activity

This page provides an overview of ICANN's responsibilities, principles and practices, including debate about alternative root schemes.

In essence the organisation is responsible for the global domain name system (DNS) or root system. There is a more detailed discussion of internet addressing and the DNS in the Domains profile and Network & GII guide on this site.

     getting to the root of things

The net is based on a single hierarchy - the so-called root - that uses a few strategically located servers to direct traffic to sites and email addresses. It's described in ICANN's paper A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS. Another perspective is provided in John Klensin's paper (txt) on Role of Domain Name System and his A Search-based access model for the DNS paper (txt).

A fundamental concern about alternative root proposals is that they involve separate hierarchies and roots. That's likely to cause problems for devices trying to resolve a name (does it relate to this number or that number?) - "collisions" in cyberspace - and has accordingly been criticised in

The hierarchy is reflected in the structure of domain names. The part of the name furthest to the right is the top level domain (TLD), either an indication that the domain is generic (gTLD, with 3 letters) such as a dot-com or that it is part of a national space (ccTLD, with two letters) such as the dot-au identifying names that are registered in Australia. The server on which the site or email box is located is independent of the national/generic identifier; many dot-au sites for example are hosted in the US.

The part of the name immediately to the left of the TLD is the second level domain (2LD), generally a demarcation within the ccTLD.

The hierarchy depends on central registers that serve as databases of all 'active' names. Some of the registries, such as that for dot-com, operate on a comercial basis. Most countries have a registry for names under their ccTLD (some third world nations have delegated their registries to other countries/service providers). Most registries are independent of domain name registrars, the bodies that process applications for a domain name - ensuring that each application meets policy rules for the ccTLD or gTLD and can thus be added to the registry's database.

Policy for ccTLD names – who is eligible for a name, and what names are allowed – is set by a domain name authority in each country. In the case of Australia that is auDA, a nonprofit body that's discussed in detail in a separate profile. Nations have considerable autonomy in setting policy for how their ccTLD is managed and are increasingly regarding each ccTLD as the 'sovereign property' of each government.

ICANN is responsible for developing and administering policy regarding the overall root system.

It is also responsible for oversighting management of the traditional and new ('experimental') gTLDs

•   com (businesses)
•   net (network providers)
•   org (miscellaneous)
•   edu (US educational institutions)
•   int (international organizations such as the UN)
•   gov (US government agencies)
•   mil (US military agencies)
•   info
•   biz
•   name
•   pro
•   museum (curatorial institutions)
•   coop
•   aero
•   travel

with day to day responsibilities for registry and registrar activity being delegated to a range of commercial and not for profit bodies, the most prominent of which is VeriSign.

     significance

Domain Names have taken on symbolic and semiotic significance. Because they are easy to remember, the names have acquired a supplementary existence as business or personal identifiers. Domain names have become part of the standard communication apparatus used by businesses, especially as most businesses go online in some capacity.

     'alternatives'

Some of ICANN's most vocal - although arguably quite unrepresentative - criticism comes from proponents of alternative domain naming schemes, discussed in more detail here.

Shakespeare noted that anyone can summon the spirits: the question is whether they'll arrive on command. Alternative DNS is similar: anyone can set up an addressing scheme that's independent of ICANN's but very few people will be able to find such sites and email communication with them probably won't be possible.

Some members of the Open Root Server Confederation (ORSC) have allocated names using root systems that are independent of ICANN and thus not recognised by most computers. Estimates of machines configured to reach ORSC addresses range from 0.2 to 1% of the online population, with that figure continuing to fall as the web normalises. 

Recently most attention has been gathered by New.Net, a spinoff from troubled US incubator Idealab. New.net has been spawning its own TLDs, which include such treats as dot-duh and dot-store (and a dot-sex that competes with other dot-sex alternative TLDs). That activity is described in its somewhat disingenuous policy paper on The Role of Market-Based Principles in Domain Name Governance (PDF).

In early 2001 ICANN released a discussion draft on A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS, noting that

there are solid technical grounds for a single authoritative root and that ICANN should continue its commitment through established policy to such a concept and to the community-based orderly processes that surround such policy. This constitutes a public trust. ...

ICANN cannot support the concept of multiple roots except within an experimental framework, where experimentation is carefully defined. ... to change this policy would require a community consensus for the change in ICANN's character that would be entailed.

It subsequently published a paper Keeping the Internet a Reliable Global Public Resource: Response to New.net 'Policy Paper', commenting that

New.net is a commercial entity seeking to promote a collection of domain names unilaterally established without participating in the Internet community's ICANN consensus process.

The older Atlantic Root Network (ARNI), which offers five alternative TLDs including a dot-biz TLD in opposition to the dot-biz authorised by ICANN, was the subject of Analysis of Registrations in the ARNI .BIZ Top-Level Domain, a paper by Harvard's Benjamin Edelman. In essence, he suggested that ARNI did not have substantial business or user support.

A subsequent paper by Rebecca Nesson asked whether ICANN should allow alternative root advocates proportionately less time in public forums if they represent a relatively small proportion of the internet community.

 

   next page  (studies of ICANN)