An Introduction to ICANN

1. An Introduction to ICANN Dr Paul Twomey President and CEO WITSA Hanoi 25 November 2003

2. Brief points to provide clearer information on: • What we do • What we don’t do • The evolution of ICANN • The operation of the authoritative functions • Why and how the private-public partnership works in policy making • The market impact of ICANN’s work • Responding to an alternative vision

3. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to: • preserving the operational stability of the Internet; • promoting competition; • achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and • developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes

4. ICANN has a limited mission • Ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: • 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS"); b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and c. Protocol port and parameter numbers. • 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. • 3. Coordinates very limited policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.

5. What we don’t do: • Content on the internet • SPAM • Financial transactions online • Consumer protection law • Privacy law • Data protection law • Intellectual Property law • E-commerce, e-education, e-government etc.

6. The Evolution of ICANN

7. The various interest groups competing for influence over the Domain Name and Addressing systems put the previous administrative process under breaking strain WIPO ITU (ITU-T) Consumers NSI/ Verisign ccTLD registries OECD USMilitary Foreign Business Universities Registrars Registries ISPs UNDP IETF IAB Intellectual Property interests FTC Root Server Operators Security Issues NATO US Business Developing World Governments Regional Internet Registries Civil Society Groups FCC OECD governments ETSI W3C Jon Postel / IANA

8. The public-private policy forum establishes a bottom-up and balanced mechanism for interest groups to arrive at consensus on issues within a limited technical administrative mandate

9. ICANN internationalizing • ICANN has or is in the process of opening offices in US, France, Belgium and Australia. Immediate plans call for physical ICANN presence in African, Latin America and the other Pacific Rim countries. • Staff hail from seven different countries. Board represents twelve nationalities. • Government Advisory Committee: over 85 governments and 5 International Treaty Organisations • Establishment of the ccNSO • Supporting Organizations and Committees that lead the bottoms-up policy development process are internationally based and populated

10. For example, The Address Supporting Organisation is comprised of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) • together share a global responsibility delegated to them by ICANN to manage the Internet address space and other routing number resources • Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE), which manages the resource allocations for Europe and parts of Northern Africa; • Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), which manages the resource allocations for the Asia-Pacific region; • American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), which manages resource allocations for the North American region and parts of Southern Africa; and • Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC), which manages resource allocations for South America and the Caribbean regions. • The African Regional Internet Registry (AFRINIC) is currently being formed

11. ICANN and the RIRs have ensured global resource allocation. • since 1999, more than 313 million IPv4 addresses globally: • 30% have been distributed by RIPE, • 32% by APNIC, • 36% by ARIN, and • 2% by LACNIC. • IPv6, has also received wide distribution: • 51% distributed by RIPE, • 28% by APNIC, • 16 % by ARIN and • almost 3% by LACNIC.

12. Completing the transition of Internet coordination functions from the US government to ICANN: • ICANN is not an arm of the U.S. government! • Has operated certain functions under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN. • ICANN’s creation was supported by a number of other governments – seventeen attended ICANN’s first meeting. • The first MoU, issued five years ago, recognized the international nature of the Internet and therefore, the need for an independent entity, without governmental obligations, to oversee the continued stability and growth of the DNS. • The most recently issued version of the MoU is intended to be the last and sets out a series of due-diligence and internationalisation goals for ICANN that, when achieved, will result in a fully independent ICANN organization. • Transition from US backstop function.

13. The Operation of the Authoritative Functions

14. Operating the authoritative functions • The IANA function • gTLD formation and Registry Agreements • gTLD Registrar Agreements • Accountability Frameworks for ccTLDs

15. IANA functions include the following: • Protocol Parameter Registrations and Assignments • Root Management (gTLDs and ccTLDs) • Numbering Resources for the Regional Internet Registries • Administration of the .int Registry

16. Redelegations of the ccTLDs in the Zone file: • Governments input: GAC principles on redelegation followed • No ICANN role in internal rules of ccTLD or country policy • Very careful process • Important for national administrations to approach with one voice and to determine who should have responsibility for their ccTLD administration

17. Partnership in Policy Making

18. The ICANN policy process is open and international • Participation in ICANN is open to all who have an interest in global Internet policy as it relates to ICANN's mission of technical coordination. • Many online forums which are accessible through ICANN's website, and the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees have active mailing lists for participants. • Public meetings throughout the year. Recent meetings have been held in Tunisia, Bucharest, Montreal, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, and Accra. Future meetings will be held in Rome, Malaysia and South Africa.

19. ICANN facilitates the development of policies for setting technical direction in the DNS through a bottoms-up, collaborative process. • ICANN staff do not create or make Internet policy. • Rather, policy is created through a bottoms-up process involving all necessary constituencies and stakeholders in the Internet Community. • Necessary constituencies and stakeholders are those whose technical or policy making expertise is required in order to formulate sound policy and those who are affected by the promulgation of new policy.

20. Bottom-up and Consensus based Policy making: • ICANN policy begins its development in the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. • Recognition that a policy is needed may arise from anywhere in the Internet community (including governments). • International bodies such as the ASO, the GNSO or the Country Code managers are triggered in variety of fashions to consider, suggest or develop new policy or alterations to existing policy • In particular, they will seek out advice regarding how differing regional and governmental concerns may affect the outcome of any policy implementation. The Supporting Organizations have liaisons from the Governmental Advisory Committee specifically to facilitate such discussions. • Once submitted to the ICANN Board of Directors for approval, The Board seeks additional advice from the Advisory Committees, including the GAC, the IAB and Security and Stability Committee. When the policy has the demonstrated consensus support of the ICANN community, the Board will approve it. • ICANN staff will then oversee the implementation of the policy

21. Policy issues presently under development: • New Sponsored TLDs • Polcy process for liberalizing gTLDs • Whois issues and Privacy • WIPO II implementation issues for IGOs domain names • Internationalized Domain Names

22. Market Impact of ICANN’s work

23. ICANN has introduced robust competition into the market for domain registration services. ICANN-Accredited Registrars: 1998-2002 Unit: ICANN-Accredited Registrars

24. Competition has saved consumers over $1Billion annually in domain registration fees gTLD domain registration prices: 1998-2002 Unit: Widely-available annual cost for gTLD domain registration 1 Registrar 21 Registrars 162 Registrars

25. Demand for gTLD domains has been strong. Domain name registrations in the Generic Top Level Domains: 1996-2002 Unit: Number of Registrations

26. Competition* in the Registrar market for gTLDs has resulted in a deep, diverse market. Market Share of Registrars for .com/.net/.org: 1996-2002 Unit: Percent of Registrations 100% = 627,000 100% = 10,716,618 100% = 29,865,715 Others BulkRegister.com eNom Go Daddy Software Melbourne IT Tucows Register.com Network Solutions * Agreements among DOC, ICANN and VeriSign introduced competition in November 1999

27. Such focus on e-commerce has contributed to ccTLDs having grown as a proportion of total registrations. ccTLD vs. gTLD registration share: 2001-2003 Unit: Percent of total registrations as of 1-Jan-01 as of 1-Jan-03

28. ccTLD Registration Totals Domain Name Registrations in the Top 30 ccTLDs Unit: Number (or estimated number) of Registrations as of 1-Feb-2003

29. Responding to an Alternative Vision

30. Some proposals at WSIS • Internet issues of an international nature related to public polices should be coordinated: • b. through/by appropriate intergovernmental organizations under the UN framework • The Internet has evolved into a global public infrastructure and its governance should constitute a core issue of Information society Agenda. As a consequence, there of1) Call on the Secretary General of the ITU, in his capacity as the chairman of HLSOC (High Level Summit Organization Committee), in collaboration with relevant  international organizations, to establish and co-ordinate a TF to investigate and make proposals on the governance of Internet by 2005…