Government is loosening its grip on the Internet

You might view the Internet as anarchic, a Wild West-style free-for-all. Or maybe you see it as global democracy, a place where all are equal and anyone is welcome. You might also recognize that it's a communications tool controlled by the Commerce Department. But in all of these assumptions, you would be increasingly wrong.

The U.S. government invented the ever-more-rule-bound Internet, and, 30 years later, the government's fingerprints are still all over it. But the Commerce Department is gradually privatizing management of the Internet--an effort encouraged by the rest of the world, which is eager to see the United States give up its grip.

"Privatizing management of the Internet domain-name system is in the best interests of U.S. businesses and consumers and the global Internet community," said Assistant Secretary of Commerce Nancy J. Victory. (The domain-name system of databases allows users to type in a domain name, such as amazon.com, and locate the corresponding Web site. The Commerce Department controls the central computer for the domain-name system, a server known as "Root A.") "This Administration is committed to making ... privatization a reality," Victory said. "We are fully engaged in the process right now, and we are working through all the steps that must be taken."

The process involves the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a private nonprofit based in Los Angeles that was set up in an agreement with Commerce in 1998 to coordinate the domain-name system. ICANN's gradual takeover of Internet addressing tasks was spelled out in its November 1998 memorandum of understanding with Commerce. If things go awry with the ICANN "experiment," as it is often called, coordination of the domain-name system reverts back to Commerce.

Questions abound in the Internet community as to how far ICANN's responsibility ultimately will--or should--reach. Only recently have there been signs that the transfer of power might go beyond privatizing management to giving ICANN the authority to control the Root A server. Reports, denied by Commerce, have circulated that agreements being negotiated with holders of domains for countries, such as .au for Australia, might ultimately transfer root-server authority for those names to ICANN.

"The Holy Grail is the Root A server," one ICANN-watcher said. "He who controls the Root A controls everything." Victory, who heads the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said flatly in an interview with National Journal, "Regarding the A Root server, the Department of Commerce has no plans to transfer policy control." She added, "When the necessary technical capacity is in place, the department may enter into a management agreement or other legal arrangement with ICANN for operation of the A Root server." Commerce is awaiting the results of a study on the root-server architecture, expected early next year.

Network Solutions Inc., which is owned by VeriSign Inc. and is based in Herndon, Va., currently has an exclusive contract with Commerce to operate the root server on the department's behalf. VeriSign also manages the domains .com, .net, and .org.

ICANN's agreement to operate the root server would be similar to VeriSign's, Victory said. ICANN Chairman Vinton Cerf said this week that the agreement could happen next year, but others are not so optimistic. Changes to the root server will continue to require Commerce's approval, although the department increasingly relies on ICANN's judgment. This year, seven new domains chosen by ICANN are being added to the root server as a result of a trouble-prone first round of selections. There are no firm plans for a second round.

The transfer of power from Commerce to ICANN is, in part, snagged on the issue of how to formalize relationships with the holders of domains for countries. The more than 240 such domain-holders worldwide are a markedly disparate group. Many of them are resistant to ICANN's proposed contracts, and some are even impossible to locate.

Some members of Congress are carefully scrutinizing the transfer of Internet authority out of U.S. government hands. But generally, it's power, not money, that is at issue. Some lawmakers have said they believe the government is handing over control too easily. Some also believe they can order Commerce, and by extension ICANN, to fix problems with the Internet.

In recent months, Reps. John M. Shimkus, R-Ill., and Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., drafted legislation to force a change to the root server by adding a child-friendly .kids domain. They began their work after ICANN failed to accept a proposal for .kids. But ICANN resisted the lawmakers' effort, and others voiced alarm that such a move would set a precedent of undercutting ICANN's authority. The bill's sponsors ultimately backed off.

ICANN's power is limited because its policies are enforceable only on those who agree to abide by them. The Internet body is struggling to corner control of the domain-name system as dozens of unapproved domains and numerous alternative root servers spring up. In August, ICANN President M. Stuart Lynn made an appeal for a single, authoritative root server.

Many observers predict that ICANN's role will remain limited. As one expert said confidently, "ICANN does not have and never will have governmental power."