| ICANN’s proposal to expand Internet domain names has generated widespread praise. Lukasz Swiatek asks whether the move won’t simply resurrect old Internet predicaments.
At the close of the 32nd Public Meeting of ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) in Paris, a proposal was passed to implement changes for the Internet.
The proposal, however, was far from routine. ICANN has called it the “biggest expansion to the Internet in forty years.”
In a unanimous decision, the ICANN Board agreed to increase the number of domain names – specifically Internet address endings – available to Internet users and corporations.
"The potential here is huge. It represents a whole new way for people to express themselves on the Net," said Dr Paul Twomey, President and CEO of ICANN.
The scope of the new proposals is significant. For the first time, applicants will be able to select specific domains relating to their own interests. As well as standard names like .yourname and .yourbrand, other choices will become available. New York has already expressed interest in a .nyc domain, while Paris and New Berlin might follow suit with .paris and .berlin addresses.
This is a significant jump from the current range of 21 available addresses, with their familiar endings of .com, .net, .edu and .org. The move has been prompted by a predicted exhaustion of names by 2011.
It isn’t the first time the domain name range has been expanded, though. In 1985, only six generic names were available (.com, .edu, .gov, .mil, .net and .org.) Then, in 1988, ICANN was charged with control of the system and added several more options: . aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro.
At the Paris conference, however, a number of analysts raised their concerns
Susan Crawford, Visiting Associate Professor of Law at Yale University, and member of the ICANN board of directors, noted that the moves could inspire an increase in censorship.
"If this is broadly implemented, this recommendation would allow for any government to effectively veto a string that makes it uncomfortable," Associate Professor Crawford said.
Increasing the number of available names is certainly a positive step. But how far does it really go to making the web more open and accessible?
In 2005, the United Nation’s Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) released its final working paper, identifying numerous areas of concern for the Internet’s operation.
Section 3, item 15, identified Internet stability, security and cybercrime as critical shortcomings, noting that there is a “lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure the network stability and security” and a “lack of efficient tools and mechanisms to be used by countries to prevent and prosecute crimes.”
Other problematic areas were also identified, such as items 24, 26 and 27 – restrictions on freedom of expression, a lack of global standards for consumer rights and insufficient progress made toward multilingualisation (respectively.)
Importantly, the ICANN proposal will attempt to broaden Internet access by removing language barriers and increasing the number of characters (presently, only 37 Roman characters are recognised.)
"One of the most exciting prospect before us is that the expanding system is also being planned to support extensions in the languages of the world," said Peter Dengate Thrush, ICANN's Chairman, at the Paris conference. "This is going to be very important for the future of the Internet in Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia."
While the new ICANN proposal does partially address the issue of multilingualisation, the other areas identified by WGIG remain unresolved. And, of course, we return to that old question. Who rules?
The Internet, of course, has no recognisable governing body – no international organisation oversees it. This makes attempts at unifying international systems and cooperation difficult.
Section 5, item 2 of the WGIG Report suggested enhancing ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (the current mechanism), or establishing a Global Internet Council, or an International Internet Council (both anchored in the UN,) consisting of government representatives and other stakeholders.
If such an organisation were established, however, it must remember that nation-states would need to provide funds from their own economies (leading to probable citizen discontent,) that such an organisation would probably need ‘policing’ powers, disputes would arise over executive positions, voting procedures, etc.
Pierre de Senarclens argues (with regard to such organisations as the United Nations) that the modern international organisation lacks the capacity to manage such issues, arguing that “given the complexity of its structure and heterogeneous nature of its member states … it is hardly in a position to produce coherent development strategies.”
While it’s certainly worth discussing change and trying to improve the Internet, cybernauts and corporations should still be aware that the ICANN measures will not provide any ideal panaceas. The perfectibility of the Net is yet a long way off. And it must be remembered that the Internet itself is an evolving, flexible and malleable medium.
For now, at least, the changes will create breathing space for a suffocating online world. It seems that .com used to be company. Now .com has become a crowd.
| 
