In 2015, US will relinquish control of major Internet body

See the Web address for this article? Currently, the US government regulates domains names through a contract with nonprofit regulator ICANN. Countries and Internet activists say this gives the US unfair control over the Web. Come September 2015, that will change.

Tim Hales/AP
ICANN President and Chief Executive Rod Beckstrom and Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President, discuss expanding the number of domain name suffixes at a London press conference. ICANN will soon be controlled by a new group of global stakeholders.

By 2015, the heart of the Internet will no longer beat in the United States.

On Friday, the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to concede its control over the domain name nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to a multistakeholder model. The move will significantly globalize the governance of a key part of the Internet – who is in control of domain names – a move that comes after increased pressure to break down US control over the technical underpinnings of the Web.

“The timing is right to start the transition process,” says Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, in a statement.  “We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.”

The US has maintained centralized control over the Domain Name Systems (DNS) since the late 1960s, when ARPANET began to morph into the network of government and research networks that would lay the groundwork for the Internet. Essentially, the DNS is what translates Web pages from a series of numbers to suffixes such as .com, .net, and hundreds of others (as of this February). For about a decade, ICANN, which is controlled by a variety of stakeholders, has been contracted by the US government (NTIA) to regulate this process.

In essence, this gives the US government the capability to nix any domain name address it wants, or at least make it very difficult to find online (though there isn't indication the US has done that yet). In the meantime, there has been a movement by several countries, especially Russia and China, to transfer this control to the UN. Russia and China have been the loudest voices against the US control, likely due to the domain name-nixing powers: they can block access to certain websites, but they can’t prevent anyone from actually registering a domain name with content they deem questionable. 

The US government had hinted that it is willing to concede its DNS power to multi-player control as early as 1997, but the ICANN contract goes until September 2015. In the meantime, NTIA is asking ICANN to put together a multistakeholder proposal, a change ICANN says it is prepared to make.

“The Internet technical community is strong enough to continue its role, while assuming the stewardship function as it transitions from the US government,” says ICANN in a statement.

ICANN hasn't made a specific statement about who may make up this multistakeholder control, but it will contain a mixture of governments and private sector companies.

"Even though ICANN will continue to perform these vital technical functions, the U.S. has long envisioned the day when stewardship over them would be transitioned to the global community," says Dr. Stephen D. Crocker, ICANN's board chair, in a statement. "In other words, we have all long known the destination. Now it is up to our global stakeholder community to determine the best route to get us there."

Though there haven’t been specific issues with the US government contract thus far, the partnership hasn’t been without its naysayers.

Just last Wednesday, on the 25th birthday of the World Wide Web, Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee called for an Internet Bill of Rights, which would ensure individuals’ right to access, privacy, and freedom of expression (among other principles) online. He has long expressed his frustration at America's centralized control of domain names.

"Now, 25 years on, Web users are realizing they need human rights on the Web,” he says to CNN. “We need independence of the Web for democracy, we need independence of the Web to be able to support the press, we need independence of the Web in general. It's becoming very important to sort out all that."

The US has also come under closer scrutiny in the past year more than ever before, due to NSA spying revelations. In addition to extensive spying on US citizens, it came to light that the NSA spied on world leaders, such as German chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff. This has sparked an international conversation about online privacy rights, especially as the US houses many of the world’s most powerful technology organizations on top of DNS governance.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.