Skip to content
Permalink
main
Switch branches/tags

web-hack-mirror/mirror/2000/12/13/www.icann.org/statusreport-15june99.htm

Go to file
 
 
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
484 lines (484 sloc) 32.4 KB
Raw Blame
Open in GitHub Desktop
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97">
<title>Status Report to the Department of Commerce</title></HEAD>
<BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<FONT FACE="Arial">
<P align="center"><font size="+3">ICANN</font>
<BR align="center"><i><font size="-1">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers</font></i>
</FONT>
<hr>
<FONT FACE="Arial">
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P align="center"><b>STATUS REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE</b></P>
<P align="center"><b>JUNE 15,1999</b></P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P> On November 25, 1998, the United States Department of Commerce ("DOC") officially
recognized the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN")
as the global, non-profit consensus organization designed to carry on various
administrative functions for the Internet name and address system that it had
called upon the Internet community to create in its <a href="general/white-paper-05jun98.htm">White
Paper</a> issued in June, 1998. Approximately six months have now passed since
the signing of the <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm">Memorandum
of Understanding</a> between DOC and ICANN; this document constitutes a status
report on both progress made and issues remaining to be solved.</P>
<B>
<P>I. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PROGRESS. </P>
</B>
<P>The process of establishing ICANN has understandably been a difficult and contentious
one from the beginning. The creation of a worldwide, non-profit, private consensus
organization to manage various aspects of a global resource is a unique undertaking;
there are no models for such a non-governmental entity with similar responsibilities.
We have sought consensus from a necessarily diverse set of actors, ranging from
academics to businesses to infrastructure providers to engineers; consensus
is frequently elusive even in more homogeneous groups. There were inevitably
many different views about how to accomplish the goal, not to mention a variety
of opinions as to whether the goal was desirable at all.</P>
<P>In this environment, it is hardly surprising that there remains today a diversity
of views on what has been done, what should be done, and how things could be
done. It is also almost certainly true that there is no single right way to
move toward the stated goal; there are likely to be several paths that could
be followed to an acceptable outcome. On the other hand, there is a set of standards
and criteria against which the work of the last six months can reasonably be
measured: the standards and criteria set forth by the US Government in the White
Paper.</P>
<P>While the White Paper may not be the equivalent of the Magna Carta, it did
set forth a series of guiding principles (subsequently adopted essentially verbatim
in the MOU) that seemed at the time to have wide-spread support within the Internet
community from both private and public commenters. The core principles articulated
in the White Paper were as follows:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>1.&#9;Stability: "During the transition and thereafter, the stability of
the Internet should be the first priority of any DNS management system."</P>
<P>2.&#9;Competition: "Where possible, market mechanisms that support competition
and consumer choice should drive the management of the Internet because
they will lower costs, promote innovation, encourage diversity, and enhance
user choice and satisfaction."</P>
<P>3. &#9;Private Sector, Bottom-Up Coordination: "A private coordinating
process is likely to be more flexible than government and to move rapidly
enough to meet the changing needs of the Internet and of Internet users.
The private process should, as far as possible, reflect the bottom-up governance
that has characterized development of the Internet to date."</P>
<P>4.&#9;Representation: "Management structures should reflect the functional
and geographic diversity of the Internet and its users. Mechanisms should
be established to ensure international participation in decision making."</P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>These principles formed the basis of the MOU, and have dictated ICANN's policy
decisions to date. They are the standards which the ICANN Initial Board has
used to guide its policy development efforts, and against which the results
of those efforts should be measured. </P>
<P>In addition to these core principles, the White Paper went on to discuss:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><B>funding: </b>the White Paper assumed that the new corporation would
be funded by "domain name registries, regional IP registries, or other entities
identified by the Board;"</P>
<P><B>staff: </b>the White Paper assumed that the new corporation would absorb
the IANA staff that had been carrying out many of these functions pursuant
to government contracts;</P>
<P><B>incorporation: </b>the White Paper assumed that the new entity would
be incorporated in the United States, but have a Board made up of members
from around the world;</P>
<P><B>governance: </b>the White Paper called for a "sound and transparent
decision-making process;" and </P>
<P> <B>operations: </b>the White Paper stated that processes should be "fair,
open and pro-competitive." </P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>In addition, the White Paper suggested a <B>structure</B> that was "balanced
to equitably represent the interests of IP number registries, domain name registries,
domain name registrars, the technical community, Internet service providers
(ISPs), and Internet users (commercial, not-for-profit, and individuals) from
around the world." The White Paper went on to declare that the new corporation
should take the following early actions:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>1. &#9;"appoint, on an interim basis, an initial Board of Directors," which
would serve "until the Board of Directors is elected and installed."</P>
<P>2.&#9;"establish a system for electing a Board of Directors . . . that
insures that the new corporation's Board of Directors reflects the geographical
and functional diversity of the Internet, and is sufficiently flexible to
permit evolution to reflect changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders,"
while preserving, "as much as possible, the tradition of bottom-up governance;"
Directors "should be elected from membership or other associations open
to all or through other mechanisms that ensure broad representation and
participation in the election process."</P>
<P>3.&#9;"develop policies for the addition of TLDs, and establish the qualifications
for domain name registries and domain name registrars within the system."</P>
<P>4.&#9;"restrict official government representation on the Board of Directors
without precluding governments and intergovernmental organizations from
participating as Internet users or in a non-voting advisory capacity."</P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>The White Paper also set forth views on <B>intellectual property</B> issues,
including that (1) all interested parties "should have access to searchable
databases of registered domain names; (2) domain name registrants should be
required to "pay registration fees at the time of registration or renewal;"
(3) domain name registrants would agree to "submit to and be bound by alternative
dispute resolution systems;" and (4) the new corporation would protect "certain
famous trademarks from being used as domain names . . . except by the designated
trademark holder." </P>
<P>Finally, the White Paper stated that the United States Government would itself
take certain steps to "accomplish the objectives" set forth in the White Paper.
These were identified as the following:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>1.&#9;"ramp down the cooperative agreement with NSI with the objective
of introducing competition into the domain name space."</P>
<P>2.&#9;"enter into agreement[s] with the new corporation under which it
assumes responsibility for management of the domain name space."</P>
<P>3.&#9;ask WIPO to "convene an international process . . . to develop a
set of recommendations for trademark/domain name dispute resolutions and
other issues to be presented to the Interim Board for its consideration
as soon as possible." </P>
<P>4.&#9;"consult with the international community, including other interested
governments."</P>
<P>5. &#9;"undertake . . . a review of the root server system to recommend
means to increase the security and professional management of the system."</P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>While the transition process is still young, periodic evaluations of progress
are desirable checks on both the direction and pace of the transition. This
report attempts to provide such an evaluation.</P>
<B>
<P>II. IMPORTANT ACTIONS.</P>
</B> </FONT>
<p><FONT FACE="Arial">The following list sets forth important actions and decisions
by ICANN since the signing of the <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm">Memorandum
of Understanding</a> with DOC in November, 1998: </FONT></p>
<FONT FACE="Arial">
<UL>
<UL>
<ul>
<li> Agreement signed with USC to absorb IANA functions</li>
<li>Creation of <a href="membership-com.html">Membership
Advisory Committee</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.icann.org/newco.html">Designation of ICANN as Newco</a>
under <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm">Amendment
11</a> to Cooperative Agreement with NSI</li>
<li>Creation of <a href="http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gac1.htm">Government
Advisory Committee</a></li>
<li>Creation of <a href="dnsroot-com.html">Root Server
System Advisory Committee</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.icann.org/singaporesummary.html">First ICANN Board
meeting in Singapore</a></li>
<li>Adoption of <a href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/accreditation.html">registrar
accreditation guidelines</a></li>
<li>Accreditation of <a href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/icann-pr21apr99.htm">five
testbed registrars</a></li>
<li>Creation of <a href="irac.html">Advisory Committee
on Independent Review</a></li>
<li>Recognition of <a href="http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnso1.htm">Domain
Names Supporting Organization</a></li>
<li>Receipt of <a href="http://www.icann.org/wipo/wipo.htm">WIPO recommendations</a>&#9;</li>
<li><a href="berlin/berlin-resolutions.html">Second
ICANN Board meeting in Berlin</a></li>
<li>Recognition of <a href="berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#1">six
out of seven initial DNSO constituency organizations</a></li>
<li><a href="registrars/accreditation-qualified-list.html">Provisional
accreditation of 37 post-testbed registrars</a></li>
<li><a href="berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#2">Referral
of WIPO recommendations</a> to DNSO</li>
<li>Receipt of <a href="http://www.icann.org/berlin/membership_rec.htm">MAC
recommendations</a> and <a href="berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#3">referral
to staff for implementation</a></li>
<li><a href="berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#4">Provisional
recognition</a> of <a href="http://www.icann.org/pso/psonew.htm">Protocol
Supporting Organization</a></li>
</ul>
</UL>
</UL>
<P>Follow-up action on many of these items will take place during the next ICANN
Board meeting on <a href="http://www.icann.org/santiago/santiago-details.html">August
24-26 in Santiago</a>.</P>
<B>
<P>III. POINT-BY-POINT COMPARISON TO WHITE PAPER.</P>
</B>
<P>The <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm">White
Paper</a> identified four overarching principles that should guide the formation
and decisions of ICANN: stability, competition, private-sector bottom-up coordination,
and functional and geographic representation: </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>1.&#9;<B>Stability.</B> The DNS has remained fully operational, notwithstanding
increasing demand for domain-name services and the introduction of competition
in the registration of names in the .com, .net and .org TLDs (as described
below). This issue -- operational stability -- requires constant attention,
especially given the less than enthusiastic cooperation that ICANN and the
DOC have received from Network Solutions, Inc., the historical monopoly
registry and registrar in these domains. There remain important steps to
be taken in the transition process, including the introduction of fully
competitive name registration services, the full separation of NSI's registry
and registration services, and the ultimate transfer of root server administration/control
to ICANN. ICANN and DOC will carefully manage these events with this primary
objective in mind.</P>
<P>2. &#9;<B>Competition. </B>With the accreditation of five testbed registrars,
and the beginning of competitive domain-name registration services by those
registrars, the transition from monopoly to competition has begun. As has
been true in every other transition from monopoly to competition, there
have already been difficulties, and there will undoubtedly be others. In
such situations, the incumbent monopolist has no particular incentive to
do anything more, or quicker, than is absolutely required to expedite this
transition, and our experience to date is that this situation will not prove
to be an exception. Nevertheless, one of the testbed registrars is now operating
and selling domain name services in competition with NSI; the other four
testbed registrars are expected to begin competitive operations within the
next two weeks; 37 other entities have been conditionally accredited to
begin operating when the testbed phase is completed; and ICANN and DOC are
continuing to seek appropriate cooperation from NSI to facilitate the transition
to full and open competition.</P>
<P>3.&#9;<B>Private-Sector Bottom-Up Coordination.</B> The Initial Board has
encouraged the self-organization of its constituent units through bottom-up
efforts, rather than dictation of the organization, structure and membership
from the top. This has predictably resulted in a somewhat chaotic process,
and taken some time; bottom-up process has much to recommend it, but those
benefits do not include efficiency and speed. Nevertheless, we have seen
great progress: the <a href="http://www.dnso.org/">Domain Name Supporting
Organization</a> is essentially formed, and has begun to function in its
advisory role to the ICANN Board by taking under consideration various <a href="http://www.icann.org/wipo/wipo_report.htm">recommendations
made to ICANN by WIPO</a>, and referred by the ICANN Board to the DNSO for
its recommendations. In addition, the <a href="http://www.icann.org/pso/psonew.htm">Protocol
Supporting Organization</a> proposal was approved by the ICANN Board in
its recent Berlin meeting, and we hope that this entity can be officially
recognized soon. The final part of this puzzle, the <a href="http://www.icann.org/aso/asonew.htm">Address
Supporting Organization</a>, is scheduled to submit a proposal to the ICANN
Board for its review at its next meeting in <a href="http://www.icann.org/santiago/santiago-details.html">Santiago</a>
in August.</P>
<P>4.&#9;<B>Representation. </B>With the three Supporting Organizations listed
just above responsible for electing three members each to ICANN's 19-member
Board, the functional diversity objective of the White Paper will be substantially
met once those entities are formed and have provided Directors to the Board.
ICANN will also require that those Directors be geographically diverse,
as is true to a significant extent today with the Initial Board (which includes
residents of three of the five ICANN-defined geographic regions). The more
difficult effort, described in some detail below, is the design of the process
for electing the nine At Large Directors called for by the ICANN Bylaws,
but the process of defining an electorate and establishing Director election
procedures consistent with the White Paper principles is well underway.</P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Thus, the four guiding principles of the White Paper have in fact been realized
in ICANN's organizational and policy development process to date, as can be
seen in somewhat more detail by the following focus on specific issues addressed
in the White Paper </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><B>Incorporation and Initial Board. </b>As suggested by the White Paper,
ICANN was incorporated in the United States in October, 1998. Its Initial
Board is broadly representative of the Internet community, with five Directors
(including the Interim CEO) from the United States, three from Europe, one
from Australia and one from Japan; their professional backgrounds include
educational computing, telecommunications, Internet technical/academic interests,
trade associations and Internet entrepreneurial activities.</P>
<P><B>Funding. </b>The White Paper suggested that ICANN should be funded by
name or address registries, presumably by allocation of a portion of the
fee charged by those registries. Since ICANN is intended to be non-profit,
and therefore revenues may only recover its costs, over time those fees
will be adjusted to balance ICANN's specific funding needs, which are not
yet clear. In the interim, ICANN has proposed to fund its future operations
primarily from a fee of no greater than $1 annually per domain-name registration,
an approach suggested (without a specific amount) by the White Paper, with
the exact amount of that fee to be determined over time by ICANN's costs
and the revenue generated by a particular fee level. Since ICANN is not
yet fully functional, it has existed to date on private donations and credit,
with some recent small amount of funds received from those seeking accreditation
as registrars.</P>
<P><B>Staffing. </b>As called for by the White Paper, most of the former IANA
staff are now managed and compensated by ICANN, and have continued to carry
out their technical and administrative responsibilities without interruption.</P>
<P><B>Governance and Operations. </b>The White Paper called for an "open and
transparent" decision-making process. As a result, the ICANN bylaws require
a broad set of procedures to ensure that all points of view be considered
before any decisions are taken. These include extensive notice and comment
requirements before any decisions are made that "substantially affect the
operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition of
any fees or charges." </P>
<P>In addition, the ICANN Board has made it a practice to hold a public meeting
immediately prior to our regular quarterly Board meetings, in which all
matters on the Board agenda are discussed with participants. While Board
meetings are not open to the public, to facilitate the candid and objective
decision-making so critical at this stage of ICANN's development, the Board
has adopted the practice of immediately publishing all Board decisions,
making the text of resolutions public as quickly as possible, and holding
a public press conference immediately following its meetings to explain
its decisions and take questions about them. </P>
<P><B>Structure. </b>The ICANN structure follows almost exactly the prescription
of the White Paper. There is an Initial Board which will serve until a regularly
elected Board is installed, but in any event not beyond October 2000. Since
the latter will be composed of three persons elected by each of three Supporting
Organizations (a total of nine), nine persons elected by the At Large membership,
and the president of ICANN <I>ex officio</I>, the creation of the Supporting
Organizations and the At Large membership is a necessary condition for the
existence of a regularly elected Board. </P>
<P>Taking care to follow the principle of bottom-up coordination, the Initial
Board has left to the communities involved the creation of the Supporting
Organizations. These groups have, not surprisingly, moved at different paces,
to the effect that the Domain Name SO is now close to full formation, and
is likely to elect its three Directors by the end of 1999, while the Protocol
SO and the Address SO are somewhat further from completion. Still, it does
seem possible that the nine SO Directors could all be in place relatively
early in 2000. The Initial Board's present intention is to simply add these
Directors as elected to the Initial Board.</P>
<P>The nine At Large Directors scheduled to be elected by a membership present
a more complicated problem. Despite a significant amount of work by a diverse
<a href="membership-com.html">Membership Advisory Committee</a>,
we still have not identified the specific process by which a broadly representative
membership can be constituted, with due regard for the cultural and economic
differences within the global user community and the need to protect against
minority capture. The White Paper seemed to assume that Directors would
be elected "from membership or other associations;" as presently contemplated,
however, the nine At Large Directors are scheduled to be elected by individual
members. This deviation from the White Paper prescription presents a number
of serious practical and economic problems to be overcome before a process
consistent with the stability that the White Paper described as the "first
priority" of the transition can be established.</P>
<P>Nevertheless, the <a href="membership-com.html">Membership
Advisory Committee</a> has recommended a set of policies to the Board, and
the Board has directed staff and legal counsel to recommend before the <a href="http://www.icann.org/santiago/santiago-details.html">Santiago
meeting</a> how those policies could be implemented. The fact that it is
a very difficult problem to solve consistent with the White Paper principles
does not mean that it is not necessary to solve this challenge; there must
be a way for the users of the Internet, who will undoubtedly be affected
by the policy decisions of ICANN, to have a role in influencing those policy
decisions, and the Initial Board is committed to making that happen.</P>
<P><B>New TLDs. </b>The White Paper assumed that the Initial Board would both
address the possibility of a need for new TLDs, and establish a system of
qualifications for DNS registries and registrars in current and any new
TLDs. WIPO has now, pursuant to the invitation in the White Paper, made
a series of <a href="http://www.icann.org/wipo/wipo.htm">recommendations</a>
relating to new TLDs, dispute resolution and related issues. We have referred
those recommendations to the newly-established DNSO for its review and recommendations
to the ICANN Board.</P>
<P>ICANN has developed a set of <a href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/accreditation.html">guidelines
for the accreditation of registrars</a> in the .com, .net and .org domains,
and has accredited five registrars (the testbed registrars) and provisionally
accredited 37 others who will begin operations following the completion
of the testbed. It is developing guidelines for the accreditation of registries,
and has begun discussions with both registry administrators and its <a href="http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gac1.htm">Government
Advisory Committee</a> about the appropriateness of, and standards for,
contractual relationships with registries and registrars for country code
TLDs.</P>
<P><B>Relations with Governments. </b>In order to meet the White Paper objective
of facilitating input from national governments and international organizations
while remaining a private, non-governmental organization, ICANN created
the <a href="http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gac1.htm">Government Advisory Committee</a>.
The GAC now comprises representatives of 33 national governments and international
organizations, and functions as a vehicle for advising the ICANN Board of
particular concerns of governmental entities relating to the domain name
system and IP addresses and protocols. Consistent with the White Paper prescription,
the GAC has no authority over ICANN or its policies; it exists to offer
advice and to serve as a conduit for the transmission of the interests and
concerns of governmental bodies to the ICANN Board and the public.</P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Concerning each of these specific issues or proposals identified in the White
Paper, ICANN has acted consistently with the principles outlined in that document.
In particular, ICANN agrees with the White Paper's assertions that "the stability
of the Internet should be the first priority," that competition should "drive
the management of the Internet," that the private coordinating process should,
"as far as possible reflect . . . bottom-up governance," and that its structure
and processes should reflect the "functional and geographic diversity of the
Internet and its users." As the above description illustrates, the policies
ICANN has adopted to date universally reflect the implementation of those principles.</P>
<B>
<P>IV. CURRENT CHALLENGES.</P>
</B>
<P>There are a number of important issues that remain to be dealt with, including
the creation of a workable At Large membership structure, the resolution of
various issues relating to the relationship of intellectual property principles
and the DNS, and the policies that will guide the relationship of ICANN with
country code TLDs. Nonetheless, the most critical immediate challenge facing
ICANN and the DOC remains the creation of a fully competitive environment for
the registration of names in the global Top Level Domains -- in particular,
.com., .net, and .org. The transition from monopoly to competition in these
domains is necessary for the long-term success of the privatization approach
endorsed by the White Paper, and at the moment the critical uncertain element
is the cooperation of the current monopoly government contractor, Network Solutions,
Inc. ("NSI").</P>
<P>NSI occupies a central role in the DNS process. It is the registry operator
for the most important TLDs -- .com, .net and .org. It has until recently been
the monopoly registrar for those domains, and it still remains by far the dominant
registrar. It is responsible for the operation of the A root server, under the
direction of the DOC. And it is by far the most powerful entity in the DNS environment.
So long as NSI operates the .com registry, all new registrars must rely on NSI
-- their principal competitor -- for access to that registry. Thus, in a very
practical sense, NSI has a significant influence on the pace of progress toward
the competitive environment envisioned by the White Paper.</P>
<P>NSI's cooperation with ICANN and DOC to date has been limited. Its principal
responsibility under <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm">Amendment
11</a> to its Cooperative Agreement with DOC was to create a Shared Registration
System interface for its registry so that competitive registrars could use the
registry on the same terms as the NSI registrar. The SRS was supposed to be
functional on April 26; in fact, the first competitive registrar was not able
to begin offering competitive registrations until June 2. The other four testbed
registrars are still trying to achieve workable interfaces. In addition, NSI's
demands for overly broad intellectual property protection and various other
restrictive license terms for the SRS have considerably slowed progress. The
result has been the likely delay of the end of the testbed period and of the
beginning of fully competitive registrations.</P>
<P>Perhaps even more importantly, at least for the short term, NSI has to date
refused to accept the community-consensus registrar accreditation policies adopted
by ICANN after public notice and comment, and has even asserted that it should
not have to comply with the same accreditation standards that apply to all other
registrars. Obviously, full and fair competition requires that all have the
same opportunities, and to the extent that there are consumer protection or
other requirements, that all meet them equally. Thus, it is critical to accomplishing
the White Paper objective of maximizing competition that (1) NSI's registry
and registrar functions be fully separated, so that NSI as a registrar does
not have any structural advantage over its registrar competitors; (2) NSI accept
community consensus policies relating to registrars, as reflected in ICANN's
accreditation standards; and (3) the relationship between NSI as registry and
all registrars does not allow NSI to impair or adversely affect the development
of competition because of its continuing monopoly position as registry operator.
</P>
<P>Both DOC and ICANN have stated that only accredited registrars will be permitted
to carry out registration activities in the .com, .net and .org domains after
the completion of the testbed phase; combined with NSI's current position, this
obviously creates the potential for conflict between NSI and DOC/ICANN. In addition,
NSI is required by Amendment 11 to fully separate its registry functions from
its registrar functions, and to charge for its registry functions a fee that
covers its costs and a reasonable return on its investment but no more. The
amount of this fee obviously has competitive implications, especially if NSI
continues as a registrar, and the fact that NSI and DOC have not yet reached
an agreement on this key issue is also a basis for potential conflict.</P>
<P>Finally, as a general proposition, NSI has to date refused to accept the policy
authority of ICANN, although it continues to "participate" in the creation of
ICANN institutions and policies. It has funded and encouraged a variety of ICANN
critics, including some whose only common cause with NSI would appear to be
unhappiness with ICANN. In short, NSI has generally been an impediment, not
a help, in the transition from government controlled monopoly to a private competitive
DNS. While this is perhaps not surprising, if this approach continues, and depending
on how it continues, it could have adverse implications for the short-run stability
of the domain name system. Because of this possibility, ICANN and DOC are taking
prudent steps necessary to be able to implement the White Paper objectives with
or without the cooperation of NSI.</P>
<B>
<P>V. CONCLUSION.</P>
</B>
<P>In summary, the first six months of ICANN's existence have been productive,
albeit somewhat frenetic. There is much to do, and a cacophony of voices with
a range of advice from "go slow" to "speed up," and everything in between. The
volunteers who make up the Initial Board have been dismayed by the amount of
work required, and tremendously impressed by the incredible willingness of people
from all over the world to work with us to try to make this great experiment
work. We have a difficult road in front of us, but our experience to date makes
us even more confident that the job will get done.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>Esther Dyson <BR>
Interim Chairman of the Board
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>Michael M. Roberts <BR>
Interim President and Chief Executive Officer
<P>&nbsp;
</FONT>
<hr>
<FONT FACE="Arial">
<P align="center"><font size="-1"><a href="index.html">Return to ICANN
Homepage</a></font>
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>