC oversight over some of the ICANN operations.[30][31]

In July 2008, the DOC reiterated an earlier statement[32] that it has "no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN". The letter also stresses the separate roles of the IANA and VeriSign.[33]

On September 30, 2009, ICANN signed an agreement with the DOC (known as the "Affirmation of Commitments") that confirmed ICANN's commitment to a multistakeholder governance model,[34] but did not remove it from DOC oversight and control. The Affirmation of Commitments, which aimed to create international oversight, ran into criticism.[35]

On March 10, 2016, ICANN and the DOC signed a historic, culminating agreement to finally remove ICANN and IANA from the control and oversight of the DOC.[36] On October 1, 2016, ICANN was freed from U.S. government oversight.[37]

Since its creation, ICANN has been the subject of criticism and controversy.[38][39] In 2000, professor Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law argued that ICANN's relationship with the U.S. Department of Commerce is illegal, in violation of either the Constitution or federal statutes.[40]

Notable events

On March 18, 2002, publicly elected At-Large Representative for North America board member Karl Auerbach sued ICANN in Superior Court in California to gain access to ICANN's accounting records without restriction. Auerbach won.[41]

During September and October 2003, ICANN played a crucial role in the conflict over VeriSign's "wild card" DNS service Site Finder. After an open letter from ICANN issuing an ultimatum to VeriSign, later endorsed by the Internet Architecture Board,[42] the company voluntarily ended the service on October 4, 2003. After this action, VeriSign filed a lawsuit against ICANN on February 27, 2004, claiming that ICANN had exceeded its authority. By this lawsuit, VeriSign sought to reduce ambiguity about ICANN's authority. The antitrust component of VeriSign's claim was dismissed during August 2004. VeriSign's challenge that ICANN overstepped its contractual rights is currently outstanding. A proposed settlement already approved by ICANN's board would resolve VeriSign's challenge to ICANN in exchange for the right to increase pricing on .com domains. At the meeting of ICANN in Rome, which took place from March 2 to 6, 2004, ICANN agreed to ask approval of the U.S. Department of Commerce for the Waiting List Service of VeriSign.

On May 17, 2004, ICANN published a proposed budget for the year 2004–05. It included proposals to increase the openness and professionalism of its operations, and greatly increased its proposed spending from US$8.27 million to $15.83 million. The increase was to be funded by the introduction of new top-level domains, charges to domain registries, and a fee for some domain name registrations, renewals and transfers (initially US$0.20 for all domains within a country-code top-level domain, and US$0.25 for all others). The Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR), which represents the Internet registries of 39 countries, rejected the increase, accusing ICANN of a lack of financial prudence and criticizing what it describes as ICANN's "unrealistic political and operational targets". Despite the criticism, the registry agreement for the top-level domains jobs and travel includes a US$2 fee on every domain the licensed companies sell or renew.[43]

After a second round of negotiations during 2004, the TLDs eu, asia, travel, jobs, mobi, and cat were introduced during 2005.

ICANN meeting, Los Angeles USA, 2007. The sign refers to Vint Cerf, then chairman of the board of directors, who is working on the so-called Interplanetary Internet.

On February 28, 2006, ICANN's board approved a settlement with VeriSign in the lawsuit resulting from SiteFinder that involved allowing VeriSign (the registry) to raise its registration fees by up to 7% a year.[44] This was criticised by a few members of the U.S. House of Representatives' Small Business Committee.[45]

During February 2007, ICANN began procedures to end accreditation of one of their registrars, RegisterFly amid charges and lawsuits involving fraud, and criticism of ICANN's management of the situation. ICANN has been the subject of criticism as a result of its handling of RegisterFly, and the harm caused to thousands of clients as a result of what has been termed ICANN's "laissez faire attitude toward customer allegations of fraud".[46]

On May 23, 2008, ICANN issued enforcement notices against ten accredited registrars and announced this through a press release entitled "'Worst Spam Offenders' Notified by ICANN, Compliance system working to correct Whois and other issues."[47] This was largely in response to a report issued by KnujOn, called "The 10 Worst Registrars" in terms of spam advertised junk product sites and compliance failure.[48] The mention of the word "spam" in the title of the ICANN memo is somewhat misleading since ICANN does not address issues of spam or email abuse. Website content and usage are not within ICANN's mandate. However, the KnujOn report details how various registrars have not complied with their contractual obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).[49] The main point of the KnujOn research was to demonstrate the relationships between compliance failure, illicit product traffic, and spam. The report demonstrated that out of 900 ICANN accredited registrars, fewer than 20 held 90% of the web domains advertised in spam. These same registrars were also most frequently cited by KnujOn as failing to resolve complaints made through the Whois Data Problem Reporting System (WDPRS).

On June 26, 2008, the ICANN Board started a new process of TLD naming policy to take a "significant step forward on the introduction of new generic top-level domains." This program envisioned the availability of many new or already proposed domains, as well a new application and implementation process.[50]

On October 1, 2008, ICANN issued breach notices against Joker and Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd.[51] after further researching reports and complaints issued by KnujOn. These notices gave the registrars 15 days to fix their Whois investigation efforts.

In 2010, ICANN approved a major review of its policies with respect to accountability, transparency, and public participation by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.[52] This external review was an assistance of the work of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency Review team.[53]

On February 3, 2011, ICANN announced that it had distributed the last batch of its remaining IPv4 addresses to the world's five regional Internet registries, the organizations that manage IP addresses in different regions. These registries began assigning the final IPv4 addresses within their regions until they ran out completely.[54]

On June 20, 2011, the ICANN board voted to end most restrictions on the names of generic top-level domains (gTLD).[55][56][57] Companies and organizations became able to choose essentially arbitrary top-level Internet domain names. The use of non-Latin characters (such as Cyrillic, Arabic, Chinese, etc.) is also allowed in gTLDs. ICANN began accepting applications for new gTLDS on January 12, 2012.[55] The initial price to apply for a new gTLD was set at $185,000[58] and the annual renewal fee is $25,000.[59][60]

During December 2011, the Federal Trade Commission stated ICANN had long failed to provide safeguards that protect consumers from online swindlers.[61]

Following the 2013 NSA spying scandal, ICANN endorsed the Montevideo Statement,[62] although no direct connection between these could be proven.[63]

On October 1, 2016, ICANN ended its contract with the United States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and entered the private sector.[64]

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (active since May 25, 2018) impacted on ICANN operations, which the latter tried to fix through last-minute changes.[65]

Structure

From its founding to the present, ICANN has been formally organized as a nonprofit corporation "for charitable and public purposes" under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. It is managed by a 16-member board of directors composed of eight members selected by a nominating committee on which all the constituencies of ICANN are represented; six representatives of its Supporting Organizations, sub-groups that deal with specific sections of the policies under ICANN's purview; an at-large seat filled by an at-large organization; and the president / CEO, appointed by the board.[66]

There are currently three supporting organizations: the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) deals with policy making on generic top-level domains (gTLDs);[67] the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) deals with policy making on country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs); the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) deals with policy making on IP addresses.[68]

ICANN also relies on some advisory committees and other advisory mechanisms to receive advice on the interests and needs of stakeholders that do not directly participate in the Supporting Organizations.[69] These include the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is composed of representatives of a large number of national governments from all over the world; the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which is composed of individual Internet users from around the world selected by each of the Regional At-Large Organizations (RALO)[70] and Nominating Committee; the Root Server System Advisory Committee, which provides advice on the operation of the DNS root server system; the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), which is composed of Internet experts who study security issues pertaining to ICANN's mandate; and the Technical Liaison Group (TLG), which is composed of representatives of other international technical organizations that focus, at least in part, on the Internet.[71]

Governmental Advisory Committee
Governmental Advisory Committee representatives

Representatives

The Governmental Advisory Committee has representatives from 179 states and 38 Observer organizations, including the Holy See, Cook Islands, Niue, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Bermuda, Montserrat, the European Commission and the African Union Commission.[72]

Observers

In addition the following organizations are GAC Observers:[73]

Trusted Community Representatives

As the operator of the IANA domain name functions, ICANN is responsible for the DNSSEC management of the root zone. While day-to-day operations are managed by ICANN and Verisign, the trust is rooted in a group of Trusted Community Representatives. The members of this group must not be affiliated with ICANN, but are instead members of the broader DNS community, volunteering to become a Trusted Community Representative. The role of the representatives are primarily to take part in regular key ceremonies at a physical location, organized by ICANN, and to safeguard the key materials in between.[74]

Democratic input

In the Memorandum of understanding that set up the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. government, ICANN was given a mandate requiring that it operate "in a bottom up, consensus driven, democratic manner." However, the attempts that ICANN have made to establish an organizational structure that would allow wide input from the global Internet community did not produce results amenable to the current Board. As a result, the At-Large constituency and direct election of board members by the global Internet community were soon abandoned.[75]

ICANN holds periodic public meetings rotated between continents for the purpose of encouraging global participation in its processes. Resolutions of the ICANN Board, preliminary reports, and minutes of the meetings, are published on the ICANN website, sometimes in real time. However, there are criticisms from ICANN constituencies including the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC)[76] and the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) that there is not enough public disclosure and that too many discussions and decisions take place out of sight of the public.[77]

During the early 2000s, there had been speculation that the United Nations might assume control of ICANN,[78] followed by a negative reaction from the U.S. government[32] and worries about a division of the Internet.[79] The World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia during November 2005 agreed not to get involved in the day-to-day and technical operations of ICANN. However it also agreed to establish an international Internet Governance Forum, with a consultative role on the future governance of the Internet. ICANN's Government Advisory Committee is currently established to provide advice to ICANN regarding public policy issues and has participation by many of the world's governments.[80]

Some have attempted to argue that ICANN was never given the authority to decide policy, e.g., choose new TLDs or exclude other interested parties who refuse to pay ICANN's US$185,000 fee, but was to be a technical caretaker. Critics suggest that ICANN should not be allowed to impose business rules on market participants, and that all TLDs should be added on a first-come, first-served basis and the market should be the arbiter of who succeeds and who does not.[81]

Activities

Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

One task that ICANN was asked to do was to address the issue of domain name ownership resolution for generic top-level domains (gTLDs). ICANN's attempt at such a policy was drafted in close cooperation with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the result has now become known as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This policy essentially attempts to provide a mechanism for rapid, cheap and reasonable resolution of domain name conflicts, avoiding the traditional court system for disputes by allowing cases to be brought to one of a set of bodies that arbitrate domain name disputes. According to ICANN policy, domain registrants must agree to be bound by the UDRP—they cannot get a domain name without agreeing to this.

Examination of the UDRP decision patterns has caused some[82] to conclude that compulsory domain name arbitration is less likely to give a fair hearing to domain name owners asserting defenses under the First Amendment and other laws, compared to the federal courts of appeal in particular.

Proposed elimination of public DNS whois

In 2013, the initial report of ICANN's Expert Working Group has recommended that the present form of Whois, a utility that allows anyone to know who has registered a domain name on the Internet, should be "abandoned". It recommends it be replaced with a system that keeps most registration information secret (or "gated") from most Internet users, and only discloses information for "permissible purposes".[83][84] ICANN's list of permissible purposes includes domain name research, domain name sale and purchase, regulatory enforcement, personal data protection, legal actions, and abuse mitigation.[85] Whois has been a key tool of investigative journalists interested in determining who was disseminating information on the Internet.[86] The use of whois by journalists is not included in the list of permissible purposes in the initial report.

Proposals for reform

Proposals have been made to internationalize ICANN's monitoring responsibilities (currently the responsibility of the US), to transform it into an international organization (under international law), and to "establish an intergovernmental mechanism enabling governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their role and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet".

IBSA proposal (2011)

One controversial proposal, resulting from a September 2011 summit between India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA), would seek to move Internet governance into a "UN Committee on Internet-Related Policy" (UN-CIRP).[87] The action was a reaction to a perception that the principles of the 2005 Tunis Agenda for the Information Society have not been met.[87][88] The statement proposed the creation of a new political organization operating as a component of the United Nations to provide policy recommendations for the consideration of technical organizations such as ICANN and international bodies such as the ITU.[89] Subsequent to public criticisms, the Indian government backed away from the proposal.[90]

Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation (2013)

On October 7, 2013, the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation was released by the managers of a number of organizations involved in coordinating the Internet's global technical infrastructure, loosely known as the "I*" (or "I-star") group. Among other things, the statement "expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance" and "called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing". This desire to reduce United States association with the internet is considered a reaction to the ongoing NSA surveillance scandal. The statement was signed by the managers of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Society, and the five regional Internet address registries (African Network Information Center, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre, Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry, and Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre).[91][92][93]

Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (2013)

During October 2013, Fadi Chehadé, former president and CEO of ICANN, met with Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff in Brasilia. Upon Chehadé's invitation, the two announced that Brazil would host an international summit on Internet governance during April 2014.[94] The announcement came after the 2013 disclosures of mass surveillance by the U.S. government, and Rousseff's speech at the opening session of the 2013 United Nations General Assembly, where she strongly criticized the American surveillance program as a "breach of international law". The "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NET mundial)" will include representatives of government, industry, civil society, and academia. At the IGF VIII meeting in Bali in October 2013 a commenter noted that Brazil intends the meeting to be a "summit" in the sense that it will be high level with decision-making authority.[95] The organizers of the "NET mundial" meeting have decided that an online forum called "/1net", set up by the I* group, will be a major conduit of non-governmental input into the three committees preparing for the meeting in April.[93][96][97]

The Obama administration that had joined critics of ICANN during 2011[98] announced in March 2014 that they intended to transition away from oversight of the IANA functions contract. The current contract that the United States Department of Commerce has with ICANN expired in 2015, in its place the NTIA will transition oversight of the IANA functions to the 'global multistakeholder community'.[99]

NetMundial Initiative (2014)

The NetMundial Initiative is a plan for international governance of the Internet that was first proposed at the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (GMMFIG) conference (April 23–24, 2014)[100][101][102] and later developed into the NetMundial Initiative by ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé along with representatives of the World Economic Forum (WEF)[103] and the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil), commonly referred to as "CGI.br".[104]

The meeting produced a nonbinding statement in favor of consensus-based decision-making. It represented a compromise and did not harshly condemn mass surveillance or support net neutrality, despite initial endorsement for that from Brazil. The final resolution says ICANN should be controlled internationally by September 2015.[105] A minority of governments, including Russia, China, Iran and India, were unhappy with the final resolution and wanted multilateral management for the Internet, rather than broader multistakeholder management.[106]

A month later, the Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms (convened by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) with assistance from The Annenberg Foundation), endorsed and included the NetMundial statement in its own report.[107]

During June 2014, France strongly attacked ICANN, saying ICANN is not a fit venue for Internet governance and that alternatives should be sought.[108]

TLD expansion and concerns about specific top-level domains

During 2011, seventy-nine companies, including The Coca-Cola Company, Hewlett-Packard, Samsung and others, signed a petition against ICANN's new TLD program (sometimes referred to as a "commercial landgrab"[109]), in a group organized by the Association of National Advertisers.[110] As of September 2014, this group, the Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight, that opposes the rollout of ICANN's TLD expansion program, has been joined by 102 associations and 79 major companies.[111] Partly as a response to this criticism, ICANN initiated an effort to protect trademarks in domain name registrations, which eventually culminated in the establishment of the Trademark Clearinghouse.

.sucks domain

ICANN has received more than $60 million from gTLD auctions,[112] and has accepted the controversial domain name ".sucks" (referring to the primarily US slang for being inferior or objectionable).[113] sucks domains are owned and controlled by the Vox Populi Registry which won the rights for .sucks gTLD in November 2014.[114]

The .sucks domain registrar has been described as "predatory, exploitive and coercive" by the Intellectual Property Constituency that advises the ICANN board.[113] When the .sucks registry announced their pricing model, "most brand owners were upset and felt like they were being penalized by having to pay more to protect their brands."[115] Because of the low utility of the ".sucks" domain, most fees come from "Brand Protection" customers registering their trademarks to prevent domains being registered.[116]

Canadian brands had complained that they were being charged "exorbitant" prices to register their trademarks as premium names. FTC chair Edith Ramirez has written to ICANN to say the agency will take action against the .sucks owner if "we have reason to believe an entity has engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act".[117] The Register reported that intellectual property lawyers are infuriated that "the dot-sucks registry was charging trademark holders $2,500 for .sucks domains and everyone else $10."[118]

U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte has said that trademark holders are "being shaken down" by the registry's fees.[119] Jay Rockefeller says that .sucks is "a predatory shakedown scheme" and "Approving '.sucks', a gTLD with little or no public interest value, will have the effect of undermining the credibility ICANN has slowly been building with skeptical stakeholders."[113]

.islam, .halal top level domains

In a long-running dispute, ICANN has so far declined to allow a Turkish company to purchase the .islam and .halal gTLDs, after the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation objected that the gTLDs should be administered by an organization that represents all the world's 1.6 billion Muslims.[120] After a number of attempts to resolve the issue the domains are still held "on hold".[121]

.org price cap removal

In April 2019, ICANN proposed an end to the price cap of org domains[122] and effectively removed it in July in spite of having received 3,252 opposing comments and only six in favor.[123] A few months later, the owner of the domain, the Public Interest Registry, proposed to sell the domain to investment firm Ethos Capital.[124]

.amazon gTLD dispute

In May 2019, ICANN decided in favor of granting exclusive administration rights to amazon.com for the .amazon gTLD after a 7 year long dispute with the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO). [125][126]

See also

References
  1. ICANN 2020 annual report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/annual-report-2020-en.pdf
  2. "ICANN Bylaws". July 30, 2014. Retrieved June 30, 2015.
  3. "Cheers to the Multistakeholder Community". ICANN.
  4. "Final Implementation Update". ICANN.
  5. "Stewardship of IANA Functions Transitions to Global Internet Community as Contract with U.S. Government Ends". ICANN.
  6. "Statement of Assistant Secretary Strickling on IANA Functions Contract". National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
  7. Koppell, Jonathan GS (January 17, 2005). "Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of "Multiple Accountabilities Disorder"". Public Administration Review. 65 (1): 94–108. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x.
  8. "Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and Internet Corporation for assigned names and numbers". November 25, 1998. Retrieved October 31, 2015.
  9. "ICANN Annual Report 2010" (PDF). ICANN. Retrieved March 16, 2023.
  10. Duran, Clint. "ICANN - Articles of Incorporation" (PDF). ICANN. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 5, 2018. Retrieved September 18, 2020.
  11. V. Cerf (October 17, 1998). I REMEMBER IANA. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC2468. RFC 2468.
  12. Zittrain, Jonathan (March 24, 2014). "No, Barack Obama Isn't Handing Control of the Internet Over to China". The New Republic. Retrieved March 31, 2014.
  13. "Internet Domain Names, Part I". United States House of Representatives.
  14. DeNardis, Laura (2009). Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-04257-4.
  15. NTIA/PTO. "Internet Domain Names". www.ntia.doc.gov.
  16. "Management of Internet Names and Addresses". Dept of Commerce/NTIA. Retrieved March 14, 2013.
  17. Weil, Nancy. "New U.S. policy turns 'Net governance over to private sector". SunWorld. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
  18. Lewis, Ted G. (2014). Book of Extremes: Why the 21st Century Isn't Like the 20th Century. Springer. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-3319069265.
  19. B. Carpenter, F. Baker, M. Roberts (June 2000). MoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC2860. RFC 2860.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. California Secretary of State, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Archived March 21, 2007, at the Wayback Machine. [Retrieved 2009-09-18].
  21. "Articles of Incorporation of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers". Los Angeles: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. November 21, 1998. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
  22. "ICANN". icann.org.
  23. "Executive Summary of DNS/ICANN Issues". Berkman Center. Retrieved February 22, 2013.
  24. "Santiago Resolutions". ICANN Board Resolutions. ICANN. Retrieved May 22, 2012.
  25. "Executive Summary of DNS/ICANN Now, ICANN policy is being set by ambiguous so-called Communities. In a dramatic departure from IANA, ICANN has allowed secrecy and concealment of the true ownership of domain names. There are whole sets of nominee registrants whose purpose is to conceal the true ownership of domain names. Issues". Harvard Cyberlaw Briefing Book. Berkman Center. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
  26. "DNSO Application Timetable". DNSO. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
  27. ICANN Board. "DNSO Singapore Statement". ICANN. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
  28. "DNSO Formation Concepts". ICANN. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
  29. "United States cedes control of the Internet – but what now?". The Register. July 27, 2006.
  30. Wolfgang Benedek; Veronika Bauer; Matthias C. Kettemann (2008). Internet Governance and the Information Society: Global Perspectives and European Dimensions. Eleven International Publishing. p. 16. ISBN 978-90-77596-56-2. Retrieved April 13, 2012.
  31. Rebecca MacKinnon (January 31, 2012). Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle For Internet Freedom. Basic Books. p. 207. ISBN 978-0-465-02442-1. Retrieved April 13, 2012.
  32. "Bush administration annexes Internet". The Register. July 1, 2005.
  33. "U.S. DoC letter to ICANN's Chairman". July 30, 2008. Retrieved August 3, 2008.
  34. "US Government finally lets ICANN go", Eileen Yu, ZDNet, September 30, 2009.
  35. Gross, Grant (October 1, 2009). "New ICANN Agreement Runs into Criticism". PC World. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  36. Farrell, Maria (March 14, 2016). "Quietly, symbolically, US control of the internet was just ended". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  37. "The U.S. government no longer controls the Internet". Yahoo! Tech. Archived from the original on October 3, 2016. Retrieved October 2, 2016.
  38. Fuller, Kathleen E. (February 14, 2001). "ICANN: The Debate Over Governing the Internet" (PDF). Duke Law & Technology Review. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  39. Malcolm, Jeremy (2008). "2.1.3. Criticisms". Multi-Stakeholder Public Policy Governance and its Application to the Internet Governance Forum (PhD). Murdoch University. OCLC 436943765. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  40. Froomkin, Michael (October 2000). "Wrong Turn in Cyberspace" (PDF). Duke Law Journal. 50 (17). doi:10.2307/1373113. hdl:10535/3464. ISSN 0012-7086. JSTOR 1373113. LCCN sf82007022. OCLC 1567016. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  41. "Court Grants Access to Net Regulatory Corp Records", Media Release, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EEF), July 29, 2002.
  42. Geoff Huston (October 17, 2003). "Wildcard entries in DNS entries". IAB. Retrieved June 23, 2008.
  43. "ICANN imposes $2 Internet tax". The Register. March 31, 2005.
  44. "ICANN Board Approves VeriSign Settlement Agreements", Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), February 28, 2006. Retrieved November 1, 2006.
  45. "Domain name price hikes come under fire – CNET News". January 2, 2013. Archived from the original on January 2, 2013.
  46. The Register, Burke Hansen Of ICANN and the Registerfly meltdown, March 3, 2007.
  47. "'Worst Spam Offenders' Notified by ICANN, News release, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), May 23, 2008.
  48. "2008 ICANN Registrar Report", KnujOn.com
  49. "Registrar Accreditation Agreement", Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), May 17, 2001 with updates 2002–2006.
  50. "32nd International Public ICANN Meeting". ICANN. June 22, 2008.
  51. "Announcement 1 October 2002", Archived February 21, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
  52. "Accountability and Transparency Review Team – Selection of Independent Expert and Update on ATRT Review", News release, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), August 10, 2010.
  53. "The First AART (Accountability and Transparency Review Team) Review was Completed in December 2010", Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), January 17, 2012.
  54. "Available Pool of Unallocated IPv4 Internet Addresses Now Completely Emptied", News release, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), February 3, 2011.
  55. New Internet Name Rule Opens Door to Huge Changes. Voice of America, June 20, 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2011.
  56. Internet minders OK vast expansion of domain names, Associated Press, June 20, 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2011.
  57. Icann to allow any word as a domain, ZDNet, June 20, 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2011.
  58. ICANN increases web domain suffixes, BBC News, June 20, 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2011.
  59. "ICANN Approves Historic Change to Internet's Domain Name System – Board Votes to Launch New Generic Top-Level Domains", News release, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), June 20, 2001.
  60. "ICANN Approves New Top-Level Domains, So Prepare For .Whatever", Stan Schroeder, Mashable Tech, June 20, 2011.
  61. Milian, Mark (December 21, 2011). "Keepers of the Internet face their greatest challenges ever". CNN. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  62. Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, ICANN, October 7, 2013. Retrieved November 27, 2016.
  63. Do the NSA revelations have anything to do with Internet governance?, Internet Governance Project, February 19, 2014. Retrieved November 27, 2016
  64. "Stewardship of IANA Functions Transitions to Global Internet Community as Contract with U.S. Government Ends – ICANN". icann.org. Retrieved October 1, 2016.
  65. Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. "ICANN makes last minute WHOIS changes to address GDPR requirements - ZDNet". ZDNet.
  66. BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS | A California Nonprofit Public-Benefit Corporation. ICANN. Retrieved April 28, 2014.
  67. "Generic Names Supporting Organization". ICANNWiki.
  68. "Bylaws For Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers". icann.org. Go to Governance, Bylaws, ARTICLE VIII-Article X. February 25, 2012.
  69. "Bylaws For Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers". icann.org. Go to Governance, Bylaws, ARTICLE XI and ARTICLE XI-A. February 25, 2012.
  70. "Regional At-Large Organisations – ALAC – Confluence". community.icann.org.
  71. "Bylaws For Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers". icann.org. Go to Governance, Bylaws, ARTICLE XI and ARTICLE XI-A, Section 2. February 25, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  72. "GAC Website (Main)". gac.icann.org.
  73. "GAC Observers – GAC Website (Main)". gacweb.icann.org.
  74. "Criteria for Trusted Community Representatives". IANA. May 12, 2017. Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  75. ICANN decided to reduce direct public ("at large") participation on March 14, 2002, at a public meeting in Accra, Ghana.
  76. "Non-Commercial Users – Generic Names Supporting Organization". gnso.icann.org.
  77. "Public Participation in ICANN: A Preliminary Study". cyber.harvard.edu. Retrieved August 1, 2022.
  78. "U.N. Summit to Focus on Internet". The Washington Post. December 5, 2003.
  79. "Power grab could split the net". CNET. October 3, 2005. Archived from the original on July 12, 2012.
  80. ICANN Government Advisory Committee Archived July 26, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  81. Weinberg, Jonathan (2000). "ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy". Duke Law Journal. 50 (1): 187–260. doi:10.2307/1373114. hdl:10535/2623. ISSN 0012-7086. JSTOR 1373114.
  82. Hannibal Travis, The Battle for Mindshare: the Emerging Consensus that the First Amendment Protects Corporate Criticism and Parody on the Internet, 10 Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 3, 32–34 (2005), Vjolt.net
  83. "Initial Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services: A Next Generation Registration Directory Service" (PDF). ICANN Expert Working Group. June 24, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2013.
  84. Murphy, Kevin (June 13, 2014). "Whois "killer" is a recipe for a clusterfuck". Domain Incite. Retrieved June 21, 2014.
  85. Intellectual Property Solutions & Legal Support Services Archived September 21, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. CPA Global. Retrieved April 28, 2014.
  86. Sjmc: Common Sense Journalism. Jour.sc.edu. Retrieved April 28, 2014.
  87. "Recommendations from the IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) Multistakeholder meeting on Global Internet Governance" Archived October 5, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, September 1–2, 2011, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  88. "Tunis Agenda for the Information Society", World Summit on the Information Society, November 18, 2005
  89. "India's Statement Proposing UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy". Centre for Internet and Society. Retrieved August 20, 2015.
  90. Kaul, Mahima. "India changes its internet governance position – backs away from UN proposal". UNCUT. Archived from the original on November 3, 2012. Retrieved March 15, 2013.
  91. Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, ICANN, October 7, 2013. Retrieved October 12, 2013.
  92. "Brazil's anti-NSA prez urged to SNATCH keys to the internet from America", Rik Myslewski, The Register, October 11, 2013. Retrieved October 11, 2013.
  93. Milton Mueller (November 19, 2013). "Booting up Brazil". IGP Blog. Retrieved February 11, 2014.
  94. "Entrevista com Fadi Chehadé: Brasil sediará encontro mundial de governança da internet em 2014", Palácio do Planalto, October 9, 2013. Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  95. "Chair's Summary" Archived April 23, 2022, at the Wayback Machine, Eighth Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Bali, Indonesia, October 22–25, 2013. Retrieved November 5, 2013.
  96. "CENTR: Internet Governance in 2013 and What's Coming Up in 2014". CircleID. January 27, 2014. Retrieved February 11, 2014.
  97. Paul Wilson (November 29, 2013). "What Is "1net" to Me". CircleID blog. Retrieved February 11, 2014.
  98. Shapira, Ian (March 1, 2011). "Obama administration joins critics of U.S. nonprofit group that oversees Internet". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  99. "NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions". NTIA. Retrieved October 25, 2014.
  100. "Future of the internet debated at NetMundial in Brazil". BBC News. April 23, 2014. Retrieved June 2, 2014.
  101. "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement Concludes Act One of 2014 Internet Governance Trifecta". CircleID. May 3, 2014. Retrieved June 2, 2014.
  102. "ICANN Releases Roadmap, Timeline for Future Management of Internet". PC Tech Magazine. May 21, 2014. Retrieved June 2, 2014.
  103. "NETmundial Initiative – Debrief with Founding Partners". Archived from the original on February 9, 2015. Retrieved June 2, 2014.
  104. "Public Declaration on the NETmundial Initiative issued by members of the board of CGI.br". Retrieved June 2, 2014.
  105. "At NETmundial, the U.S. Kept Its Companies on the Global Stage". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. April 30, 2014. Archived from the original on April 30, 2014. Retrieved June 2, 2014.
  106. "The future of the internet". Business Standard. May 3, 2014. Retrieved June 2, 2014.
  107. "Towards a Collaborative, Decentralized Internet Governance Ecosystem – report by the Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms". May 20, 2014. Archived from the original on June 6, 2014. Retrieved June 2, 2014.
  108. "France attacks ICANN as unfit for internet governance". Yahoo! News. Agence France-Presse. June 25, 2014. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  109. Arthur, Charles (June 13, 2012). "Icann criticised over 'commercial landgrab' of internet". The Guardian. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  110. Chappell, Bill (June 14, 2012). "ICANN's Call For New Domain Names Brings Criticism, And $357 Million". NPR. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  111. "Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight (CRIDO)". ANA. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  112. "ICANN banked $60m from dot-word auctions. Just what exactly is it going to spend it all on?". The Register. April 17, 2015.
  113. "ICANN urges US, Canada: Help us stop the 'predatory' monster we created ... dot-sucks!". The Register. April 10, 2015.
  114. "Dot Sucks Web Address". Retrieved November 1, 2018.
  115. "Is .SUCKS Pricing Model Gaining Traction With Other Registries?". CircleID. June 25, 2015.
  116. Guardian Staff (March 23, 2015). "Why You Should Buy Your Dot Sucks Domain Name". The Guardian. Retrieved November 1, 2018.
  117. "Canada weighs in on .sucks debate". IP Pro. June 19, 2015.
  118. "Canada to ICANN in dot-sucks dot-rumble: Take off, you hoser!". The Register. June 15, 2015.
  119. "A Debate Over the Domain '.sucks'". Wall Street Journal. May 19, 2015.
  120. Murphy, Kevin (November 14, 2013). "Will ICANN be forced to reject Islamic gTLDs?". DomainIncite. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  121. McCarthy, Kieren (July 30, 2018). "The internet's very own Muslim ban continues: DNS overlord insists it can freeze dot-words". The Register. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  122. McCarthy, Kieren (April 26, 2019). "Internet industry freaks out over proposed unlimited price hikes on org domain names". The Register. Retrieved November 23, 2019.
  123. Lee, Timothy B. (July 1, 2019). "ICANN eliminates org domain price caps despite lopsided opposition". Ars Technica. Retrieved November 23, 2019.
  124. McCarthy, Kieren (November 20, 2019). "Internet world despairs as non-profit .org sold for $$$$ to private equity firm, price caps axed". The Register. Retrieved November 23, 2019.
  125. "Amazon wins '.amazon' domain name, aggravating South American region and undermining digital commons". June 21, 2019.
  126. Darlington, Shasta (April 18, 2019). "Battle for .amazon Domain Pits Retailer Against South American Nations". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 3, 2022.

Further reading
Wikimedia Commons has media related to ICANN.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.