Tools
Articles
Written March 11, 2024
Updated September 2, 2024
ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) manages the entire backbone of the internet as we know it, yet there are many flaws with the way it is run we see every day. Despite ICANN's claim to seek an "open and globally interoperable Internet", ICANN's management has led to an over-privatized internet and limited access to domains for the general public. Although ICANN has definitely made major positive impacts on how the internet is run, it is important for the public to see all the ways it could be improved. Before we go into depth with the flaws of ICANN, we must first start with an overview of how it operates. Additionally, it is to be noted that this article also covers the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) since it is owned by ICANN.
The goal of ICANN is to oversee the operations of the internet by managing the protocols and maintenance for the servers and databases used as the backends of the internet. Many of these systems are even directly owned by ICANN. In effect, the very operations of the internet, even the very existence of domain name endings (.com, .org, .net, etc.) are near solely governed by ICANN. ICANN is best known for its management of the DNS (Domain Name System) across the internet, a naming system and protocol that is used to connect domain names with associated servers. Such systems allow ICANN to impose fees on the registration of domain names, and to put various parts of domain administration under private industry.
With this amount of control, it is easy to understand how little it would take to mismanage such power. This, indeed, has been happening to a degree noticeable to just about every patron of the internet. At The People's Internet, the flaws we have seen most prominently expressed are their systems of billing for domains, their over-privatization of internet backend, and their bias towards large tech companies. We must note that although ICANN is not the only organization responsible for the governing of the internet, it is the one with the most power, and the one with most likely the greatest room to improve.
First, and primarily, the billing practices of ICANN. Domains may only be registered via a registrar organization and, therefore, only handled within said organization. Due to this, the means by which registrars are billed are integral to the accessibility of the Internet, yet the payments required to become and stay a registrar are, at best, prohibitive. For an organization to become a registrar, one must do the following:
Despite this, ICANN's fees for registering a domain are concerningly low and should be the limiting factor on registrars rather than the recurring payments that harm smaller registrars. Although admittedly the company that "owns" the TLD (domain ending, such as .com) may charge a larger yearly fee (around $8 in the case of .com), ICANN only charges $0.18 yearly per domain registered. Even with all fees incurred by owning a domain, they can be mass-bought by registrars and then upsold (the primary business of many domain brokers) as an easy, ICANN-sanctioned money-making scheme - one that comes at the expense of everyday people who want to use the internet. This introduces a concerning situation: it is incredibly challenging to become a registrar, but once a registrar, domains can be mass-purchased with little cost, resulting in uncountable domains that are registered but "parked". Even if not mass-purchased, the domains almost invariably have large recurring registrar upcharges just for a service that sends data to DNS servers.
In addition, we are concerned about ICANN's over-privatization of the internet backend, a prime example being the outsourcing of TLD management. A company known as Verisign currently owns and manages, among others, the TLDs .com, .net, .name, and .cc by hosting data necessary to their operation, such as DNS info. Verisign charges approximately $8 per year for .com registration, combined with ICANN's $0.18 fee. If ICANN were to stop outsourcing such tasks, especially on such significant domain names, they could prevent abuse of this power by other companies and allow more pricing to go to ICANN. We must take note of a massive overuse of the power given to companies when outsourcing TLD management, the "Site Finder" incident. Between 15 September 2003 and 4 October 2003, Verisign falsified DNS records for all unregistered .com and .net domains to redirect to their website, advertising their affiliate registrars and gaining millions in commissions before being stopped by ICANN.
Finally, we must cover ICANN's bias towards large tech companies. Although, in many ways, this bias is inherent to ICANN's operations, managing the backend of the internet and currently only working with registrars, this does not excuse their behavior. One incident we must note, and one that frankly disgusts us, was their handling of the TLD .amazon. In May of 2019, ICANN granted EXCLUSIVE administration rights of the TLD to Amazon.com, despite the request of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization, an organization dedicated to the preservation of the Amazon basin. It is clear to everybody that Amazon.com did not need its own TLD, as the only purpose it serves is to extend the reach of its brand just the tiniest bit. On the other hand, this domain could have been very well used for conservation efforts concerning the Amazon. This, however, is not the only instance of ICANN's corporate bias. Another egregious example is ICANN's removal of the .org price cap in April 2019. If any profit-seeking organization were to gain control of .org, they could infinitely increase the price, snuffing out the ability for small organizations to own such domains. Such a possibility is only prevented by .org's current owners, the nonprofit Public Interest Registry.
