---
abstract: |
  USA might have ceded the control of the Internet, but only partially.
archive-url: "https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/science-and-technology/control-shift-2712"
author:
- Pranesh Prakash
authors:
- Pranesh Prakash
categories:
- Internet governance
citation:
  abstract: USA might have ceded the control of the Internet, but only
    partially
  accessed: 2020-10-23
  author: Pranesh Prakash
  available-date:
    date-parts:
    - - 2009
      - 11
      - 15
    iso-8601: 2009-11-15
    literal: 2009-11-15
    raw: 2009-11-15
  citation-key: prakashControlShift2009
  container-title: Down to Earth
  issued:
    date-parts:
    - - 2009
      - 11
      - 15
    iso-8601: 2009-11-15
    literal: 2009-11-15
    raw: 2009-11-15
  language: en
  title: Control shift?
  type: article-magazine
  URL: "https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/science-and-technology/control-shift-2712"
comments:
  hypothesis:
    theme: clean
date: 2009-11-15
engines:
- path: /opt/quarto/share/extension-subtrees/julia-engine/\_extensions/julia-engine/julia-engine.js
keywords:
- ICANN
- DNS
- affirmation of commitments
- internet governance
- USA
license:
  text: CC BY-NC 4.0
  type: creative-commons
  url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"
listing-page: ../press.html
original-url: "https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/science-and-technology/control-shift-2712"
publication: Down to Earth
title: Control shift?
title-block-categories: true
toc-title: Table of contents
---

# Control shift?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

After dominating operations of the Internet for decades Washington has
said it will relinquish some control. On September 30, the US department
of commerce decided to cede some of its powers to the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the body which
manages the net's phone book, the Internet's Domain Naming System (DNS).

The system deals with online addresses: human understandable names (like
google.com) are made to work with computer understandable names
(81.198.166.2, for example). Managing this is critical because while
Madras can be a city in both Tamil Nadu and Oregon, everyone wishing to
go to madras.com must be pointed to the same place. For the Internet to
work, everyone in the world must use the same telephone directory.

The Internet is not a single network of computers, but an interconnected
set of networks. What does it mean, then, to control the Internet? For
those wishing to access YouTube in late February 2008, it seemed as
though it was controlled by Pakistan Telecomthe agency had accidentally
blocked access to YouTube to the entire world for almost a day. For
Guangzhou residents, it seems the censor-happy Chinese government
controls the Internet. And for a brief while in January 1998, it seemed
the net was controlled by one Jon Postel.

Postel was one of the architects of the Internet involved from the times
of the net's predecessor Arpanet project, which the US department of
defence funded as an attack-resilient computer network. He was heading
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), an informal body in de
facto charge of technical aspects of the Internet, including the domain
network system. But IANA had no legal sanction. It was contracted by the
department to perform its services. The US government retained control
of the root servers that directed Internet traffic to the right
locations.

On January 28, 1998, Postel got eight of the 12 root servers transferred
to IANA control. This was when the defence department was ceding its
powers to the commerce department. Postal soon received a telephone call
from a furious Ira Magaziner, Bill Clintons senior science adviser, who
instructed him to undo the transfer. Within a week, the commerce
department issued a declaration of its control over the dns root
serversit was now in a position to direct Internet traffic all over the
world.

Soon after, the US government set up ICANN as a private non-profit
corporation to manage the core components of the Internet. A contract
from the department of commerce gave the organization in California the
authority to conduct its operations. IANA and other bodies (such as the
regional Internet registries) now function under ICANN.

Right from the outset, ICANN has been criticized as unaccountable,
opaque and controlled by vested interests, especially big corporations
which manipulated the domain name dispute resolution system to favour
trademarks. Its lack of democratic functioning, commercial focus and
poor-tolerance of dissent have made ICANN everyones target, from those
who believe in a libertarian Internet as a place of freedom and
self-regulation, to those (the European Union, for instance) who believe
the critical components of the Internet should not be in the sole
control of the US government.

The department of commerce has from time to time renewed its agreement
with ICANN, and the latest such renewal comes in the form of the
affirmation of commitments (AoC). Through the AoC, the US government has
sought to minimize its role. Instead of being the overseer of ICANNs
working, it now holds only one permanent seat in the multi-stakeholder
review panel that ICANN will itself have to constitute. But two days
after the AoC, ICANN snubbed a coalition of civil society voices calling
for representation; the root zone file remains in US control. It is too
early to judge the AoC; it will have to be judged by how it is
actualized.

*Pranesh Prakash is with the Centre for Internet and Society in
Bengaluru*