In America, the acronym MSM is usually translated as “main stream media.” In the rest of the world, and particularly in the world of the internet, MSM means “multi-stakeholder model.” It’s the idea that the internet should not be run by any government or by any multi-national institution, like the United Nations. Rather – or so the argument goes — the cyber domain should be run by all stakeholders; everyone who has an interest in the domain. That includes governments, non-governmental organizations, individuals, public interest groups, private interest groups, internet engineers, internet evangelists and anyone else who has interest in how cyberspace is run.
Last month the US government announced a move that is widely seen as supporting a transition to the MSM for internet governance – giving up US control of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). For some this is “giving up America’s internet.” For others it is “welcome globalization.” The truth lies somewhere between. Before we dance the happy “ICANN Can Can” we need make sure that the move toward globalization will work.
A word of explanation: The DNS is, in effect, the address book of the internet. Someone, in the end, has to decide that “microsoft.com” means the big computer software company in Washington. Someone has to decide that in addition to dot-com addresses we will now start recognizing dot.bank and dot.xxx and dot.home as valid global top level domains.
Historically, since the original architecture of the network was developed in the United States, that responsibility was given to American institutions. Since the late 1990s however, the US government has offloaded much of that responsibility to a third party—it has contracted out the naming function to a non-profit group, ICANN, an American non-profit corporation with headquarters in Southern California. For roughly the last 15 years ICANN has run the naming function under a contract with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a component of the Department of Commerce.
The contract was last let out for bid in 2011, and is due to expire in 2015. In its simplest form, the recent announcement was a statement by NTIA that it was not going to enter into another contract—that, instead, it would let ICANN have the responsibility of running the naming function on its own. The only condition that NTIA set for the transition was that ICANN develop an internal mechanism for oversight and win the trust of crucial stakeholders around the world.
In some ways this is inevitable. It is simply untenable for the United States to continue to be the proprietor of the globalized internet domain. At some point, a transition to an international system was required. But the transition to the MSM system is effective only if: 1) the MSM works; and 2) the MSM system operated by ICANN is accountable. Today, ICANN may not necessarily be in a good position to take over this responsibility (as anxious as it is to do so). Many are worried that ICANN is beholden to the domain name registry industry, who pay large fees to ICANN for the privilege of managing (and reselling) top level domain systems.
First, the naming function itself remains important, if only at a symbolic level. Domain names retain real significance as indicators of content. That is why some nations, for example, objected to new gTLDs like “.islam” and “.gay” during the last expansion. Thus, one potential adverse result of the transition might be a limitation on gTLD names that is inconsistent with our commitment to the openness of the network.
Second, as with most things, in the end this transition will likely be mostly about money. The opening up and provisioning new gTLDs is a big money endeavor. Whoever manages the IANA function has a monopoly over the distribution of a valuable resource whose provisioning will affect brands and trademarks across the globe. Already we have seen domain name holders in the “.com” global domain expending significant capital to reserve (and take out of use) their equivalent name in the “.xxx” domain, simply to protect their brand. We must have a checking function on ICANNs pricing models— so that ICANN doesn’t extract monopoly profits.
In short, before we do a joyous Can-Can dance of globalization, we need to make sure that ICANN is prepared to take over the naming responsibility. That requires caution, but not unreasoning rejection.