Technology: 5 things you should know about ICANN
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) enjoys an undeserved obscurity. Its global powers and the consequences of its decisions for businesses large and small need to be more widely understood. This post briefly describes a handful of the essential facts.
December 30, 2011 at 04:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) enjoys an undeserved obscurity. Its global powers and the consequences of its decisions for businesses large and small need to be more widely understood. This post briefly describes a handful of the essential facts.
1. ICANN is the Internet's unseen regulator It is a canard that no one regulates the Internet. By technical necessity, a single global authority must coordinate and manage certain functions in order for every node on the Internet to communicate with every other. That authority is ICANN. Among other powers it holds because of a contract with the U.S. government, ICANN coordinates domain names and Internet Protocol addresses, operates the Internet root zone and conducts policy development related to these functions. No other organization in the world possesses these powers. Even though ICANN exercises its authority through contractual agreements rather than through direct regulation, the effect is no different. ICANN's unique authority allows it to set the terms by which access to the Internet is available.
2. ICANN is a private corporation ICANN is a nonprofit corporation organized under California law and is headquartered in the state. It is not a government agency, nor are its operations subject to routine government oversight. ICANN's status as a private corporation is explained by the U.S. government's decision in 1998 to privatize the responsibility for managing and coordinating the Internet. Privatizing makes a great deal of sense, but it also complicates thinking about how ICANN should operate. ICANN has few peers as a private corporation with global regulatory power.
3. ICANN's accountability is seriously flawed All of ICANN's powers are concentrated in its board of directors. Only that body holds the authority to act on behalf of ICANN. Although ICANN's bylaws provide for various mechanisms to review board decisions, none of them binds the board to reverse any decision, even if inconsistent with the bylaws or ICANN's other written commitments.
4. ICANN's policies disrupt business plansICANN's decision to permit new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs), such as .berlin and .canon, to be added to the Internet has already disrupted many plans by forcing businesses to decide whether to undergo the cost and risk of applying for a new gTLD or to take a solely defensive posture. But new gTLDs are hardly the only example of how ICANN's policies disrupt business plans. ICANN recently has been considering whether to thoroughly review the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, the out-of-court procedure for resolving trademark disputes in domain names. A decision either way will affect the plans of any business whose domain names it considers valuable intellectual property. And ICANN's policy-making environment is extremely active. Accurate and current knowledge is indispensable for devising an effective response to an ICANN policy that threatens to affect an organization adversely.
5. ICANN's policy making is open to participation by virtually all comers. ICANN is proud to call itself a “multi-stakeholder” institution. This means that ICANN invites anyone to participate in formulating Internet policy. Practically anyone who is interested can participate in ICANN's policy making: groups representing governments, businesses, non-commercial entities and individual Internet users are all welcome.
Given the impact that ICANN is having on the Internet and that the Internet is having on the global economy, more businesses should seriously consider taking up ICANN's invitation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter Botched Landing of United Airlines Boeing 767, Unlikely Plaintiff Sues Carrier
5 minute readDOT Moves to Roll Back Emissions Rules, Eliminate DEI Programs
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250