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.
Accordingly, of participatory mechanisms,
as contemplated in task 6 a robust initial set of mechanisms
has been developed and tested
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.