Transcript Slide 1

An Introduction to ICANN
Dr Paul Twomey
President and CEO
WITSA Hanoi
25 November 2003
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
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
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.
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.
The Evolution of ICANN
The various interest groups competing for influence
over the Domain Name and Addressing systems put the
previous administrative process under breaking strain
ITU
(ITU-T)
WIPO
Foreign
Business
IETF
IAB
US
Business
ETSI
OECD
Universities
Intellectual
Property
interests
Developing
World
Governments
ccTLD
registries
Consumers
US Military
Registrars
ISPs
NSI/
Verisign
Registries
UNDP
Root
Server
Operators
Regional
Internet
Registries
Security
Issues
FTC
NATO
FCC
OECD
governments
Jon Postel / IANA
Civil
Society
Groups
W3C
The public-private policy forum establishes a bottom-up and
ICANN Organizational
balanced mechanism
for interest groupsChart
to arrive at consensus
on issues within a limited technical administrative mandate
President and
CEO
Board of Directors
Nominating Committee
17 voting delegates + 5 non-voting delegates
ICANN staff
ASO
Regional Internet
Registries
- ARIN
- RIPE NCC
- LACNIC
- APNIC
- AFRNIC (when
formed)
Governmental Advisory
Committee (GAC)
GNSO
- gTLD Registries &
Registrars
- Intellectual Property
- ISPs
- Businesses
- Universities
- Consumers
CCNSO
ccTLD registries
(e.g., .us, .uk, .au,
.it, .be, .nl, etc.)
Root Server System Advisory
Committee (RSSAC)
Security and Stability Advisory
Committee (SSAC)
At Large Advisory Committee
(ALAC)
Technical Liaison Group (TLG)
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
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
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.
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.
The Operation of the Authoritative
Functions
Operating the authoritative functions
•
•
•
•
The IANA function
gTLD formation and Registry Agreements
gTLD Registrar Agreements
Accountability Frameworks for ccTLDs
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
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
Partnership in Policy Making
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.
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.
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
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
Market Impact of ICANN’s work
ICANN has introduced robust competition into the
market for domain registration services.
ICANN-Accredited Registrars: 1998-2002
Unit: ICANN-Accredited Registrars
200
150
100
50
0
Registrars
Dec '98
Dec '99
Dec '00
Dec '01
Dec '02
1
98
157
157
162
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
$50.00
$45.00
$50.00
1 Registrar
$40.00
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
21 Registrars
$19.00
162 Registrars
$15.00
$15.00
$10.00
$8.95
$5.00
$0.00
Dec '98
Dec '99
Dec '00
Dec '01
$8.95
Dec '02
Demand for gTLD domains has been strong.
Domain name registrations in the Generic Top Level Domains: 1996-2002
Unit: Number of Registrations
92,000
837,000
1,029,000
.name
.biz
.info
.com/.net/.org
32,142,000
28,200,000
29,866,000
10,717,000
627000
1,541,000
3,362,000
As at Dec 96 As at Dec 97 As at Dec 98 As at Dec 99 As at Dec 00 As at Dec 01 As at Dec 02
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
3.7%
4.6%
100.0%
91.7%
As at Dec 96
As at Dec 99
31.0%
Others
4.4%
4.9%
5.1%
5.5%
BulkRegister.com
eNom
Go Daddy Software
Melbourne IT
10.6%
Tucows
9.6%
Register.com
29.0%
Network Solutions
As at Dec 02
* Agreements among DOC, ICANN and VeriSign introduced competition in November 1999
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
ccTLDs
11,009,000
28%
gTLDs
28,200,000
72%
as of 1-Jan-01
ccTLDs
19,711,000
38%
gTLDs
31,824,000
62%
as of 1-Jan-03
ccTLD Registration Totals
Domain Name Registrations in the Top 30 ccTLDs
Unit: Number (or estimated number) of Registrations as of 1-Feb-2003
.de
Germany
6,117,000
.tv
Tuvalu
261,589
.uk
United Kingdom
4,168,000
.be
Belgium
238,000
.nl
Netherlands
827,000
.ws
Western Samoa
182,504
.it
Italy
767,000
.fr
France
163,000
.ar
Argentina
626,596
.us
United States
529,000
.pl
Poland
175,000
.cc
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
500,000
.no
Norway
165,000
.jp
Japan
568,195
.cn
China
179,000
.kr
Korea, Republic of
507,000
.se
Sweden
148,436
.br
Brazil
427,000
.tw
Taiwan
123,000
.ch
Switzerland
500,000
.ru
Russian Federation
156,000
.dk
Denmark
428,276
.nz
New Zealand
144,251
.au
Australia
342,895
.cz
Czech Republic
131,000
.ca
Canada
310,000
.za
South Africa
133,836
.at
Austria
272,000
.nu
Niue
111,795
Responding to an Alternative Vision
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 of
1) 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…