The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a private-sector nonprofit constituting one of the major international Internet technical standards organizations, recently adopted a set of measures that increasingly prevents more public accountability to and participation from the Internet community -- including individuals and nonprofit organizations. It also issued its decision regarding nonprofit Internet domain space. On February 25, 2002, the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) issued a proposal to redefine the body's administrative structure away from direct public participation by the Internet user community via at-large elections for board members. Created in October 1998, ICANN serves as the administrative body for the domain name system and directory of Internet server addresses. In essence, it oversees the very system that determines the identity and location of websites and e-mail addresses, and is involved in setting policy around topics including domain name disputes, root server security, and competition. The ICANN leadership consists of a 19-member board. This includes the ICANN president, four members of the original interim board, nine representatives from its three support organizations (domain name, address supporting, and protocol), and five at-large board seats. The at-large seats, set to expire in fall 2002, were first filled through a global online election held in October 2000 by the Internet community. There are also several advisory groups and committees and task forces, some consisting of board members. Funding for ICANN operations comes mostly from operators of top-level domains and firms that handle public Internet domain registrations. As a technical standards body it does not address policy issues around privacy, network security, online content, or business and consumer protections, which are directly addressed by individual governments (including legislative and law enforcement entities) and international bodies. The U.S. government exercises oversight of ICANN activities, most visibly through the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Senate Commerce Committee. The ICANN president's February 2002 proposal called for a reduction of board seats to 15 members. The president would continue to hold a seat, but the three support organizations would be eliminated in favor of representation from a new technical advisory committee and policy councils, which would engage actors representing both the generic (i.e. .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro) and geographic "country code" (e.g. .ca, .de, .jp, .uk) top-level domains. Most troubling to ICANN critics, business and public interest groups, and individual users, was the proposal regarding at-large seats: candidates proposed by a special board nominating committee and voted upon by individual governments would fill five at-large seats. Long-criticized as a slow-moving, under-performing body that has to date been unsuccessful in engaging broad global interest and participation among the Internet community in what are generally perceived as arcane technical details, ICANN was originally organized as a nonprofit private-sector corporation, with a self-imposed mandate to engage Internet stakeholders -- including individual users -- through "private-sector, bottom-up, consensus-based means" to addressing the sometimes arcane technical issues around international Internet operations. In response to uncertainty around the role of public participation among Internet users, the board set up an independent At-Large Study Committee (ALSC). The president's proposal was defended as a means to address concerns raised in the ALSC's 11/15/02 final report, especially around the potential abuses around the online election mechanisms used to select at-large board members. It was also suggested as a means to generate increased interest and involvement (and possible funding) by government bodies and local country-code domain name operators, both of which currently only function in a limited ad-hoc advisory capacity. This structure, furthermore, was said to not preclude continued Internet community ability to offer suggestions and proposals through public forums and more localized community-driven Internet-focused efforts that have more user activity and support. Critics counter that it would effectively, however, eliminate the very element of democratic representation and participation upon which the organization itself was founded, for the sake of creating a board with more governmental involvement. There is also concern that more direct involvement by governments will move ICANN into the very policy areas it asserts non-participation at present, without any public accountability. During its March 14, 2002 meeting in Accra, Ghana, the ICANN board approved a resolution which fails to guarantee that direct elections for even a portion of board seats will continue, out of concern for the current means of online elections with respect to their "fairness, representativeness, validity and affordability ... among an easily captureable pool of self-selected and largely unverifiable voters." The board, however, did vote for the development of a restructuring committee, made up of current board members, to revisit the ICANN mission, functions, and board structure. Some members of the board state that future elections-- on- or off-line-- while not expressly guaranteed, have not been ruled out of consideration in advance by the committee. The ICANN board is slated to take up the restructuring committee's recommendations at its June 2002 meeting in Bucharest, Romania. Curiously, the board, however, failed to follow through on an effort to create an independent review committee to monitor and address disputes around ICANN activities. Nonprofit Domain Constituency Expanded In a separate development, the ICANN board voted its support for a set of recommendations around the ".org" domain name space. Internet domain registrar VeriSign has, since 1992, had a nearly exclusive hold on registering domain names that end in .org and .net, which it has agreed to relinquish in order to focus on commercial and individual customers. Under the terms of a May 2001 deal eventually reached with ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce, VeriSign can operate the .net registry until June 2005, the .com registry until 2007, and the .org registry until December 2002. VeriSign would then permanently give up its ability to run the .org registry, but could bid again to run the .net registry. In return, VeriSign would set up a US$5 million endowment for a new nonprofit group to run the .org registry, and a US$200 million sum for 10 years worth of research to find ways to improve the efficiency of Internet registries. The deal would not make the company exempt from antitrust laws, and it agreed to undergo audits on a regular basis each year to ensure that its domain name registration and name registry functions were kept completely separate. The deal, finalized in May 2001, came under scrutiny by several public interest groups, commercial competitors, and members of Congress, because it was reached without public scrutiny or input. The January 17, 2002 recommendations of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization Names Council recommended both that .org be kept exclusive for formally recognized nonprofit and public interest groups, but that it also include "noncommercial expression and information exchange, unincorporated cultural, educational and political organizations, and business partnership with non-profits and community groups for social initiatives," and that preference for the future operator of the .org registry to be a widely regarded and supported non-commercial entity. All ICANN-affiliated registrars, however, would be able to continue to register .org domain names as well. Potential applicants for the .org domain would have to establish and articulate a vision for the .org audience, and how the domain should be marketed to them, such that both registration and broader participation in the governance of the domain are guaranteed. The nonprofit entity, however, would have to establish a "bright-line" between domain name registration and domain registry functions. Any revenues generated from registrations could be channeled back into activities related to participation by non-commercial registrants in maintenance, administration and governance activities. Current .org domain name holders would have to have their registrations protected during the transfer process away from VeriSign. New registrants would receive a certain measure of protection from disputes by existing nameholders, but existing ICANN domain name dispute resolution policies would apply. In addition to agreeing to the DNSO Names Council report, the ICANN board voted to move ahead with the formulation of a request for proposals for parties interested in assuming responsibility of the .org registry, though it did not pledge to give exclusive consideration of a nonprofit/non-commercial operator for the .org domain space as called for in the DSNO recommendations.