
Can you explain the ICANN transfer? - Claudus
I&#x27;m kind of surprised there isn&#x27;t a recent thread with comments and analysis of the impending relinquishment of US control over ICANN to another body.<p>I&#x27;ve read several articles, but I&#x27;m still having trouble understanding the reasoning, or even the technical details.<p>Does anyone understand what&#x27;s going on?<p>What exactly is wrong with the current setup?<p>I would greatly appreciate an informed opinion.
======
kijeda
In operational practice, very little will change. The staff who perform the
IANA function of managing the DNS Root Zone etc. will continue to do the same
job, although those staff will now work in a separate subsidiary of ICANN. One
operational change will be NTIA, an agency of the Department of Commerce, will
no longer be required to authorize every change to the root zone in advance.

In addition, ICANN the organization will have new accountability measures that
will allow the community to challenge decisions it makes. It provides new
powers like spilling its Board under certain circumstances.

One of the main drivers to change the current setup is NTIA's role above is
seen as undue US government influence in what should be a purely technical
operation by many. Over the years some have advocated fundamentally altering
how ICANN works (like moving it to the UN) because of the US Government's
influence. By transferring the primary oversight role to the multi-stakeholder
community (users, business, non-profits, etc.) who have always really driven
ICANN's decisions anyway, it is hoped that that criticism will go away and
pressure to fundamentally alter how it works will dissipate.

~~~
robalfonso
Just to add on to this. The NTIA has never exercised much in the way of
oversite/interference. The largest issue I can recall was they got involved
when the .XXX tld was being implemented.

As you say the actual running of ICANN/IANA and the internet at large is
really managed under a multi stake holder model and is very inclusive and
diversified.

Arguments to the contrary are typically FUD.

------
jnmandal
This transition has been in motion for over a decade now. NTIA (part of
Department of Commerce) has some good material on it here:
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/what-theyre-saying-why-
its...](http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/what-theyre-saying-why-its-
important-complete-iana-stewardship-transition)

I think a lot of politicians (ahem Ted Cruz) are trying to frame the
transition in a shadowy way to discredit the current administration, but its
simply a procedural thing thats been in the works for a long while.

------
sp332
Ars Technica has a pretty thorough overview. [http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2016/09/y2k-2-0-is-the-us...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2016/09/y2k-2-0-is-the-us-government-set-to-give-away-the-internet-
saturday/)

ICANN has a list of squashed conspiracy theories. [https://www.icann.org/iana-
stewardship-questions](https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions)

------
textmode
There is no "transfer" of anything. Anyone can edit the root.zone file. I use
my own curated version. Great for blocking ads, etc.

But for many years no one did this, except very rarely. And the honors were
left to some folks in the US, IANA/ICANN. Do not be fooled by the acronyms and
the fabricated processes and formalities on the official websites. IANA was
essentially one person. Bless the hearts of those who worked to create the
early internet but these "organizations" derive their "authority" from
nowhere. The internet is an abstraction, a term to describe different networks
that cooperate.

The generally static nature of the root.zone file changed recently. It has
doubled, maybe tripled in size and is now filled with TLDs such as .loans and
.cologne. As well as trademarks such as .google, .microsoft, etc. These can
also capture traffic from users who type strings into address bars that are
not FQDNs.

ICANN charged $85K+ just to bid on these beauties; they made some very easy
money. Most of them are worthless. Exit time for ICANN. :)

Now that it is filled with garbage, and perhaps anticipating some finger-
pointing, it is time to acknowledge that the root.zone belongs to everyone and
is managed by all countries of the world, not only the US.

The "transfer". More fabricated formalities.

The truth is that anyone can exercise control over the root.zone file, and
anyone can serve it. Whether you choose to follow them or not is up to you.
(Most users just let default DNS settings decide this for them.)

Similar to the early IANA, one person can do this job. I maintain and serve my
own root.zone. I am the only user but there could just as well be hundreds of
users. This could grow to thousands which could grow to millions which could
grow to hundreds of millions which could grow to...

This is what happened with the DNS. It started out small and grew big. Believe
it or not it is still not that big. I could fit all domain names in existence
on consumer-sized storage media.

Thus concludes an opinion. Mildly informed.

~~~
kijeda
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sure, anyone can create their own root
zone. I can create my own .com zone too and point my resolver to it instead.
But what use is it if it doesn't contain useful entries that point to things I
want to access? What use is it if all the parties underneath it aren't sending
me updates to the zone?

Someone has to do that job for it to all work. Do the managers of the hundreds
of TLDs around the world contact you to update your version? No, they send
them to IANA.

The IANA's job is simply to be the authoritative repository of unique
identifiers and associated configuration data — TLDs, IP addresses, port
numbers, MIME types, etc. You are free to use your own bespoke IP addressing
scheme, port numbers and MIME types too, but don't expect to be able
interoperate with anyone else.

------
dealthcider
Admittedly, there is a bit of a lie by omission in the statements of ICANN. By
agreeing to hand the institution over to an international stage, we are
agreeing to censor access to small websites or alternate-view websites that
don't conform to the standards or views of the corporation in charge of the
new ICANN. In effect, we would be blocking access to small websites, limiting
freedom of speech over the internet, and possibly in the future having
internet access begin to mirror the same level of restrictions that television
has.

Then, the international corporation would decide what websites you can access,
and if the website you want to have a look at doesn't adhere to the
corporation's view, it will simply become inaccessible.

There is also the question of political relevance; that is, why the urgency?
Why require that this be passed during the Obama administration just before an
election, and without congressional input?

To stop this? See this petition.

[https://wh.gov/iMbbv](https://wh.gov/iMbbv) Which routes to:
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/stop-icann-
handov...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/stop-icann-handover-
corporate-interests-which-will-censor-access-small-websites-using-dns-routing-
loophole)

ALSO, an interesting side note:

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/4-states-sue-
block-...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/4-states-sue-block-obamas-
internet-transition-plan)

------
Claudus
I guess my concern, and as a simple question:

Right now domains like wikileaks.org and thepiratebay.se exist. Will they
continue to exist in the same manner going forward? Or, in a few years, will
attacks on these domains be made, and their domains seized?

I'm really concerned about this, above all.

~~~
danarmak
Non-top-level names are subject to the rules established by their TLD manager.
This is iiS for .se domains, and PIR (the Public Internet Registry) for .org.
Each such managing organizations is more or less free to establish its own
rules and to give and revoke DNS names (or delegate to registrars).

The history of the The Pirate Bay's many domain names (thepiratebay.xx has
been registered at some point for almost any value of xx) clearly shows that
different TLDs have different policies. Many revoked thepiratebay.xx on
request, but some (like .se and .org) haven't.

I don't know what it would mean for ICANN to apply pressure to a TLD manager
to change their rules or make an exception in order to revoke or transfer a
name. But it would be a form of political pressure; there is no contractual
obligation by TLDs to do whatever ICANN tells them to, and there is no
technological mechanism in DNS itself to do so. Naively, ICANN seems to
present less danger in this regard than the US Government did. Of course that
doesn't mean the danger was or is small in absolute terms: the US Government
is very good at political pressure!

------
miraj
usually this is my 1st stop to understand current topics re: ICANN etc. ::

Milton Mueller at Internet Governance Project (1).

his latest blog post may shed some light (2).

1\. [http://www.internetgovernance.org](http://www.internetgovernance.org)

2\. [http://www.internetgovernance.org/2016/09/28/its-over-
yestoi...](http://www.internetgovernance.org/2016/09/28/its-over-yestoiana/)

~~~
alphapapa
That's a very interesting blog post. It contradicts itself multiple times. For
example, in one paragraph it says that the fact that the GAO hasn't produced
the congressionally mandated report for over a year must mean that there's
nothing to report on. In the very next paragraph it says that the reason the
GAO hasn't produced the report is probably because of "partisan gridlock."

So which is it? Have they produced no report because there is nothing to
report on (which is obviously silly; there's _something_ to report, regardless
of your opinion), or have they produced no report because of partisan
gridlock? If the latter, as they suggest, how does that imply that there's
nothing to report on?

It would actually imply the opposite, that there is much to report on, but
that political pressure is preventing them from reporting on it due to how an
unbiased report would inconvenience certain political agendas.

Just imagine, a CEO sees some troubling reports about his company's stock,
hearing rumors of fraud and audits and lawsuits. He orders an accountant to
produce a financial report for the last 6 months by Friday. Friday comes and
goes, and so does another, until several months have gone by. Finally the CEO
concludes that, since his accountant hasn't produced the ordered report, there
must be nothing to report, and everything is fine. ??? That's the same logic
they use in this article.

This is just one example of the double-minded perspective presented in that
article. The IGP is obviously strongly biased toward one political party, and
they write deceptive articles to confuse the public and handwave away
legitimate concerns.

------
erichocean
> _" The US government has never, and has never had the ability to, set the
> direction of the (ICANN) community’s policy development work based on First
> Amendment ideas," ICANN said in a statement. "Yet that is exactly what
> Senator Cruz is suggesting. The US government has no decreased role. Other
> governments have no increased role. There is simply no change to
> governmental involvement in policy development work in ICANN."_[0]

This is the primary issue I have with every single one of ICANN's
rebuttals[1]: nothing will change (so they say), and yet, here we are, _making
a change_.

Okay, then, here's a stupid question: why is a change being made? Ted Cruz may
be an ass, but that doesn't make ICANN's position correct.

If nothing will change, they guess what? No change is necessary. If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.

If something _will_ change, then ICANN should be entirely up front about what
that change exactly is. Instead, we get a bunch of denials that nothing will
change, the US has no current role anyway, yadda yadda yadda, but serious you
guys, _we have to change this right now_.

We're talking about managing the DNS system here, that's not an
"insignificant" thing, as other commenters have suggested.

Yes, existing ASes can already block specific domains today. Fine. But ICANN
could _easily_ become a Title IX-type situation, where ASes are _forced_ to
block specific domain names in order to remain part of the global Internet
system.[2]

It's true it doesn't police ASes that direction _today_ , under the _existing_
ICANN governance model, but there's (to my knowledge) no reason why that
_couldn 't_ be true today (under US control), and I see no reason why adding
"more stakeholders" will make the situation any less likely in the future. If
anything, it makes it _more_ likely: look at the UN. Certainly ICANN itself
doesn't think it's any less likely, but here's what they don't say: with this
change, it'll be _extremely_ hard for US citizens to fix if it does come
about. That's not "insignificant" to me.

[0] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/y2k-2-0-is-the-
us...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/y2k-2-0-is-the-us-
government-set-to-give-away-the-internet-saturday/)

[1] [https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-
questions](https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions)

[2] For instance, consider how the US Justice Dept. is using "Dear Colleague"
letters in 2016 to force schools to adopt a less-rigorous sexual assault
policy or face loss of federal funding. ICANN could apply similar pressure to
ASes in the future (not funding, but zone updates or whatever).

~~~
jakebasile
That's my beef with it, I can't figure out a concrete reason _why_ this is
important. Any change around something as important as DNS deserves scrutiny
but this one has mostly been handwaved away.

I am particularly concerned that it is described as a purely technical move
with no effect on censorship capabilities as if those are mutually exclusive.

What is the goal here? What problem is this solving?

~~~
d215
On of the main reasons is political:

"It will signal that the U.S. has changed its position and no longer believes
in a private-sector led internet and that governments will play a primary role
in making the final decision. Russia, China, and others will welcome such a
decision."

([https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-
questions](https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions))

ICANN and others are afraid that certain, mostly authoritarian governments
will want to break away from the global DNS and/or IP allocation system to
form alternative, walled systems under the pretext that the US government
'controls the internet'.

So ICANN and others want to take away any argument, however feeble, that
supports this position.

~~~
jakebasile
I don't understand why we should want to placate censorious governments, let
alone by giving them even a modicum of power over something this important.
Furthermore, if the transition of ICANN won't be a cause for censorship, then
why would it placate those governments? If the threat is that they're going to
break away and make their own systems, wouldn't that be in order to more
strongly stifle free speech? If that is their reason for breaking away, the
only way that giving them partial control would prevent that is if the system
we already have is made to be more controlled instead.

I really don't see any upside to this, as a US citizen strongly in favor of
free speech. There very well may be no downside, but I've seen no strong case
for this that doesn't come down to global politics to appease other nations
with far less stringent free speech protections.

------
zerognowl
Does anyone know if jurisdiction has anything to do with this? I'm no lawyer,
but I have a small inkling this has to do with International Law and the
global nature of The Internet. Personally I try to route around ICANN with
things like [https://www.opennicproject.org/](https://www.opennicproject.org/)
and things like
[https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns](https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns)

------
pastProlog
> What exactly is wrong with the current setup?

What exactly was wrong with the 1998 setup? ISI and Jon Postel were managing
fine back then.

I also don't recall a "US control over ICANN" that could be "relinquished"
being part of the original ICANN proposal. I don't think that would have gone
over well with the European operators at the IETF meetings. If it had been
they probably would have stuck with the CCITT's x.25 networks, Minitel and
such.

~~~
hackuser
> What exactly was wrong with the 1998 setup? ISI and Jon Postel were managing
> fine back then.

John Postel did great things for the Internet. However, to make a point or as
a 'test', one day in 1998 he redirected most of the Internet's DNS root server
traffic to different servers. That was the last straw - maybe the only straw.
Here's the Wikipedia version, which matches my vague memory of the story:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Postel#DNS_Root_Authority...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Postel#DNS_Root_Authority_test.2C_U.S._response)

~~~
davidofone
And this may be one of the more immediate reasons for the change ... the
control and behavior of the servers. The servers and what the servers do
beyond their traditional/current roles under ICANN. The architecture and
operational functions can be changed/controlled so as leverage being a focal
point to gather and control beyond being a url/address gateway. Reiterating
what others have already said ... Obama and other despotic players on the
world stage are no friend to liberty and freedom. Freedom where the least of
which is freedom of speech, association, movement and private property.

------
erichocean
Agreed, the blackout on HN regarding the ICANN transfer is very, very strange.

~~~
salicideblock
It' not really a blackout if all that's happening is that it's not interesting
enough for people to upvote it...

