By Joe Salkowski
They meet in secret. Their appointments were secret as well, made by anonymous government officials and an enigmatic Internet pioneer who died shortly after naming them to their posts.
They were supposed to focus on finding a way to turn over their jobs to people chosen more democratically. Yet these unelected officials stand accused of overstaying their welcome and threatening the delicate balance of corporate, public and private interests that has kept the Internet running relatively smoothly all these years.
They are members of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a nonprofit group based in Marina del Rey, better known as ICANN. And so far, they’re fumbling their chance to provide the Web with its first real dose of democratic government.
ICANN was created by the Department of Commerce to oversee the introduction of competition into the market for assigning the Web’s numeric addresses and domain names.
Until now, Web addresses have been assigned by Network Solutions Inc., or NSI, a Virginia company that has held an exclusive contract issued years ago by the United States government to register names ending in .com, .net and .org.
At the time, it might have seemed like the company was doing the government a favor. Since then, though, NSI has made millions off the Net’s growth, including the proceeds of a public stock offering that has left the company with a market value of $1.5 billion.
ICANN was created primarily to oversee the phasing out of NSI’s government-approved monopoly, and the opening up of the domain-name marketplace to competition.
You can understand why NSI officials probably weren’t thrilled when the federal government decided to end their monopoly over the Net’s most popular zip codes. Oh sure, they said all the right things last year when Department of Commerce officials talked about bringing other players into their market.
They even said they welcomed the competition, a claim that makes about as much sense as Michael Jordan wishing there was someone good enough to stuff his dunks back in his face.
But ever since the feds created ICANN to carry out those plans, NSI officials have secretly hoped for a way to put off the day when their monopoly actually ends. Much to their glee, ICANN has handed them plenty of opportunities to do just that.
ICANN’s initial board is made up of members handpicked by Department of Commerce officials and Jon Postel, the man who ran the numeric side of the Web’s address system before his death last year. While Postel was widely respected by the technicians who keep the Net clicking, he didn’t live long enough to answer questions about whether he really had the authority to single-handedly appoint the Web’s first de facto government.
This wouldn’t be a big problem if the board members had restricted their activities to coming up with a way to replace themselves with a more representative panel something the federal government seemed to suggest should be the case. Instead, they’ve forged ahead to write contracts for domain name registrars and make plans for a $1-per-address fee to support ICANN’s operation.
The board also decided to hold its meetings in private, apparently inspired by the dramatic success of similar practices in the former Soviet Union. As you might expect, this hasn’t exactly endeared ICANN to online activists, who value the free flow of information above even their constitutionally protected right to bash Microsoft.
ICANN’s behavior has drawn opposition from a broad coalition of critics, including cyber rights groups, consumer advocate Ralph Nader and a collection of the Net’s foremost legal analysts. This, in turn, has provided Network Solutions with the political cover it needs to begin the process of seriously scuttling competition in the domain name market.
Company officials have refused to sign ICANN’s contracts, citing high-minded complaints about the board’s activities. They also convinced their hometown congressman, House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley, to write a scathing letter questioning ICANN’s decision to impose a $1-per-domain-name “tax” and threatening a congressional inquiry into the board’s legitimacy.
This wrangling will succeed in putting off competition until the Department of Commerce musters the political muscle to put NSI in its place. But that’s going to be difficult if ICANN keeps attracting critics, particularly those with the legal authority to pass a bill to shut them down.
ICANN’s board members, most of whom hold positions of authority in the business world, need to abandon their illusions of self-importance and start playing politics. They should open their meetings and put off talk of new fees until they replace themselves with a new, more democratically elected board that can consider the matter without raising the specter of taxation without representation.
If ICANN resolves these common-sense criticisms, it could eliminate the arguments propping up Network Solutions’ resistance and take significant steps toward its goal of a competitive domain name marketplace.
Otherwise, it might consider changing its name to ICAN’T.
To contact syndicated columnist Joe Salkowski, you can e-mail him at [email protected] or write to him c/o Tribune Media Services. Inc., 435 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60611.
