Task 1: Provide
expertise and advice on private sector functions related to technical
management of the DNS such as the policy and direction of the
allocation of IP number blocks and coordination of the assignment
of other Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain
universal connectivity on the Internet.
Status of progress on task 1: Throughout the
joint project, ICANN has contributed its technical advice and
expertise on various aspects of private-sector management of
the Internet domain-name system. To assist in this regard, at
the beginning of 1999 ICANN entered a transition
agreement with the University of Southern California's Information
Sciences Institute (ISI), under which ICANN secured the services
of the IANA team at ISI.
Additionally, ICANN has made good use of
other expertise in the Internet technical community to contribute
to this task. Reliable, timely, and fair allocation of IP addresses
and protocol parameters is a key requirement for the continued
stable operation of the Internet and for its growth and evolution
to satisfy the ever-increasing and ever-changing demands that
its success is generating. At the time the DOC-ICANN MOU was
entered, these functions were performed by the IANA
(a set of functions undertaken by personnel of the University
of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute) in coordination
with the regional Internet
registries (RIRs) and Internet standards-development organizations
(SDOs). Thus, a key aspect of the DNS Project was to devise and
implement stable relationships with those existing organizations,
so that the organizations are integrated into ICANN's overall
technical-policy-coordination function. These organizations have
extensive expertise in the address and protocol policy arenas
that is vital to effective functioning of the ICANN policy-development
process in these technical areas; similarly, smooth implementation
requires their cooperation in abiding by the resulting policies.
In the last half of 1999, ICANN entered
into memoranda of understanding with the RIRs and SDOs. These
agreements set forth the ongoing roles of those organizations
in the ICANN policy-development process, so that the development
and implementation of global addressing and protocol-parameter
assignment policies through the ICANN process benefit from their
full cooperation. Specifically, the ICANN "Protocol
Supporting Organization" (PSO) was formed on July 14,
1999, through the entry of a Memorandum of Understanding signed
by representatives of ICANN and four standards-development organizations:
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C), International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). <http://www.icann.org/pso/pso-mou.htm>
On October 18, 1999, the ICANN "Address
Supporting Organization" (ASO) was formed through the
entry of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by representatives
of ICANN and the world's three current regional internet registries:
APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE NCC. <http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html>
These memoranda of understanding establish
the ASO and PSO as the bodies primarily responsible for formulating
address and protocol policy recommendations within the ICANN
process.
The ASO is managed by an Address
Council composed of members selected by the RIRs through
open and transparent processes. The Address Council has been
in active operation since October 1999 and the ASO's first general
assembly was held in May 2000. In October 1999, the Address Council
selected three directors
by vote who have since served on ICANN's Board of Directors.
Since then, the Address Council has been working both on its
own procedures for developing global address policy recommendations
and on current address-policy issues, such as guidelines for
creation and recognition of new RIRs and the definition of the
division between global address-policy issues (handled directly
by the ICANN process) and regional address-policy issues (delegated
to the RIRs).
The PSO also voted to select three directors
to ICANN's Board in October 1999. Since then, ICANN has been
working to strengthen its operational relationships with the
SDOs that are PSO members. On March 10, 2000, ICANN and the IETF
entered a Memorandum
of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority, under which the IETF has appointed
ICANN to perform the protocol-parameter assignment functions
arising from the technical Internet standards developed by the
IETF. The ICANN-IETF memorandum of understanding contemplates
that ICANN may perform similar services for other SDOs so that
the technical development of the Internet has a convenient, single
repository for the assignment of parameters under technical standards.
In sum, ICANN has achieved stable relationships
with the Internet SDOs and the RIRs. These relationships allow
those organizations to continue their technical work in their
respective areas of activity, while bringing them together within
the ICANN process to formulate policies that span the areas of
activity of multiple organizations. Significant collaborative
work is ongoing between ICANN (including its ASO) and the RIRs
on issues such as the appropriate allocation of responsibilities
for address policy formulation and implementation between regional
and global forums. One area not yet completed is the establishment
of formal legal relationships under which the RIRs will contribute
to ICANN's costs of operation. The RIRs have each agreed to a
contribution for the current fiscal year which, collectively
among all three RIRs, comprises 10% of ICANN's general costs,
but contractual documents memorializing this commitment have
not yet been completed. With this exception, the design, implementation,
and successful testing of these sound interrelationships among
the Internet's key technical standards and IP-address-assignment
bodies fulfills the requirements of Task 1 of the DOC-ICANN joint
project.
Task 2: Collaborate
on the design, development and testing of procedures by which
members of the Internet community adversely affected by decisions
that are in conflict with the bylaws of the organization can
seek external review of such decisions by a neutral third party.
Status of progress on task 2: In the joint project,
three principal mechanisms have been designed and developed for
addressing claims by members of the Internet community that they
have been adversely affected by decisions in conflict with ICANN's
bylaws:
a. Reconsideration process. On March
4, 1999, ICANN adopted a reconsideration
policy under which members of the Internet community affected
by actions of the ICANN staff or Board can seek reconsideration
of those actions by the Board. Requests for reconsideration are
addressed first by a reconsideration committee consisting of
three ICANN directors, which investigates as appropriate and
makes recommendations to the ICANN board. Approximately ten such
requests have been received and acted on; while most did not
involve allegations that ICANN's bylaws had been violated, the
process has on occasion been used to raise such complaints.
b. Independent review process. On
March 10, 2000, ICANN adopted an independent
review policy. Under the policy, a panel consisting of legally
trained persons (e.g., current and former judges) not holding
any office or position within the ICANN structure will consider
complaints that the ICANN Board has acted or failed to act in
a manner contrary to ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and/or
Bylaws. The formation of a committee to nominate members of the
independent review panel is currently underway by the various
ICANN Supporting Organizations.
c. Arbitration process. In the domain-name
arena, ICANN policies are mainly implemented through ICANN's
entry of agreements with domain-name registries and registrars.
Many of these agreements include provisions paralleling protections
in ICANN's bylaws concerning open and transparent policymaking,
fostering of competition, and prohibitions of arbitrary or unjustifiable
action. They also include arbitration provisions, which give
the parties contracting with ICANN access to a neutral decisionmaker
to resolve questions under these provisions.
In sum, the design of multiple mechanisms
for neutral review of ICANN's compliance with its bylaws is complete.
Although one of the mechanisms is in the implementation phase,
the others are in place and, in the case of the reconsideration
process, extensively tested. Task 2 is thus well underway and
should be completed within the next few months.
Task 3: Collaborate
on the design, development, and testing of a plan for introduction
of competition in domain name registration services, including:
a. Development of procedures to designate
third parties to participate in tests conducted pursuant to this
Agreement.
b. Development of an accreditation procedure
for registrars and procedures that subject registrars to consistent
requirements designed to promote a stable and robustly competitive
DNS, as set forth in the Statement of Policy.
c. Identification of the software, databases,
know-how, intellectual property, and other equipment necessary
to implement the plan for competition.
Status of progress on task 3: A significant part
of ICANN's work under the joint project during the first three
quarters of 1999 was devoted to this task, which is now complete.
In January-March 1999, in consultation with DOC (which had laid
the groundwork by entering Amendment
11 to the U.S. Government's cooperative agreement with Network
Solutions, Inc.), ICANN developed and adopted a registrar
accreditation policy for the .com, .net, and .org top-level
domains.
That initial policy, which incorporated
various requirements for accredited registrars to permit robust
competition at the registrar level while preserving stable operation
of these top-level domains, led to the April
1999 designation of five registrars to participate in a testbed.
Actual live operations under the testbed began in June 1999.
After initial operation of the testbed with the five registrars,
it was extended to other registrars. At the end of November 1999,
the testbed was concluded.
The registrar accreditation policy has
been subject to refinement through subsequent discussions within
the Internet community, which resulted in a revised
set of agreements approved by the ICANN Board at its annual
meeting on November 4, 1999 and in further revisions by the adoption
of an interim registry
service level agreement in April 2000. Ongoing competitive
operations by approximately fifty registrars are now underway,
with an additional sixty accredited registrars in the process
of developing their business systems to enter the market. In
less than one year since testbed operations began, the share
of net new registrations attributable to Network Solutions (the
sole registrar since 1993) has dropped from 100% to under 50%.
Over the same period, retail registration pricing has dropped
from $35 per year to as little as $10 per year, with some registrars
even offering domain-name registration "free" as part
of larger service packages.
Thus, while the constantly changing character
of the Internet merits periodic review of the accreditation program,
a plan for introduction of competition has been designed, developed,
and tested in fulfillment of this task.
Task 4: Collaborate
on written technical procedures for operation of the primary
root server including procedures that permit modifications, additions
or deletions to the root zone file.
Status of progress on task 4: Soon after ICANN
was formed, the DNS
Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) was formed.
That committee includes the operators of all thirteen DNS root
servers as well as DNS and network-topology technical experts.
As part of the joint project, a DOC official (Mark Bohannon,
Chief Counsel, Technology Administration) has participated in
the RSSAC's activities.
The RSSAC has been working to define technical
procedures for operation of the root nameservers. These include
a plan
for operation and monitoring of the root nameservers during the
Y2K event. This plan achieved the flawless operation of the root
nameserver system during the Y2K rollover. The RSSAC is also
currently developing a plan for architectural modifications to
the root-server system designed to enhance its security and operation,
along with a detailed plan for shifting the primary nameserver
as a means to migrate to this enhanced architecture. The committee
expects to present its architectural consensus at the ICANN meeting
in Yokohama on July 15, 2000. Once this architecture and the
related implementation plans are adopted and executed, the work
needed to accomplish this task will be completed.
Task 5: Collaborate
on a study and process for making the management of the root
server system more robust and secure. This aspect of the Project
will address:
a. Operational requirements of root
name servers, including host hardware capacities, operating system
and name server software versions, network connectivity, and
physical environment.
b. Examination of the security aspects
of the root name server system and review of the number, location,
and distribution of root name servers considering the total system
performance, robustness, and reliability.
c. Development of operational procedures
for the root system, including formalization of contractual relationships
under which root servers throughout the world are operated.
Status of progress on task 5: As noted under
task 4, the ICANN RSSAC, which includes the operators of all
thirteen root nameservers, has been formulating procedures that
will increase the security and robustness of the root server
system. In addition to the Y2K initiative and the plans for migrating
to an enhanced architecture mentioned under task 4, the members
of the RSSAC have worked within the Domain
Name Server Operations (dnsop) working group of the IETF
to define best practices for the operation of the root nameservers.
The RSSAC also has an ongoing project to review and, as necessary,
revise the placement of the root nameservers to better align
with DNS usage patterns.
The RSSAC, ICANN staff, and DOC officials
have also been discussing appropriate, formal contractual arrangements
between ICANN and the organizations operating the root servers.
The goal is to complete this work by August 2000.
In short, although much of the work to
accomplish task 5 has been done, some additional work is needed
to complete the study and process envisioned in the MOU. This
work should be completed within the next few months.
Task 6: Collaborate
on the design, development and testing of a process for affected
parties to participate in the formulation of policies and procedures
that address the technical management of the Internet. This process
will include methods for soliciting, evaluating and responding
to comments in the adoption of policies and procedures.
Status of progress on task 6: In view of ICANN's
fundamental character as a consensus-based technical-coordination
body, the design of mechanisms for affected parties to participate
in the formulation of policies concerning the Internet's technical
management has been a central and continuing focus of the joint
project since its inception. Many different mechanisms have been
designed, developed, and tested. The different mechanisms tested
have, in practice, shown different strengths and weaknesses;
the refinement of participatory mechanisms likely will be a ongoing
feature of ICANN's design.
One of the challenges in the design of
participatory mechanisms is that, in view of ICANN's non-governmental
character, many of the mechanisms used in governmental policy-making
are too cumbersome to meet the needs of the ICANN process. Moreover,
ICANN lacks any governmental power to compel compliance with
its policies. ICANN's policies instead will be implemented only
to the extent that those in a position to do so (registrars,
ISPs, etc.) in fact implement them, either by previous agreement
or otherwise. Given this circumstance, bottom-up participation
by the implementing parties in policy formulation, in circumstances
where it is practical, has an advantage over mechanisms traditionally
used by governments because bottom-up mechanisms tend to ensure
that resulting policies are widely embraced by the implementers.
On the other hand, experience to date under the joint project
has indicated that fully bottom-up mechanisms can require extended
periods to reach resolution.
Some of the major mechanisms already evaluated,
currently being evaluated, or under design for evaluation, in
the joint project are:
a. Notice-and-comment mechanisms.
ICANN's bylaws provide for notice
and public comment (both in writing and at a public forum)
on any policies that substantially affect the operation of the
Internet or third parties. During the joint project ICANN has
developed and implemented various methods for electronic publication
of policy proposals and for electronic collection of comments
from affected parties and the public generally. In addition to
e-mail based mechanisms (mailing lists and mail-in bulletin boards),
ICANN has developed software to support web-based comment mechanisms
that are in active use.
b. Address and Protocol Supporting Organizations.
In the areas of IP-addressing and protocol policy, organizations
(RIRs and SDOs) existing prior to ICANN employed their own processes
for policy formulation. The ASO and PSO make good use of their
member organizations' processes by referring most address- and
protocol-policy issues, at least in the first instance, to those
organizations. To the extent particular policy issues are not
appropriately resolved at the member-organization level, the
ASO and PSO offer additional forums for participation by other
member organizations and by the Internet community generally.
c. Domain Name Supporting Organization
(DNSO). In the case of domain-name policy, community sentiment
at the beginning of the joint project indicated that the supporting
organization for domain-name issues should be formed anew, rather
than seeking to incorporate existing policy-development organizations.
In March 1999, at the ICANN meeting in Singapore, the Internet
community presented a consensus proposal, based on which the
ICANN Board adopted a "Statement
of Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts."
Under this statement of concepts, seven constituencies of Internet
stakeholders were self-organized. Later in 1999, they were provisionally
recognized by the ICANN Board and the DNSO
began operating. After five months of operation, the DNSO and
its constituencies were accorded final recognition.
Within its design, the DNSO has many opportunities
for bottom-up participation in the policy-formulation process.
As noted, a principal feature of the DNSO's structure is the
seven interest-based constituency organizations. In addition
to choosing representatives to the DNSO Names Council (which
has overall responsibility for managing the policy-development
process within the DNSO), each constituency organization serves
as a forum for its members to raise and debate issues of mutual
interest, whether initially raised within the constituency or
developed by another DNSO body. The Names Council has also chartered
several working groups, which are charged to do preliminary evaluations
of issues or proposals in focused policy areas. Working groups
conduct their business primarily by e-mail.
Finally, the DNSO embraces a general assembly as a forum for
discussion and participation in the work of the DNSO open to
all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO.
In support of this forum, the DNSO hosts a mailing list and periodically
holds meetings of DNSO participants.
d. Contractual consensus requirements.
Because policies developed through the ICANN process can only
be implemented by agreement of businesses in a position to do
so (registry operators, registrars, etc.), ICANN has entered
into agreements with those businesses under which they agree
to implement various present or future policies. In many aspects,
these agreements establish that the businesses will follow future
policies created through the ICANN consensus-development process.
These provisions have prompted consensus-based policy development
efforts within particular constituencies, such as the registrar
constituency.
e. Working groups, task forces, drafting
committees, etc. As noted above, the DNSO has made active
use of working groups as participatory mechanisms for preliminary
evaluations of policy issues or proposals in the domain-name
area. In addition, ICANN has adopted the practice in its budgeting
process of convening a task force consisting of representatives
of organizations that provide the funds for defraying ICANN's
operating costs. At times, ICANN has also convened small groups
drawn from various segments of the Internet community to advise
ICANN's staff on the implementation of various policies.
f. Delegation of policy formulation
to specialized consensus-based groups, such as top-level domain
sponsors. A longstanding feature of Internet coordination
is the delegation of most aspects of policy formulation to local,
regional, or other bodies that themselves have participatory
mechanisms. For example, most aspects of IP addressing policy
are established by the RIRs, which each have policy forums in
which affected members of the Internet communities in their regions
can participate. In the domain-name arena, the hierarchical structure
of the domain-name system lends itself well to a similar delegation
of policy responsibilities. For example, the local aspects of
policy within country-code top-level domains are established
by the organizations to which management of those domains are
delegated. Increasingly, those delegations are held by organizations
broadly representative of the Internet communities in their respective
countries or territories. These delegation arrangements work
well to afford the most affected stakeholders focused participation
in development of specialized or local policies.
With respect to the design of appropriate
mechanisms for affected segments of the Internet community to
participate in the issues concerning the management and delegation
of ccTLDs, significant work remains to be completed. Various
segments of the community, including the Governmental
Advisory Committee, various groups of ccTLD managers, and
others have submitted position
papers for discussion within the ICANN process. It is anticipated
that the ensuing discussion will result in agreements or other
documents that will better define the relationships of the ccTLD
managers, relevant governments and other public authorities,
and ICANN. Completion of this design should be a high priority
under the joint project.
In sum, many different participatory mechanisms
have been designed, developed, and tested under task 6. In the
context of private-sector technical management of the Internet,
the goal of achieving timely resolution of policy issues with
the participation of affected parties is and will continue to
be challenging. Based on the work to date under the joint project,
it appears that the goal is best addressed by use of a varied
and evolving array of participatory mechanisms. Although the
mechanisms designed, developed, and tested to date each have
strengths and weaknesses, and will no doubt continue to evolve
over time, in combination they now provide a range of channels
that can suit most policy development needs. Accordingly, although
there will likely always be room for enhancement of participatory
mechanisms, as contemplated in task 6 a robust initial set of
mechanisms has been developed and tested with respect to issues
other than the management and delegation of ccTLDs.
Task 7: Collaborate
on the development of additional policies and procedures designed
to provide information to the public.
Status of progress on task 7: During the joint
project so far, ICANN has developed and evaluated a variety of
policies and procedures for providing the public with information
about ICANN's activities and the issues it is addressing. These
include extensive use of the ICANN websites (including the main ICANN site and subsidiary
sites for the ASO, DNSO, PSO,
and At-Large Membership);
use of e-mail announcement
lists; press releases and advisories; the use of many dispersed
venues for ICANN meetings; web-casting
and preparation of online scribe's notes for various ICANN meetings;
real-time audio access for public observers of DNSO Names Council
meetings; and attendance by ICANN and DOC personnel at meetings
of groups interested in Internet matters. ICANN has adopted a
variety of policies and procedures concerning these dissemination
mechanisms, including bylaw requirements and operational practices
for postings on its website as well as for the other mechanisms.
Given the wide-spread and growing participation in the various
ICANN activities, although there is (and likely always will be)
room for their enhancement, effective mechanisms for provision
of information to the public have been developed and proven under
the joint project.
Task 8: Collaborate
on the design, development, and testing of appropriate membership
mechanisms that foster accountability to and representation of
the global and functional diversity of the Internet and its users,
within the structure of private- sector DNS management organization.
Status of progress on task 8: After extensive
discussion within the Internet community, ICANN has adopted an
at-large membership program
in which members of the Internet community throughout the world
can participate in the selection of at-large members of ICANN's
Board of Directors, as well as learn about and contribute to
ICANN's policy development activities through the mechanisms
described above. This program includes significant international
outreach efforts, including the translation into multiple languages
of key materials describing ICANN and its role. These mechanisms
will result in the selection and seating later this year of five
directors based on a vote of members of the Internet community
that have registered for that purpose. Currently, over 28,000
members have applied to become registered. An initial group of
at-large directors selected by these members of the Internet
community will be seated in November 2000. Thanks to a significant
foundation grant, there is no charge to participate in this year's
vote. After completion of the selection process, there will be
a comprehensive study of the concept, structure, and processes
relating to the at-large membership in view of ICANN's mission
and structure. The study will be completed in time for subsequent
adoption, based on extensive public discussion and comment, of
a selection mechanism that would allow the next group of at-large
directors to be seated by ICANN's annual meeting in 2002.
While future study may well provide a rationale
for evolution and refinement of the current membership mechanisms,
the process in place will "foster accountability to and
representation of the global and functional diversity of the
Internet and its users," in accordance with the requirements
of Task 8.
Task 9: Collaborate
on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating
a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number
of gTLDs. The designed process should consider and take into
account the following:
a. The potential impact of new gTLDs
on the Internet root server system and Internet stability.
b. The creation and implementation of
minimum criteria for new and existing gTLD registries.
c. Potential consumer benefits/costs
associated with establishing a competitive environment for gTLD
registries.
d. Recommendations regarding trademark/domain
name policies set forth in the Statement of Policy; recommendations
made by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) concerning:
(i) the development of a uniform approach to resolving trademark/domain
name disputes involving cyberpiracy; (ii) a process for protecting
famous trademarks in the generic top level domains; (iii) the
effects of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures
on trademark and intellectual property holders; and recommendations
made by other independent organizations concerning trademark/domain
name issues.
Status of progress on task 9: Soon after it was
formed under the joint project, the DNSO began a highly open
and participatory process for considering expansion of the number
of gTLDs. That process has led to the DNSO Names Council adopting
recommendations,
based on the consensus of the affected Internet community, that
new gTLDs should be introduced in a measured and responsible
manner and that there should be varying degrees of protection
for intellectual property during the startup phase of new top-level
domains. Among the intellectual-property recommendations (see
task 9(d)) of the Names Council has been that the Uniform
Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy adopted in August 1999
through the participatory mechanisms of the DNSO should be applied
to new TLDs. It is anticipated that ICANN's Board will act on
the DNSO recommendations concerning the introduction of new gTLDs
at its July 2000 meeting in Yokohama, and that any resulting
policies will be implemented later in 2000.
