IANA stewardship transition

The winds of change are blowing once again across the plains of Internet governance. Like so many iGov milestones, the proposed change will be historic, significant, and – if done right – of little interest or consequence to the average Internet user.

Although much of the Internet’s early development happened in the American academic and defence establishments, today’s Internet is a genuinely global, decentralised platform, administered and operated within a complex, diverse ecosystem of governance structures and processes. Even in the early days, the US government maintained a generally hands-off approach. Individuals and organisations with the relevant skills, resources, and motivation took on the various operational and administrative roles needed to keep the network going. Generally speaking, those who created part of the Internet – be it hardware, software, or information – assumed and still retain responsibility for their contribution.

“Today’s Internet is a genuinely global, decentralised platform, administered and operated within a complex, diverse ecosystem of governance structures and processes.”

But now, even the final vestige of US government oversight could soon be a thing of the past.

In March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency within the United States Department of Commerce (DoC), announced that it is seeking to end its role as the oversight body for the Internet naming and numbering functions managed by IANA.

Within fringe sections of the American media, the NTIA’s announcement was greeted with conspiratorial outrage, regarded as a ceding of American sovereignty to tyrannical foreign interests. But in reality, although the NTIA’s remaining role is modest, its proposed transfer to “the global multistakeholder community” represents a significant vote of confidence in the existing models of inclusive engagement and decision making.

Likewise, despite speculation about the timing of the announcement, it has been a long time coming. At the time ICANN was formed in 1998, the US government flagged its desire for private sector leadership in DNS management. In the intervening years, ICANN and other Internet bodies have worked hard to build institutional confidence and accountability, and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has emerged as major venue for multistakeholder engagement and dialogue.

Then, in December 2012, ahead of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), representatives of the NTIA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the State Department issued a joint letter, affirming the US government’s commitment to the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. Dismissing suggestions that the US controls the Internet, they wrote: “The Internet is a decentralized network of networks and there is no one party – government or industry – that controls the Internet today. And that’s a good thing.”

“The Internet is a decentralized network of networks and there is no one party – government or industry – that controls the Internet today. And that’s a good thing.”

Their letter praised the multistakeholder model, noting that the broad inclusion of experts and governments, from all fields and all parts of the world, results in “broader and more creative problem solving,” and that the Internet “thrives through the cooperation of many different parties”.

“Our commitment to the multistakeholder model is based on the fact that transparency, inclusion and participation are the 21st century standards governing discussions related to modern communications,” they added.

So what is happening now?

If the language about the state of Internet governance seems grand, the language of the NTIA/IANA stewardship transition is considerable more procedural.

See the sidebar for more detail, but in brief, ICANN administers the IANA functions, which relate to the DNS root zone, IP addresses, protocol parameters, and a few other services, for example those related to the ARPA and INT top-level domains. In the current system, ICANN coordinates the processes by which changes are proposed (for instance, the addition of new top level domains) and submits recommendations to the NTIA. The NTIA checks that ICANN has followed correct procedures, conducted appropriate due diligence, and acted in accordance with policy. The NTIA then authorises the change, which in the case of DNS issues, Verisign implements as the root zone maintainer.

The announcement in March called for a transition only of the NTIA’s stewardship role over the IANA functions, not the IANA functions themselves. To make this happen, the NTIA tasked ICANN to coordinate a process for interested stakeholders to develop a transition proposal.

The coordination group, which met for the first time in July 2014 in London, is working towards an initial deadline of September 2015, which is when the current IANA functions contract expires. To guide this effort, the NTIA has specified that the proposal must:

• support and enhance the multistakeholder model
• maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS 
• meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services, and 
• maintain the openness of the Internet.

Crucially, the NTIA has also made it clear that it “will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

Netnod’s role and position

As the operator of the i-root server and a provider of DNS services, Netnod is an active and visible member of the DNS community. Furthermore, Netnod’s Head of Research and Development, Patrik Fältström, chair of ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), and Lars-Johan Liman, co-chair of ICANN’s Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), have both been appointed to the transition coordination group.

“Netnod welcomes the NTIA’s decision to open this question for discussion, and supports the limited role of the multistakeholder coordination group, which is to coordinate the proposals developed in the various communities,” said Fältström.

“Right now it’s vital that we focus on a clear and proper process to develop the best solution,” said Liman. “From an RSSAC perspective, representing the view of the root server operators, a primary objective is for ICANN to reach a solution that is as widely accepted as practical and which does not in any way reduce the security and stability of the Internet. Security and stability are paramount.”

The NTIA’s current role is modest in scope, being neither policy-making nor operational in nature. It’s there as a sanity check on the implementation of ICANN decisions, to verify and authorise the performance of IANA functions. But beyond the direct issue of the IANA function, Netnod is acutely aware of the broader implications of the transition.

“Although we – hopefully – will see a solution that makes very little operational impact, there is no doubt that this policy shift is significant. The process and outcome of the transition will affect the nature of the open decision making that shapes Internet infrastructure,” said Liman.

Why is this so important?

The NTIA’s role is largely that of a rubber stamp, but in a good way. In 2005, it was widely reported that forces within the White House exerted pressure on ICANN to head off the proposed .XXX domain . Notwithstanding that highly contentious incident – which undermined the US’s own public positions on Internet governance – the NTIA itself has never prevented ICANN from implementing its recommendations.

Whether that’s due to impeccable principles or simply institutional inertia, the result has been stable, predictable operations. But legacy systems tend to have a body of unwritten operational practices and boundaries. Replacing such a system entails carefully codifying and entrenching those practices in formal rules and guidelines.

At this point, it is worth noting that the NTIA’s role may not be filled by a single new body or mechanism. Without pre-empting the outcome of the transition process, many stakeholders – including Netnod – would favour a system where the communities responsible for developing policy inputs to IANA each assume oversight roles for their respective functional areas. In other words, rather than a single oversight body, there would be multiple, specialised oversight mechanisms, each backed by a pre-existing policy development process.

From Netnod’s perspective, an outcome based on those principles could provide necessary operational continuity from the current regime, but would boost the legitimacy of IANA oversight by relying on transparent, bottom-up, community-based processes.

And legitimacy will be critical. Whatever the shape of the new mechanisms, simply by virtue of being new they will inevitably be under more intense scrutiny than the NTIA has been during its tenure.

As Verisign stated recently: “The accountability regime that replaces the NTIA's stewardship should ensure enforceable and auditable transparency and accountability mechanisms. The DNS community and the global business and user communities deserve no less as such mechanisms are critical to the functioning of an open and secure Internet for everyone”.

Any slip-ups in the new oversight mechanisms will be used as ammunition by those who would rather see a greater role for governments in Internet governance.

It’s a fine balance that needs to be struck and the coordination group will have its work cut out for it to shepherd in a well-calibrated and publicly acceptable proposal by the 2015 deadline. The NTIA has left the door open for an extension of the deadline, but given the potential for US domestic politicalisation of this issue, it may be safer to wrap it up before the next election cycle.

“To maintain stability and security in such a politically charged atmosphere, we cannot underestimate the importance of properly defining and delimiting the new IANA stewardhip arrangements,” said Liman. “It’s vital that whatever proposal the community develops must ensure the appropriate level of separation between the oversight, policy making, and operational functions and establish effective checks and balances at each stage.”

To track the progress of the transition or have your say in the shape of the new IANA stewardship mechanisms, be sure to visit ICANN’s dedicated microsite athttps://www.icann.org/stewardship.

Nurani Nimpuno, Head of Outreach and Communications

This article was written for the Netnod News Magazine. For a printed copy of the Netnod news, email us at newsletter@netnod.se.