Internet Governance and the
Domain Name System:
Issues for Congress
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
November 9, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42351
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
Summary
The Internet is often described as a “network of networks” because it is not a single physical
entity, but hundreds of thousands of interconnected networks linking hundreds of millions of
computers around the world. As such, the Internet is international, decentralized, and comprised
of networks and infrastructure largely owned and operated by private sector entities. As the
Internet grows and becomes more pervasive in all aspects of modern society, the question of how
it should be governed becomes more pressing.
Currently, an important aspect of the Internet is governed by a private sector, international
organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which
manages and oversees some of the critical technical underpinnings of the Internet such as the
domain name system and Internet Protocol (IP) addressing. ICANN makes its policy decisions
using a multistakeholder model of governance, in which a “bottom-up” collaborative process is
open to all constituencies of Internet stakeholders.
National governments have recognized an increasing stake in ICANN policy decisions, especially
in cases where Internet policy intersects with national laws addressing such issues as intellectual
property, privacy, law enforcement, and cybersecurity. Some governments around the world are
advocating increased intergovernmental influence over the way the Internet is governed. For
example, specific proposals have been advanced that would create an Internet governance entity
within the United Nations (U.N.). Other governments (including the United States), as well as
many other Internet stakeholders, oppose these proposals and argue that ICANN’s
multistakeholder model is the most appropriate way to govern the Internet.
Currently, the U.S. government, through the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce, holds a “stewardship” role over the
domain name system by virtue of a contractual relationship with ICANN. On March 14, 2014,
NTIA announced its intention to transition its stewardship role and procedural authority over key
domain name functions to the global Internet multistakeholder community. If a satisfactory
transition can be achieved, NTIA stated that it would let its contract with ICANN expire as early
as September 30, 2015. On August 17, 2015, NTIA announced that the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) contract will be extended for one year until September 30, 2016.
NTIA has also stated that it will not accept any transition proposal that would replace the NTIA
role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution.
Legislation was introduced into the 113th Congress seeking to limit NTIA’s ability to transfer its
authority over certain domain name functions. Ultimately, the 113th Congress enacted two
legislative provisions that address NTIA’s proposed transition. Section 540 of the Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) provided that during FY2015,
NTIA may not use any appropriated funds to relinquish its responsibility with respect to Internet
domain name system functions. Meanwhile, Section 1639 of the FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 113-235) contained Sense of Congress language on the future of the
Internet and the .mil top-level domain.
In the 114th Congress, H.R. 805/S. 1551 (the DOTCOM Act of 2015) would prohibit NTIA from
relinquishing its authority until 30 legislative days after NTIA submits a report to Congress in
which it certifies that the transition proposal meets certain criteria. On June 23, 2015, H.R. 805
was passed by the House. H.R. 2578 (FY2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations
Act), as passed by the House, directs that NTIA may not use any FY2016 appropriated funds to
relinquish its responsibility with respect to Internet domain name system functions.
Congressional Research Service
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
The 114th Congress is likely to closely examine NTIA’s proposed transition of its authority. As a
transition plan is developed by the Internet community, Congress will likely monitor and evaluate
that plan, and seek assurances that an Internet and domain name system free of U.S. government
stewardship will remain stable, secure, resilient, and open. Meanwhile, Congress will likely
continue assessing to what extent ongoing and future intergovernmental telecommunications
conferences constitute an opportunity for some nations to increase intergovernmental control over
the Internet, and how effectively NTIA and other government agencies (such as the State
Department) are working to counteract that threat.
Congressional Research Service
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
Contents
What Is Internet Governance? ......................................................................................................... 1
How Is the Internet Currently Governed? ....................................................................................... 1
Role of U.S. Government ................................................................................................................ 3
Affirmation of Commitments .................................................................................................... 4
DOC Contract and Cooperative Agreement With ICANN and VeriSign .................................. 5
NTIA Intent to Transition Stewardship of the DNS .................................................................. 6
Multistakeholder Process to Develop a Transition Proposal .............................................. 7
Legislative Activities in the 113th Congress ........................................................................ 7
Legislative Activities in the 114th Congress ...................................................................... 10
Other Activities ................................................................................................................. 12
Debate over Future Model of Internet Governance ....................................................................... 12
2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) ....................................................... 13
Creation of the .xxx Domain and New gTLDs ....................................................................... 14
.xxx ................................................................................................................................... 14
gTLD Expansion ............................................................................................................... 16
Proposed Models for Internet Governance .............................................................................. 20
World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) ......................................... 22
Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation ................................................ 24
NETmundial ............................................................................................................................ 25
NETmundial Initiative ............................................................................................................ 25
2014 Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan ............................................................................. 25
WSIS+10 ................................................................................................................................. 26
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 26
Appendixes
Appendix. ICANN Basics ............................................................................................................. 27
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 28
Congressional Research Service
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
What Is Internet Governance?
There is no universally agreed-upon definition of “Internet governance.” A more limited
definition would encompass the management and coordination of the technical underpinnings of
the Internet—such as domain names, addresses, standards, and protocols that enable the Internet
to function. A broader definition would include the many factors that shape a variety of Internet
policy-related issues, such as such as intellectual property, privacy, Internet freedom, e-
commerce, and cybersecurity.
One working definition was developed at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
in 2005:
Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private
sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the
Internet.1
Another definition developed by the Internet Governance Project (IGP)2 delineates three aspects
of the Internet that may require some level of governing: technical standardization, which
involves arriving at and agreeing upon technical standards and protocols; resource allocation and
assignment, which includes domain names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses; and human
conduct on the Internet, encompassing the regulations, rules, and policies affecting areas such as
spam, cybercrime, copyright and trademark disputes, consumer protection issues, and public and
private security. With these three categories in mind, the IGP definition is:
Internet governance is collective decisionmaking by owners, operators, developers, and
users of the networks connected by Internet protocols to establish policies, rules, and
dispute resolution procedures about technical standards, resource allocations, and/or the
conduct of people engaged in global internetworking activities.3
How Is the Internet Currently Governed?
The nature of the Internet, with its decentralized architecture and structure, makes the practice of
governing a complex proposition. First, the Internet is inherently international and cannot in its
totality be governed by national governments whose authority ends at national borders. Second,
the Internet’s successful functioning depends on the willing cooperation and participation by
mostly private sector stakeholders around the world. These stakeholders include owners and
operators of servers and networks around the world, domain name registrars and registries,
regional IP address allocation organizations, standards organizations, Internet service providers,
and Internet users.
Given the multiplicity and diversity of Internet stakeholders, a number of organizations and
entities play varying roles. It is important to note that all of the Internet stakeholders cited above
participate in various ways within the various fora, organizations, and frameworks addressing
Internet governance and policy.
1 Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, November 18, 2005, WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC6(Rev.1)-E, p. 6, available at
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.pdf.
2 The IGP describes itself as “an alliance of academics that puts expertise into practical action in the fields of global
governance, Internet policy, and information and communication technology.” See http://www.internetgovernance.org.
3 Milton Mueller, John Mathiason, and Hans Klein, “The Internet and Global Governance: Principles and Norms for a
New Regime,” Global Governance, vol. 13 (2007), p. 245.
Congressional Research Service
1
link to page 7 link to page 31 Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
Key organizations in the private sector include the following:
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)—ICANN was created in 1998
through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Commerce (see the following
section of this report, “Role of U.S. Government”). Directed by an internationally constituted
Board of Directors, ICANN is a private, not-for-profit organization based in Los Angeles, CA,
which manages and oversees the critical technical underpinnings of the Internet such as the
domain name system (DNS) and IP addressing (see the Appendix for more background
information on ICANN). ICANN implements and enforces many of its policies and rules through
contracts with registries (companies and organizations who operate and administer the master
database of all domain names registered in each top level domain, such as .com and .org) and
accredited registrars (the hundreds of companies and organizations with which consumers
register domain names). Policies are developed by Supporting Organizations and Committees in a
consensus-based “bottom-up” process open to various constituencies and stakeholders of the
Internet. As such, ICANN is often pointed to as emblematic of the “multistakeholder model” of
Internet governance.
Internet standards organizations—As the Internet has evolved, groups of engineers, researchers,
users, and other interested parties have coalesced to develop technical standards and protocols
necessary to enable the Internet to function smoothly. These organizations conduct standards
development processes that are open to participants and volunteers from around the world.
Internet standards organizations include the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Society (ISOC), and the World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C).
Governmental entities involved in Internet governance include the following:
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)—As part of ICANN’s multistakeholder process, the
GAC provides advice to the ICANN Board on matters of public policy, especially in cases where
ICANN activities and policies may interact with national laws or international agreements related
to issues such as intellectual property, law enforcement, and privacy. GAC advice is developed
through consensus among member nations. Although the ICANN Board is required to consider
GAC advice and recommendations, it is not obligated to follow those recommendations.
Membership in the GAC is open to all national governments who wish to participate. Currently,
there are 146 members. The GAC Chair is currently held by Switzerland, with Vice Chairs held
by Argentina, Spain, Namibia, Turkey, and Thailand.
Internet Governance Forum (IGF)—The IGF was established in 2006 by the United Nations’
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The purpose of the IGF is to provide a
multistakeholder forum which provides an open discussion (in yearly meetings) on public policies
related to the Internet. Open to all stakeholders and interested parties (governments, industry,
academia, civil society), the IGF serves as an open discussion forum and does not have negotiated
outcomes, nor does it make formal recommendations to the U.N. In December 2010, the U.N.
General Assembly renewed the IGF through 2015 and tasked the U.N.’s Commission on Science
and Technology for Development (CSTD) to develop a report and recommendations on how the
IGF might be improved. A Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum
was formed by the U.N., which includes 22 governments (including the United States) and the
participation of Internet stakeholder groups.
Other International Organizations—Other existing international organizations address Internet
policy issues in various ways. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is the United
Nations’ specialized agency for communications and information technology. The World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is another specialized agency of the U.N., which
Congressional Research Service
2
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
addresses a wide range of intellectual property issues, including those related to Internet policy.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a forum for
governments to work together to address economic issues, including the recent development of
Internet policymaking principles. While none of these organizations have direct control or
authority over the Internet, their activities can have influence over future directions of global
Internet policy.
National governments—National governments have acted to address various Internet policy
issues within their own borders. Many of the national laws and regulations pertain to user
behavior on the Internet. For example, in the United States, laws have been passed addressing
such issues as cybersecurity and cybercrime, Internet gambling, Internet privacy, and protection
of intellectual property on the Internet. Governments have also established internal Internet policy
coordinating bodies (e.g., the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s
Internet Policy Task Force and the European Commission’s Information Society).
Role of U.S. Government
The U.S. government has no statutory authority over ICANN or the domain name system.
However, because the Internet evolved from a network infrastructure created by the Department
of Defense, the U.S. government originally owned and operated (primarily through private
contractors) many of the key components of network architecture that enabled the domain name
system to function. In the early 1990s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was given a lead
role in overseeing domain names used in the civilian portion of the Internet (which at that time
was largely comprised of research universities). By the late 1990s, ICANN was created, the
Internet had expanded into the commercial world, and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce (DOC) assumed the lead
role.
A 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the DOC initiated a process
intended to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to a private-sector
not-for-profit entity. While the DOC plays no role in the internal governance or day-to-day
operations of ICANN, the U.S. government, through the DOC/NTIA, retains a role with respect
to the DNS via three separate contractual agreements. These are:
a 2009 Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) between DOC and ICANN;4
a contract between ICANN and DOC to perform various technical functions such
as allocating IP address blocks, editing the root zone file, and coordinating the
assignment of unique protocol numbers; and
a cooperative agreement between DOC and VeriSign to manage and maintain the
official DNS root zone file.
By virtue of those three contractual agreements, the U.S. government—through DOC/NTIA—
exerts a legacy authority and stewardship over ICANN, and arguably has more influence over
ICANN and the DNS than other national governments.
While NTIA is the lead agency overseeing domain name issues, other federal agencies maintain a
specific interest in the DNS that may affect their particular missions. For example, the Federal
4 For more information on the Affirmation of Commitments, including the precursor agreements between DOC and
ICANN such as the Joint Project Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding, see CRS Report 97-868, Internet
Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues, by Lennard G. Kruger.
Congressional Research Service
3
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
Trade Commission (FTC) seeks to protect consumer privacy on the Internet, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) addresses Internet crime and intellectual property issues, and the Department of
Defense and Department of Homeland Security address cybersecurity issues. However, none of
these agencies has legal authority over ICANN or the running of the DNS.
Affirmation of Commitments
On September 30, 2009, DOC and ICANN announced agreement on an Affirmation of
Commitments (AoC) to “institutionalize and memorialize” the technical coordination of the DNS
globally and by a private-sector-led organization.5 The AoC replaced the previous Memorandum
of Understanding and subsequent Joint Project Agreement between DOC and ICANN. It has no
expiration date and would conclude only if one of the two parties decided to terminate the
agreement.
Under the AoC, ICANN committed to remain a not-for-profit corporation “headquartered in the
United States of America with offices around the world to meet the needs of a global
community.” According to the AoC, “ICANN is a private organization and nothing in this
Affirmation should be construed as control by any one entity.” Specifically, the AoC called for the
establishment of review panels which will periodically make recommendations to the ICANN
Board in four areas: ensuring accountability, transparency, and the interests of global Internet
users (panel includes the Administrator of NTIA); preserving security, stability, and resiliency;
impact of new generic top level domains (gTLDs); and WHOIS policy.6
On December 31, 2010, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) released its
recommendations to the Board for improving ICANN’s transparency and accountability with
respect to Board governance and performance, the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its
interaction with the Board, public input and policy development processes, and review
mechanisms for Board decisions.7 At the June 2011 meeting in Singapore, the Board adopted all
27 ATRT recommendations. According to NTIA, “the focus turns to ICANN management and
staff, who must take up the challenge of implementing these recommendations as rapidly as
possible and in a manner that leads to meaningful and lasting reform.”8
5 Affirmation of Commitments by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers, September 30, 2009, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/
Affirmation_of_Commitments_2009.pdf.
6 WHOIS is a publicly available online database that provides information on domain name registrants. WHOIS is used
to identify domain name holders. WHOIS policy is controversial because it encompasses two competing
considerations: protecting the privacy of domain name holders versus enabling law enforcement and trademark holders
to identify owners of domain names and websites engaging in criminal activities or infringing on intellectual property.
7 The ATRT final report is available at http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-final-recommendations-
31dec10-en.pdf.
8 NTIA, Press Release, “NTIA Commends ICANN Board on Adopting the Recommendations of the Accountability
and Transparency Review Team,” June 24, 2011, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2011/
NTIA_Statement_06242011.html.
Congressional Research Service
4
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
DOC Contract and Cooperative Agreement With ICANN
and VeriSign
A contract between DOC and ICANN—specifically referred to as the “IANA9 functions
contract”—authorizes ICANN to manage the technical underpinnings of the DNS. Specifically,
the contract allows ICANN to perform various critical technical functions such as allocating IP
address blocks, editing the root zone file, and coordinating the assignment of unique protocol
numbers. Additionally, and intertwined with the IANA functions, a cooperative agreement
between DOC and VeriSign (the company that operates the .com and .net registries) authorizes
VeriSign to manage and maintain the official root zone file that is contained in the Internet’s root
servers that underlie the functioning of the DNS.10 By virtue of these legal agreements, the DOC
approves changes or modifications made to the root zone file (changes, for example, such as
adding a new top level domain).11
On July 2, 2012, NTIA announced the award of the most recent (and current) IANA contract to
ICANN through September 30, 2015 (with an option to extend the contract through September
2019). The IANA contract continues to specify that the contractor must be a wholly U.S. owned
and operated firm or a U.S. university or college; that all primary operations and systems shall
remain within the United States; and that the U.S. government reserves the right to inspect the
premises, systems, and processes of all facilities and components used for the performance of the
contract.
9 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
10 According to the National Research Council, “The root zone file defines the DNS. For all practical purposes, a top
level domain (and, therefore, all of its lower-level domains) is in the DNS if and only if it is listed in the root zone file.
Therefore, presence in the root determines which DNS domains are available on the Internet.” See National Research
Council, Committee on Internet Navigation and the Domain Name System, Technical Alternatives and Policy
Implications, Signposts on Cyberspace: The Domain Name System and Internet Navigation, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 2005, p. 97.
11 The June 30, 2005, “U.S. Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System” stated the intention to
“preserve the security and stability” of the DNS, and asserted that “the United States is committed to taking no action
that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore
maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.” See
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
NTIA Intent to Transition Stewardship of the DNS12
The IANA functions contract with ICANN and the cooperative agreement with Verisign give
NTIA the authority to maintain a stewardship and oversight role with respect to ICANN and the
domain name system. On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced its intention to transition its
stewardship role and procedural authority over key domain name functions to the global Internet
multistakeholder community.13 NTIA’s stated intention was that it would let its IANA functions
contract with ICANN expire on September 30, 2015, if a satisfactory transition could be
achieved. With NTIA having the option of extending the contract for up to two two-year periods
through September 30, 2019, NTIA announced on August 17, 2015, that it will extend the IANA
functions contract through September 30, 2016.
NTIA asked ICANN to convene interested global Internet stakeholders (both from the private
sector and governments) to develop a proposal to achieve the transition. Specifically, NTIA
expects ICANN to work collaboratively with parties directly affected by the IANA contract,
including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the
Internet Society (ISOC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), top level domain name
operators, Verisign, and other interested global stakeholders. In October 2013, many of these
groups—specifically, the Internet technical organizations responsible for coordination of the
Internet infrastructure—had called for “accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA
functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments,
participate on an equal footing.”14
NTIA has stated that it will not accept any transition proposal that would replace the NTIA role
with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution.
In addition, NTIA told ICANN that the transition proposal must have broad community support
and address the following four principles:
support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
maintain the security, stability, and resilience of the Internet DNS;
meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
services; and
maintain the openness of the Internet.
Supporters of the transition15 argue that by transferring its remaining authority over ICANN and
the DNS to the global Internet community, the U.S. government will bolster its continuing
support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and that this will enable the
United States to more effectively argue and work against proposals for intergovernmental control
over the Internet. Supporters also point out that the U.S. government and Internet stakeholders
have, from the inception of ICANN, envisioned that U.S. authority over IANA functions would
12 For a full discussion of this issue, see CRS Report R44022, The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United
States Relinquish Its Authority Over ICANN?, by Lennard G. Kruger.
13 NTIA, Press Release, “NTIA Announced Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions,” March 14,
2014, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-
name-functions.
14 ICANN, “Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation,” October 7, 2013, available at
https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htm.
15 ICANN, “Endorsements of the IANA Globalization Process,” March 18, 2014, available at https://www.icann.org/
en/about/agreements/iana/globalization-endorsements-18mar14-en.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
be temporary, and that the DNS would eventually be completely privatized.16 According to NTIA,
this transition is now possible, given that “ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps
in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence.”17
Those opposed, skeptical, or highly cautious about the transition18 point out that NTIA’s role has
served as a necessary “backstop” which has given Internet stakeholders confidence that the
integrity and stability of the DNS is being sufficiently overseen. Critics assert that in the wake of
the Edward Snowden NSA revelations, foreign governments might gain more support
internationally in their continuing attempts to exert intergovernmental control over the Internet,
and that any added intergovernmental influence over the Internet and the DNS would be that
much more detrimental to the interests of the United States if NTIA’s authority over ICANN and
the DNS were to no longer exist. Another concern regards the development of the transition plan
and a new international multistakeholder entity that would provide some level of stewardship
over the domain name system. Critics are concerned about the risks of foreign governments—
particularly those favoring censorship of the Internet—gaining influence over the DNS through
the transition to a new Internet governance mechanism that no longer is subject to U.S.
government oversight.
Multistakeholder Process to Develop a Transition Proposal
ICANN has convened a process through which the multistakeholder community will attempt to
come to consensus on a transition proposal. The process is divided into two separate but related
parallel tracks: (1) IANA Stewardship Transition and (2) Enhancing ICANN Accountability. For a
full discussion of the status and results of the multistakeholder process to develop a transition
proposal, see CRS Report R44022, The Future of Internet Governance: Should the U.S.
Relinquish Its Authority Over ICANN?, by Lennard G. Kruger.
Legislative Activities in the 113th Congress
On March 27, 2014, Representative Shimkus introduced H.R. 4342, the Domain Openness
Through Continued Oversight Matters (DOTCOM) Act. H.R. 4342 would have prohibited the
NTIA from relinquishing responsibility over the Internet domain name system until GAO submits
to Congress a report on the role of the NTIA with respect to such system. The report would have
included a discussion and analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the change and address
the national security concerns raised by relinquishing U.S. oversight. It would also have required
GAO to provide a definition of the term “multistakeholder model” as used by NTIA with respect
to Internet policymaking and governance. H.R. 4342 was referred to the House Energy and
Commerce Committee. On April 2, 2014, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
held a hearing on the DOTCOM Act.19 H.R. 4342 was approved by the House Energy and
16 The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. government “is committed to a
transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.” Available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm.
17 NTIA, Press Release, “NTIA Announced Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions,” March 14,
2014
18 See for example: Atkinson, Rob, “U.S. Giving Up Its Internet ‘Bodyguard’ Role,” March 17, 2014, available at
http://www.ideaslaboratory.com/2014/03/17/u-s-giving-up-its-internet-bodyguard-role/; and Nagesh, Gauthem, Wall
Street Journal, “U.S. Plan for Web Faces Credibility Issue,” March 18, 2014.
19 Hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
“Ensuring the Security, Stability, Resilience, and Freedom of the Global Internet,” April 2, 2014, available at
http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/ensuring-security-stability-resilience-and-freedom-global-internet.
Congressional Research Service
7
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
Commerce Committee on May 8, 2014. Subsequently on June 5, 2014, the House Energy and
Commerce Committee requested that the GAO examine the Administration’s proposal to
transition NTIA’s current authority over IANA to the multistakeholder Internet community.20
On May 22, 2014, the text of the DOTCOM Act was offered by Representative Shimkus as an
amendment to H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015. During House
consideration of H.R. 4435, the amendment was agreed to by a vote of 245-177. H.R. 4435 was
passed by the House on May 22, 2014. The House Armed Services bill report accompanying H.R.
4435 (H.Rept. 113-446) stated the committee’s belief that any new Internet governance structure
should include protections for the Department of Defense-controlled .mil generic top level
domain and its associated Internet protocol numbers. The committee also supported maintaining
separation between the policymaking and technical operation of root-zone management functions.
On June 2, 2014, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported S. 2410, its version of the
FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 1646 of S. 2410 (“Sense of Congress on the
Future of the Internet and the .mil Top-Level Domain”) stated that it is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense should
advise the President to transfer the remaining role of the United States Government in the
functions of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority to a global multi-stakeholder
community only if the President is confident that the ‘.MIL’ top-level domain and the
Internet Protocol address numbers used exclusively by the Department of Defense for
national security will remain exclusively used by the Department of Defense.
Section 1646 also directed DOD to take “all necessary steps to sustain the successful stewardship
and good standing of the Internet root zone servers managed by components of the Department of
Defense.” In the report accompanying S. 2410 (S.Rept. 113-176), the committee urged DOD to
seek an agreement through the IANA transition process, or in parallel to it, between the
United States and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and the rest
of the global Internet stakeholders that the .mil domain will continue to be afforded the
same generic top level domain status after the transition that it has always enjoyed, on a
par with all other country-specific domains.
The Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 was signed by the President on December 16, 2014 (P.L. 113-235). The enacted law
does not contain the DOTCOM Act provision contained in the House-passed version. Section
1639 of P.L. 113-235 (“Sense of Congress on the Future of the Internet and the .mil Top-Level
Domain”) states it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should support the
IANA transfer
only if assurances are provided for the protection of the current status of legacy top-level
domain names and Internet Protocol address numbers, particularly those used by the
Department of Defense and the components of the U.S. Government for national security
purposes; mechanisms are institutionalized to uphold and protect consensus-based
decision making in the multi-stakeholder approach; and existing stress-testing scenarios
of the accountability process of the multi-stakeholder model can be confidently shown to
work transparently, securely, and efficiently to maintain a free, open, and resilient
Internet.
It is also the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should “take all necessary steps to
sustain the successful stewardship and good standing of the Internet root zone servers managed
20 See http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/letters/20140605GAO.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
by components of the Department of Defense, including active participation, review, and analysis
for transition planning documents and accountability stress testing.”
On May 8, 2014, the House Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 4660, the FY2015
Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Act, which appropriates funds for DOC and
NTIA. The bill report (H.Rept. 113-448) stated that in order that the transition be more fully
considered by Congress, the committee’s recommendation for NTIA does not include any funds
to carry out the transition and that the committee expects that NTIA will maintain the existing no-
cost contract with ICANN throughout FY2015. During House consideration of H.R. 4660, an
amendment offered by Representative Duffy was adopted on May 30, 2014 (by recorded vote,
229-178), which stated that (Section 562) “[n]one of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility
with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
functions.” H.R. 4660 was subsequently passed by the House on May 30, 2014.
On June 5, 2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2015
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (S. 2437). In the bill report
(S.Rept. 113-181) the committee directed NTIA to conduct a thorough review and analysis of any
proposed transition of the IANA contract in order to ensure that ICANN has in place an NTIA
approved multi-stakeholder oversight plan that is insulated from foreign government and
intergovernmental control. Further, the committee directed NTIA to report quarterly to the
committee on all aspects of the privatization process and further directed NTIA to inform the
committee, as well as the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, not less than
seven days in advance of any decision with respect to a successor contract. The committee also
expressed its concern that NTIA has not been a strong advocate for U.S. businesses and
consumers through its participation in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and
stated that it awaits “the past due report on NTIA’s plans for greater involvement in the GAC and
the efforts it is undertaking to protect U.S. consumers, companies, and intellectual property.”
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) was signed by
the President on December 16, 2014. Section 540 provides that during FY2015, NTIA may not
use any appropriated funds to relinquish its responsibility with respect to Internet domain name
system functions, including its responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and
the IANA functions. The prohibition on funding for NTIA’s IANA transition activities expires on
September 30, 2015. Additionally, the Explanatory Statement accompanying P.L. 113-235
reiterates House and Senate language regarding ICANN and IANA matters and modifies the
Senate language by directing NTIA “to inform appropriate Congressional committees not less
than 45 days in advance of any such proposed successor contract or any other decision related to
changing NTIA’s role with respect to ICANN or IANA activities.” The Explanatory Statement
also directs NTIA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within 45 days of enactment of P.L. 113-235 regarding “any recourse that would be available to
the United States if the decision is made to transition to a new contract and any subsequent
decisions made following such transfer of Internet governance are deleterious to the United
States.”
Other legislation addressing the proposed transition included the following:
H.R. 4367 (Internet Stewardship Act of 2014, introduced by Representative Mike
Kelly on April 2, 2014), which would have prohibited NTIA from relinquishing
its DNS responsibilities unless permitted by statute;
Congressional Research Service
9
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
H.R. 4398 (Global Internet Freedom Act of 2014, introduced by Representative
Duffy on April 4, 2014), which would have prohibited NTIA from relinquishing
its authority over the IANA functions; and
H.R. 5737 (Defending Internet Freedom Act of 2014, introduced by
Representative Mike Kelly on November 19, 2014), which would have
prohibited NTIA from relinquishing its responsibilities over domain name
functions unless it certifies that the transition proposal meets certain specified
criteria.
H.R. 4367, H.R. 4398, and H.R. 5737 were referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and
the Internet, held a hearing on April 10, 2014, that examined the proposed transition.
Legislative Activities in the 114th Congress
House Legislation
The DOTCOM Act of the 113th Congress was reintroduced into the 114th Congress by
Representative Shimkus as H.R. 805 on February 5, 2015. As introduced, the DOTCOM Act of
2015 would have prohibited NTIA from relinquishing responsibility over the Internet domain
name system until GAO submitted a report to Congress examining the implications of the
proposed transfer. H.R. 805 would have directed GAO to issue the report no later than one year
after NTIA received a transition proposal. On June 17, 2015, the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce approved an amended DOTCOM Act. The amended version of H.R. 805 reflected
a bipartisan agreement and was approved unanimously by voice vote. On June 23, 2015, H.R. 805
was passed by the House (378-25) under suspension of the rules.
H.R. 805, as passed by the House, does not permit NTIA’s authority over the IANA function “to
terminate, lapse, be cancelled, or otherwise cease to be in effect” until 30 legislative days after
NTIA submits a report to Congress on the final IANA transition proposal. Specifically, the report
must contain the final transition proposal and a certification by NTIA that the proposal:
supports and enhances the multistakeholder model of Internet governance;
maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet domain name
system;
meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of IANA
services;
maintains the openness of the Internet; and
does not replace the role of NTIA with a government-led or intergovernmental
organization solution.
H.R. 805 also requires NTIA to certify that the required changes to ICANN’s bylaws contained in
the transition proposal have been adopted by ICANN.
Meanwhile, on June 3, 2015, the House passed H.R. 2578, the FY2016 Commerce, Justice,
Science (CJS) Appropriations Act, which appropriates funds for DOC and NTIA. Section 536 of
H.R. 2578 states that “[n]one of the funds made available by this Act may be used to relinquish
the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration with
respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the
authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.”
Other House-introduced legislation that addresses the proposed IANA transition includes:
Congressional Research Service
10
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
H.R. 355 (Global Internet Freedom Act of 2015, introduced by Representative
Duffy on January 14, 2015), which would prohibit NTIA from relinquishing its
authority over the IANA functions.
H.R. 2251 (Defending Internet Freedom Act of 2015, introduced by
Representative Mike Kelly on May 15, 2015), which would prohibit NTIA from
relinquishing its responsibilities over domain name functions and the IANA
function unless it certifies that the transition proposal meets certain specified
criteria.
Senate Legislation
S. 1551, the Senate companion version of the DOTCOM Act of 2015, was introduced on June 11,
2015, by Senator Thune. The language of S. 1551 is virtually identical to H.R. 805 as approved
by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. S. 1551 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and was ordered to be reported by the
committee on June 25, 2015.
On June 16, 2015, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2016
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. In the bill report (S.Rept.
114-66) the committee directed NTIA to
continue quarterly reports to the Committee on all aspects of the transition process, and
further directs NTIA to inform the Committee and the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, not less than 45 days in advance of any decision with respect
to a successor contract.” The committee also stated that it “continues to be concerned
about this process and supports the continued stewardship role of the United States over
the domain name system in order to ensure the security of the .gov and .mil domains and
to protect the freedom of speech and expression internationally.
Also in the Senate, S.Res. 71—designating the week of February 8 through February 14, 2015, as
“Internet Governance Awareness Week”—was introduced by Senator Hatch on February 5, 2015.
S.Res. 71 seeks to increase public awareness regarding NTIA’s proposed transition, encourage
public education about the importance of the transition process; and call the attention of the
participants at the ICANN meeting in Singapore to the importance of designing accountability
and governance reforms to best prepare ICANN for executing the responsibilities that it may
receive under any transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions. S.Res. 71 was passed by
the Senate on February 5, 2015.
Congressional Hearings
As part of its continuing oversight over NTIA and the domain name system, Congress has held
hearings on the proposed IANA transition and on ICANN’s management of the domain name
system:
On February 25, 2015, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation held a hearing entitled, “Preserving the Multistakeholder Model
of Internet Governance.”21
21 Testimony available at http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings.
Congressional Research Service
11
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
On May 13, 2015, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, held a hearing entitled,
“Stakeholder Perspectives on the IANA Transition.”22
On May 13, 2015, the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, held a hearing entitled,
“Stakeholder Perspectives on ICANN: the .Sucks Domain and Essential Steps to
Guarantee Trust and Accountability in the Internet’s Operation.”23
On July 8, 2015, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee
on Communications and Technology, held a hearing entitled, “Internet
Governance Progress After ICANN 53.”24
Other Activities
On September 22, 2015, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees
(Representatives Goodlatte and Senator Grassley), Senator Cruz, and Representative Issa sent a
letter to GAO expressing concern that the IANA transition and the relinquishing of U.S.
government control over the root zone file may constitute a transfer of government property that
may only be authorized by an act of Congress.25 Specifically, the letter asked GAO to examine
three questions: would the termination of NTIA’s contract with ICANN cause government
property of any kind to be transferred to ICANN; is the root zone file or other related or similar
materials or information U.S. government property; and if so, does NTIA have the authority to
transfer the root zone file or other related materials or information to a non-federal entity?
On October 15, 2015, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology,
Innovation, and the Internet (Senator Thune and Senator Schatz) sent a letter26 to ICANN calling
for robust accountability reforms which may lessen the Board’s power and authority if those
reforms conform with the multistakeholder community’s accountability proposal. The Senators
further stated that no arbitrary deadlines should be used as a way to deter the community from
securing the reforms it must have to sufficiently replace the role currently played by NTIA.
Debate over Future Model of Internet Governance
Given its complexity, diversity, and international nature, how should the Internet be governed?
Some assert that a multistakeholder model of governance is appropriate, where all stakeholders
(both public and private sectors) arrive at consensus through a transparent bottom-up process.
Others argue that a greater role for national governments is necessary, either through increased
influence through the multistakeholder model, or under the auspices of an international body
exerting intergovernmental control.
22 Testimony available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/stakeholder-perspectives-iana-transition.
23 Testimony available at http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=7E5AF16E-B1F8-45B8-803B-
9E389A9B745E.
24 Testimony available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/internet-governance-progress-after-icann-53.
25 Available at http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/
20150922%20Grassley%20Cruz%20Goodlatte%20Issa%20GAO%20Request%20ICANN.pdf.
26 Available at https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/10/16/thune-schatz-icann-oct15.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
To date, ICANN and the governance of the domain name system has been the focal point of this
debate. While ICANN’s mandate is to manage portions of the technical infrastructure of the
Internet (domain names and IP addresses), many of the decisions ICANN makes affect other
aspects of Internet policy, including areas such as intellectual property, privacy, and cybersecurity.
These are areas which many national governments have addressed for their own citizens and
constituencies through domestic legislation, as well as through international treaties.
As part of the debate over an appropriate model of Internet governance, criticisms of ICANN
have arisen on two fronts. One criticism reflects the tension between national governments and
the current performance and governance processes of ICANN, whereby governments feel they
lack adequate influence over ICANN decisions that affect a range of Internet policy issues. The
other criticism is fueled by concerns of many nations that the U.S. government holds undue
legacy influence and control over ICANN and the domain name system.
The debate over multistakeholderism vs. intergovernmental control initially manifested itself in
2005 at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which was a conference organized
by the United Nations. More recently, this debate has been rekindled in various international fora,
partially sparked by two ICANN actions in 2011: the approval of the .xxx top-level domain and
the approval of a process to allow an indefinite number of new generic top level domains
(gTLDs).
2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
Following the creation of ICANN in 1998, many in the international community, including
foreign governments, argued that it was inappropriate for the U.S. government to maintain its
legacy authority over ICANN and the DNS. They suggested that management of the DNS should
be accountable to a higher intergovernmental body. The United Nations, at the first phase of the
WSIS in December 2003, debated and agreed to study the issue of how to achieve greater
international involvement in the governance of the Internet, and the domain name system in
particular. The study was conducted by the U.N.’s Working Group on Internet Governance
(WGIG). On July 14, 2005, the WGIG released its report,27 stating that no single government
should have a preeminent role in relation to international Internet governance. The report called
for further internationalization of Internet governance, and proposed the creation of a new global
forum for Internet stakeholders. Four possible models were put forth, including two involving the
creation of new Internet governance bodies linked to the U.N. Under three of the four models,
ICANN would either be supplanted or made accountable to a higher intergovernmental body. The
report’s conclusions were scheduled to be considered during the second phase of the WSIS held
in Tunis in November 2005. U.S. officials stated their opposition to transferring control and
administration of the domain name system from ICANN to any international body. Similarly, the
109th Congress expressed its support for maintaining existing U.S. control over ICANN and the
DNS (H.Con.Res. 268 and S.Res. 323).28
The European Union (EU) initially supported the U.S. position. However, during the September
2005 preparatory meetings, the EU seemingly shifted its support towards an approach which
favored an enhanced international role in governing the Internet. Conflict at the WSIS Tunis
27 Working Group on Internet Governance, Report from the Working Group on Internet Governance, World Summit on
the Information Society, Document WSIS-II/PC-3/DOC/5-E, August 3, 2005, available at http://www.itu.int/wsis/
docs2/pc3/html/off5/index.html.
28 In the 109th Congress, H.Con.Res. 268 was passed unanimously by the House on November 16, 2005. S.Res. 323
was passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent on November 18, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
13
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
Summit over control of the domain name system was averted by the announcement, on
November 15, 2005, of an Internet governance agreement between the United States, the EU, and
over 100 other nations. Under this agreement, ICANN and the United States maintained their
roles with respect to the domain name system. A new international group under the auspices of
the U.N. was formed—the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)—which would provide an ongoing
forum for all stakeholders (both governments and nongovernmental groups) to discuss and debate
Internet policy issues.
Creation of the .xxx Domain and New gTLDs
Starting in 2010 and 2011, controversies surrounding the roll-out of new generic top level
domains (gTLDs) and the addition of the .xxx TLD led some governments to argue for increased
government influence on the ICANN policy development process.29
.xxx
Since 2000, ICANN has repeatedly considered whether to allow the establishment of a gTLD for
adult content. On June 1, 2005, ICANN announced that it had entered into commercial and
technical negotiations with a registry company (ICM Registry) to operate a new “.xxx” domain,
which would be designated for use by adult websites. With the ICANN Board scheduled to
consider final approval of the .xxx domain on August 16, 2005, the Department of Commerce
sent a letter to ICANN requesting that adequate additional time be provided to allow ICANN to
address the objections of individuals expressing concerns about the impact of pornography on
families and children and opposing the creation of a new top level domain devoted to adult
content. ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) also requested more time before
the final decision.
On March 30, 2007, the ICANN Board voted 9-5 to deny the .xxx domain. ICM Registry
subsequently challenged ICANN’s decision before an Independent Review Panel (IRP), claiming
that ICANN’s rejection of ICM’s application for a .xxx gTLD was not consistent with ICANN’s
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. On February 19, 2010, a three-person Independent Review
Panel ruled primarily in favor of ICM Registry, finding that its application for the .xxx TLD had
met the required criteria.
Subsequently, on June 25, 2010, at the ICANN meeting in Brussels, the Board of Directors voted
to allow ICM’s .xxx application to move forward, and at the December 2010 ICANN meeting, the
ICANN Board passed a resolution stating that while “it intends to enter into a registry agreement
with ICM Registry for the .xxx TLD,” the Board would enter into a formal consultation with the
Governmental Advisory Committee on areas where the Board’s decision was in conflict with
GAC advice relating to the ICM application.30
While not officially or formally in opposition to the approval of .xxx, the GAC advised ICANN
that “there is no active support of the GAC for the introduction of a .xxx TLD” and that “while
there are members, which neither endorse nor oppose the introduction of a .xxx TLD, others are
29 See McCarthy, Kieren, .nxt, “Global Internet Governance Fight Looms,” September 22, 2011, available at
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/09/22/internet-governance-fight-looms.
30 ICANN, Adopted Board Resolutions, Cartegena, December 10, 2010, available at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/
resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#4.
Congressional Research Service
14
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
emphatically opposed from a public policy perspective to the introduction of an .xxx TLD.”31 The
GAC listed a number of specific issues and objections that it wished ICANN to resolve.
A February 2011 letter from ICANN to the GAC acknowledged and responded to areas where
approving the .xxx registry agreement with ICM would conflict with GAC advice received by
ICANN.32 The Board acknowledged that ICANN and the GAC were not able to reach a mutually
acceptable solution, and ultimately, on March 18, 2011, the Board approved a resolution giving
the CEO or General Counsel of ICANN the authority to execute the registry agreement with ICM
to establish a .xxx TLD. The vote was nine in favor, three opposed, and four abstentions.
The decision to create a .xxx TLD was not viewed favorably by many governments.33 In an April
6, 2011, letter to the Department of Commerce, the European Commissioner for the Digital
Agenda asked that the introduction of .xxx be delayed.34 In its response, NTIA said it “share[s]
your disappointment that ICANN ignored the clear advice of governments worldwide, including
the United States, by approving the new .xxx domain.”35 However, NTIA stated why it would not
(and did not) interfere with the addition of .xxx:
While the Obama Administration does not support ICANN’s decision, we respect the
multi-stakeholder Internet governance process and do not think that it is in the long-term
best interest of the United States or the global Internet community for us unilaterally to
reverse the decision. Our goal is to preserve the global Internet, which is a force for
innovation, economic growth, and the free flow of information. I agree with you that the
Board took its action without the full support of the community and accordingly, I am
dedicated to improving the responsiveness of ICANN to all stakeholders, including
governments worldwide.36
31 Letter from Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee to ICANN Chairman of the Board, March 16, 2011, available
at https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540116/20110316+GAC+Advice+on+.xxx.pdf?version=2&
modificationDate=1312469527000.
32 Letter from ICANN to Chair of GAC, February 10, 2011, available at http://icann.org/en/correspondence/jeffrey-to-
to-dryden-10feb11-en.pdf.
33 ICANN must receive formal approval from NTIA for any additions of new gTLDs to the DNS. See Kevin Murphy,
“US upset with ICANN over .xxx,” Domain Incite, March 20, 2011, available at http://domainincite.com/us-upset-
with-icann-over-xxx/.
India and Saudi Arabia have stated their intention to block the .xxx domain. See “xxx addresses open for business,” The
Times of India, April 19, 2011, available at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-19/computing/
29446429_1_icann-suffix-websites.
34 Kevin Murphy, “Europe asked US to delay .xxx,” Domain Incite, May 5, 2011, available at http://domainincite.com/
europe-did-ask-the-us-to-delay-xxx/.
35Letter from Lawrence Strickling to Neelie Kroes, “Strickling letter to Kroes re: dot-xxx,” .nxt, April 20, 2011,
available at http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/04/20/strickling-letter-kroes-xxx.
36 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
15
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
gTLD Expansion
Top Level Domains (TLDs) are the suffixes that appear at the end of an address (after the “dot”).
Prior to ICANN’s establishment in 1998, the Internet had eight generic top level domains
(gTLDs), including .com, .org, .net, and .gov. In 2000 and 2004, ICANN held application rounds
for a limited number of new gTLDs—currently there are 22. Some are reserved or restricted to
particular types of organizations (e.g., .museum, .gov, .travel) and others are open for registration
by anyone (.com, .org, .info). Applicants for new gTLDs are typically commercial entities and
nonprofit organizations who seek to become ICANN-recognized registries that will establish and
operate name servers for their TLD registry, as well as implement a domain name registration
process for that particular TLD.
The growth of the Internet and the accompanying growth in demand for domain names have
focused the debate on whether and how to further expand the number of gTLDs. Beginning in
2005, ICANN embarked on a long consultative process to develop rules and procedures for
introducing and adopting an indefinite number of new gTLDs into the domain name system. A
new gTLD can be any word or string of characters that is applied for and approved by ICANN.
Between 2008 and 2011, ICANN released seven iterations of its gTLD Applicant Guidebook
(essentially the rulebook for how the new gTLD program will be implemented). On June 20,
2011, the ICANN Board of Directors voted to approve the launch of the new gTLD program,
under which potentially hundreds of new gTLDs could ultimately be approved by ICANN and
introduced into the DNS. Applications for new gTLDs were to be accepted from January 12
through April 12, 2012.
The rollout of new gTLDs was controversial. Advocates (including the domain name industry)
argued that a gTLD expansion will provide opportunities for Internet innovation and competition.
On the other hand, many trademark holders pointed to possible higher costs and greater
difficulties in protecting their trademarks across hundreds of new gTLDs. Similarly, governments
expressed concern over intellectual property protections, and along with law enforcement entities,
also cited concerns over the added burden of combating various cybercrimes (such as phishing
and identity theft) across hundreds of new gTLDs. Throughout ICANN’s policy development
process, governments, through the Governmental Advisory Committee, advocated for additional
intellectual property protections in the new gTLD process. The GAC also argued for more
stringent rules that would allow for better law enforcement in the new domain space to better
protect consumers. Although changes were made, strong opposition from many trademark
holders37 led to opposition from some parts of the U.S. government towards the end of 2011. For
example:
On December 8, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation held a hearing on the ICANN’s expansion of TLDs. Subsequently,
on December 28, 2011, a letter from Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, to the Secretary of
Commerce and the Administrator of NTIA, stated his concern that “this
expansion of gTLDs, if it proceeds as planned, will have adverse consequences
for the millions of American consumers, companies, and non-profit organizations
that use the Internet on a daily basis” and that at the hearing, “witnesses speaking
on behalf of more than a hundred companies and non-profit organizations
37 The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) has been a leading voice against ICANN’s current rollout of the new
gTLD program. See ANA web page, “Say No to ICANN: Generic Top Level Domain Developments,” available at
http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/icann.
Congressional Research Service
16
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
explained that ICANN’s current plan for gTLD expansion will likely cause
millions of dollars in increased costs related to combating cybersquatting.” In the
letter, Senator Rockefeller requested that NTIA “should consider asking ICANN
to either delay the opening of the application period or to drastically limit the
number of new gTLDs it approves next year.”38 A subsequent December 22,
2011, letter to ICANN from Senators Klobuchar and Ayotte also registered
concern over the TLD expansion and asked ICANN to further address law
enforcement, trademark, and consumer concerns before launching the program.39
On December 14, 2011, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, held a hearing on ICANN’s
top level domain program. Subsequently on December 21, 2011, a bipartisan
group of committee members sent a letter to ICANN requesting that the
expansion of the gTLDs be delayed, noting that “many stakeholders are not
convinced that ICANN’s process has resulted in an acceptable level of
protection.”40 The Energy and Commerce Committee members argued that “a
short delay will allow interested parties to work with ICANN and offer changes
to alleviate many of them, specifically concerns over law enforcement, cost and
transparency that were discussed in recent Congressional hearings.”41
A December 16, 2011, letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Representative
Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property,
Competition, and the Internet, and Representative Howard Berman, ranking
Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, urged DOC to take all steps
necessary to encourage ICANN to undertake further evaluation and review
before the gTLD expansion is permitted to occur. The letter asked DOC to
determine whether the benefits of the expansion outweigh the costs and risks to
consumers, businesses, and the Internet, and that if the program proceeds, that
ICANN should initially limit the expansion to a small pilot project which can be
evaluated.42 Previously, the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition,
and the Internet had held a May 4, 2011, hearing on oversight of the gTLD
program.
A December 16, 2011, letter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to
ICANN argued that a “rapid, exponential expansion of gTLDs has the potential
to magnify both the abuse of the domain name system and the corresponding
challenges we encounter in tracking down Internet fraudsters.” The FTC urged
ICANN to implement the new gTLD program as a pilot program and
substantially reduce the number of gTLDs that are introduced in the first
application round, strengthen ICANN’s contractual compliance program, develop
38 See “Rockefeller Says Internet Domain Expansion Will Hurt Consumers, Businesses, and Non-Profits—Urges
Delay,” Press Release, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, December 28, 2011, available at
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases.
39 Letter from Senator Amy Klobuchar and Senator Kelly Ayotte to ICANN, December 22, 2011, available at
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/klobuchar-ayotte-to-beckstrom-crocker-22dec11-en.pdf.
40 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “Committee Urges ICANN to Delay Expansion of Generic Top-Level
Domain Program,” Press Release, December 21, 2011, available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/news/
PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=9176.
41 Ibid.
42 Letter from Representative Goodlatte and Representative Berman to the Secretary of Commerce, December 16,
2011, available at http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/goodlatte-berman-to-bryson-16dec11-en.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
a new ongoing program to monitor consumer issues that arise during the first
round of implementing the new gTLD program, conduct an assessment of each
new proposed gTLD’s risk of consumer harm as part of the evaluation and
approval process, and improve the accuracy of WHOIS data, including by
imposing a registrant verification requirement. The FTC added that “ICANN
should address these issues before it approves any new gTLD applications. If
ICANN fails to address these issues responsibly, the introduction of new gTLDs
could pose a significant threat to consumers and undermine consumer confidence
in the Internet.”43
A December 27, 2011, letter to ICANN from the Senate and House Judiciary
Committees expressed concerns over the new gTLD program and urged ICANN
to “strengthen protections for consumers and trademark holders who risk being
harmed by the proliferation of domain names on the web.” The letter also urged
ICANN to work closely with the law enforcement community “to ensure that the
program’s rollout does not adversely impact their efforts to fight fraud and abuse
on the Internet.”44
At the December 2011 House and Senate hearings, ICANN stated its intention to proceed with
the gTLD expansion as planned. ICANN defended its gTLD program, arguing that the new
gTLDs will offer more protections for consumers and trademark holders than current gTLDs; that
new gTLDs will provide needed competition, choice, and innovation to the domain name system;
and that critics have already had ample opportunity to contribute input during a seven-year
deliberative policy development process.45 Ultimately, ICANN did not delay the initiation of the
new gTLD program, and the application window was opened on January 12, 2012, as planned.
Much of the pressure on ICANN to delay the new gTLD program was directed at NTIA, given
NTIA’s unique relationship with ICANN. At both the December 2011 Senate and House hearings,
NTIA expressed support for ICANN’s planned rollout of the TLD expansion program, arguing
that national governments have been able to address intellectual property, law enforcement, and
consumer concerns through the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC):
NTIA believes that ICANN improved the new gTLD program by incorporating a
significant number of proposals from the GAC. ICANN’s new gTLD program also now
provides law enforcement and consumer protection authorities with significantly more
tools than those available in existing gTLDs to address malicious conduct. The fact that
not all of the GAC’s proposals were adopted as originally offered does not represent a
failure of the process or a setback to governments; rather, it reflects the reality of a multi-
stakeholder model.46
43 Letter from FTC to ICANN, December 16, 2011, available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/publicltrs/111216letter-
to-icann.pdf.
44 Letter from the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to Rod Beckstrom,
CEO, ICANN, December 27, 2011, available at http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/leahy-to-beckstrom-27dec11-
en.pdf.
45 Testimony of Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President, ICANN, before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, December 14, 2011, available at
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Telecom/121411/Pritz.pdf. The gTLD expansion is
also strongly supported by many in the Internet and domain name industry, see letter to Senator Rockefeller and
Senator Hutchison at http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/gtld-industry-to-congress-gtlds-8dec11.pdf.
46 Testimony of Fiona M. Alexander, Associate Administrator, NTIA, before the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, December 14, 2011, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/testimony-associate-administrator-alexander-icann-s-top-level-domain-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
While NTIA stated that it would continue to monitor progress and push for necessary changes to
ICANN’s TLD expansion program, a key aspect of NTIA’s argument for supporting ICANN’s
planned rollout was to preserve the integrity of the multistakeholder Internet governance process:
NTIA is dedicated to maintaining an open, global Internet that remains a valuable tool for
economic growth, innovation, and the free flow of information, goods, and services
online. We believe the best way to achieve this goal is to continue to actively support and
participate in multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes such as ICANN. This is in
stark contrast to some countries that are actively seeking to move Internet policy to the
United Nations. If we are to combat the proposals put forward by others, we need to
ensure that our multi-stakeholder institutions have provided a meaningful role for
governments as stakeholders. NTIA believes that the strength of the multi-stakeholder
approach to Internet policy-making is that it allows for speed, flexibility, and
decentralized problem-solving and stands in stark contrast to a more traditional, top-down
regulatory model characterized by rigid processes, political capture by incumbents, and in
so many cases, impasse or stalemate.47
On January 3, 2012, NTIA sent ICANN a letter concerning implementation of the new gTLD
program.48 While NTIA recognized that the program “is the product of a six-year international
multistakeholder process” and that NTIA does “not seek to interfere with the decisions and
compromises reached during that process,” NTIA urged ICANN to consider implementing
measures to address many of the criticisms raised. Such measures would address concerns of
trademark holders, law enforcement, and consumer protection. NTIA also asked ICANN to assess
(after the initial application window closes and the list of prospective new gTLDs is known)
whether there is a need to phase in the introduction of new gTLDs, and whether additional
trademark protection measures need to be taken.
NTIA concluded its letter as follows:
How ICANN handles the new gTLD program will, for many, be a litmus test of the
viability of this approach. For its part, NTIA is committed to continuing to be an active
member of the GAC and working with stakeholders to mitigate any unintended
consequences of the new gTLD program.49
As the new gTLDs go “live,” many stakeholders are concerned that various forms of domain
name abuse (e.g., trademark infringement, consumer fraud, malicious behavior, etc.) could
manifest itself within the hundreds of new gTLD domain spaces. Thus, the effectiveness of
ICANN’s approach to addressing such issues as intellectual property protection of second level
domain names and mitigating unlawful behavior in the domain name space will be of interest as
the new gTLD program goes forward.
With respect to the new gTLD program, the GAC provided advice to the ICANN Board on any
first round applications the GAC considered problematic. GAC advice can take three forms:
(...continued)
name-progr.
47 Ibid.
48 Letter from Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of
Commerce, to ICANN, January 3, 2012, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/ntia-letter-
regarding-gtld-program.
49 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
19
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
I. The GAC advises ICANN that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular
application should not proceed. This will create a strong presumption for the ICANN
Board that the application should not be approved.
II. The GAC advises ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application “dot-
example.” The ICANN Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to
understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a
rationale for its decision.
III. The GAC advises ICANN that an application should not proceed unless remediated.
This will raise a strong presumption for the Board that the application should not proceed
unless there is a remediation method available in the Guidebook (such as securing the
approval of one or more governments), that is implemented by the applicant.50
The GAC also issued Early Warnings to the ICANN Board in the event that any GAC member
found an application problematic for any reason. An Early Warning was an indication that a
formal GAC objection was possible (either through the GAC advice process or through the
formal objection process). Applicants were notified of an Early Warning against their application
and given the opportunity to address the concerns or to withdraw the application (thereby
qualifying for a partial refund of the application fee).
Proposed Models for Internet Governance
As discussed above, ICANN is a working example of a multistakeholder model of Internet
governance, whereby a bottom-up collaborative process is used to provide Internet stakeholders
with access to the policymaking process. Support for the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance is reflected in international organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) and the Group of Eight (G8). For example, the OECD’s
Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy-Making cites multistakeholderism as a central
tenet of Internet governance:
In particular, continued support is needed for the multi-stakeholder environment, which
has underpinned the process of Internet governance and the management of critical
Internet resources (such as naming and numbering resources) and these various
stakeholders should continue to fully play a role in this framework. Governments should
also work in multi-stakeholder environments to achieve international public policy goals
and strengthen international co-operation in Internet governance.51
Similarly, at the G8 Summit of Deauville on May 26-27, 2011, the G8 issued a declaration on its
renewed commitment for freedom and democracy that contained a new section on the Internet.
Support for a multistakeholder model for Internet governance with a significant national
government role was made explicit:
As we support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, we call upon all
stakeholders to contribute to enhanced cooperation within and between all international
fora dealing with the governance of the Internet. In this regard, flexibility and
transparency have to be maintained in order to adapt to the fast pace of technological and
business developments and uses. Governments have a key role to play in this model.52
50 Ibid., Module 3, p. 3-3.
51 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD High Level Meeting, The Internet Economy:
Generating Innovation and Growth, Communique on Principles for Internet Policy-Making, June 28-29, 2011, p. 4,
available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/12/48387430.pdf.
52 G8 Declaration, Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy, G8 Summit of Deauville, May 26-27, 2011,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
As discussed above, in 2005, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) considered
four models of Internet governance, of which three would have involved an intergovernmental
body to oversee the Internet and the domain name system. While the WSIS ultimately decided not
to pursue an intergovernmental model in 2005, some nations have again advocated an
intergovernmental approach for Internet governance. For example:
India, Brazil, and South Africa (referred to as IBSA) proposed that “an
appropriate body is urgently required in the U.N. system to coordinate and evolve
coherent and integrated global public policies pertaining to the Internet.” The
IBSA proposed body would “integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for
technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards
setting.”53
In order to implement the major aspects of the IBSA proposal, the government of
India proposed (in the U.N. General Assembly) the establishment of a new
institutional mechanism in the United Nations for global Internet-related policies,
to be called the United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP).
CIRP would be comprised of 50 member states chosen on the basis of equitable
geographical representation. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and four
advisory stakeholder groups would provide input to CIRP, which would report
directly to the General Assembly and present recommendations for consideration,
adoption, and dissemination among all relevant intergovernmental bodies and
international organizations.54
Another group of nations, including China and the Russian Federation, proposed
a voluntary “International Code of Conduct for Information Security,” for further
discussion in the U.N. General Assembly. The Code includes language that
promotes the establishment of a multilateral, transparent, and democratic
international management system to ensure an equitable distribution of resources,
facilitate access for all, and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the
Internet.55
On January 13, 2015, the same group of nations released a revised International
Code of Conduct for Information Security which states that
all States must play the same role in, and carry equal responsibility for, international
governance of the Internet, its security, continuity and stability of operation, and its
development in a way which promotes the establishment of multilateral, transparent
and democratic international Internet governance mechanisms which ensure an
(...continued)
available at http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g8/english/live/news/renewed-commitment-for-freedom-and-
democracy.1314.html.
53 IBSA Multistakeholder meeting on Global Internet Governance, Recommendations, September 1-2, 2011 at Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, available at http://www.culturalivre.org.br/artigos/IBSA_recommendations_Internet_Governance.pdf.
54 The CIRP proposal is available at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/indias-proposal-for-a-un-committee-for-
internet-related-policies-cirp.
55 United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-sixth session, Item 93 of the provisional agenda, Developments in the field
of information and telecommunications in the context of international security, “Letter dated 12 September 2011 from
the Permanent Representatives of China, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to the United Nations
addressed to the Secretary-General,” September 14, 2011, A/66/359, available at http://blog.internetgovernance.org/
pdf/UN-infosec-code.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure the stable and
secure functioning of the Internet.56
Thus, governments such as the United States and the European Union support ICANN’s
multistakeholder model, while at the same time advocating increased governmental influence
within that model.57 By contrast, other nations support an expanded role for an intergovernmental
model of Internet governance. The debate has been summarized by NTIA as follows:
By engaging all interested parties, multistakeholder processes encourage broader and
more creative problem solving, which is essential when markets and technology are
changing as rapidly as they are. They promote speedier, more flexible decision making
than is common under traditional, top-down regulatory models which can too easily fall
prey to rigid procedures, bureaucracy, and stalemate. But there is a challenge emerging to
this model in parts of the world.... Some nations appear to prefer an Internet managed and
controlled by nation-states. In December 2012, the U.S. will participate in the ITU’s
World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). This treaty negotiation
will conduct a review of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), the
general principles which relate to traditional international voice telecommunication
services. We expect that some states will attempt to rewrite the regulation in a manner
that would exclude the contributions of multi-stakeholder organizations and instead
provide for heavy-handed governmental control of the Internet, including provisions for
cybersecurity and granular operational and technical requirements for private
industry. We do not support any of these elements. It is critical that we work with the
private sector on outreach to countries to promote the multi-stakeholder model as a
credible alternative.58
World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)
The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) was held in Dubai on
December 3-14, 2012. Convened by the International Telecommunications Union (the ITU, an
agency within the United Nations), the WCIT was a formal meeting of the world’s national
governments held in order to revise the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs).
The ITRs, previously revised in 1988, serve as a global treaty outlining the principles which
govern the way international telecommunications traffic is handled.
Because the existing 24-year-old ITRs predated the Internet, one of the key policy questions in
the WCIT was how and to what extent the updated ITRs should address Internet traffic and
Internet governance. The Administration and Congress took the position that the new ITRs should
continue to address only traditional international telecommunications traffic, that a
multistakeholder model of Internet governance (such as ICANN) should continue, and that the
ITU should not take any action that could extend its jurisdiction or authority over the Internet.
56 United Nations General Assembly, “Letter Dated 9 January 2015 from the Permanent Representatives of China,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation,Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to the United Nations Addressed to the
Secretary General,” January 13, 2015, p. 5, available at http://regmedia.co.uk/2015/02/04/un-internet-security-
13jan15.pdf.
57 The European Commission has been a particularly strong voice in favor of significantly increasing GAC influence on
the ICANN policy process. See Kieren McCarthy, “European Commission calls for greater government control over
Internet,” .nxt, August 31, 2011, available at http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-greater-government-control.
58 Remarks by Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce, before the PLI/FCBA
Telecommunications Policy and Regulation Institute, Washington, DC, December 8, 2011, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-practising-law-institutes-29th-
annual-te.
Congressional Research Service
22
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
As the WCIT approached, concerns heightened in the 112th Congress that the WCIT might
potentially provide a forum leading to an increased level of intergovernmental control over the
Internet. On May 31, 2012, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology, held a hearing entitled, “International Proposals to Regulate
the Internet.”59 To accompany the hearing, H.Con.Res. 127 was introduced by Representative
Bono Mack expressing the sense of Congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the
multistakeholder governance model. Specifically, H.Con.Res. 127 expressed the sense of
Congress that the Administration “should continue working to implement the position of the
United States on Internet governance that clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy
of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve and
advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today.” H.Con.Res. 127
was passed unanimously by the House (414-0) on August 2, 2012.
A similar resolution, S.Con.Res. 50, was introduced into the Senate by Senator Rubio on June 27,
2012, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The Senate resolution expressed the
sense of Congress “that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce,
should continue working to implement the position of the United States on Internet governance
that clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a
global Internet free from government control and preserve and advance the successful
multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today.” S.Con.Res. 50 was passed by the Senate
by unanimous consent on September 22, 2012. On December 5, 2012—shortly after the WCIT
had begun in Dubai—the House unanimously passed S.Con.Res. 50 by a vote of 397-0.
During the WCIT, a revision to the ITRs was proposed and supported by Russia, China, Saudi
Arabia, Algeria, and Sudan that sought to explicitly extend ITR jurisdiction over Internet traffic,
infrastructure, and governance. Specifically, the proposal stated that “Member States shall have
the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on
matters of Internet governance.”60 The proposal also included an article establishing the right of
Member States to manage Internet numbering, naming, addressing, and identification resources.
The proposal was subsequently withdrawn. However, as an intended compromise, the ITU
adopted a nonbinding resolution (Resolution 3, attached to the final ITR text) entitled, “To Foster
an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet.” Resolution 3 included language
stating “all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet
governance” and invited Member States to “elaborate on their respective positions on
international Internet-related technical, development and public policy issues within the mandate
of ITU at various ITU forums.”61
Because of the inclusion of Resolution 3, along with other features of the final ITR text (such as
new ITU articles related to spam and cybersecurity), the United States declined to sign the treaty.
The leader of the U.S. delegation stated the following:
The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefits during these
past 24 years—all without UN regulation. We candidly cannot support an ITU treaty that
is inconsistent with a multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. As the ITU has
stated, this conference was never meant to focus on internet issues; however, today we
59 Available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9543.
60 See Article 3A, “Proposals for the Work of the Conference,” available at http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/
Merged%20UAE%20081212.pdf.
61 International Telecommunications Union, Final Acts, World Conference on International Telecommunications,
Dubai, 2012, Resolution 3, p. 20, available at http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
are in a situation where we still have text and resolutions that cover issues on spam and
also provisions on internet governance. These past two weeks, we have of course made
good progress and shown a willingness to negotiate on a variety of telecommunications
policy issues, such as roaming and settlement rates, but the United States continues to
believe that internet policy must be multi-stakeholder driven. Internet policy should not
be determined by member states but by citizens, communities, and broader society, and
such consultation from the private sector and civil society is paramount. This has not
happened here.62
Of the 144 eligible members of the ITU, 89 nations signed the treaty, while 55 either chose not to
sign (such as the United States) or remain undecided.63
While the WCIT in Dubai is concluded, the international debate over Internet governance is
expected to continue in future intergovernmental telecommunications meetings and conferences.
The 113th Congress oversaw and supported the U.S. government’s continuing efforts to resist
international attempts to exert control over Internet governance. On February 5, 2013, the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, held a
hearing entitled “Fighting for Internet Freedom: Dubai and Beyond.” The hearing was held
jointly with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade and the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human
Rights, and International Organizations.
On April 16, 2013, H.R. 1580, a bill “To Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding
Internet Governance,” was introduced by Representative Walden. Using language similar to the
WCIT-related congressional resolutions passed by the 112th Congress (S.Con.Res. 50 and
H.Con.Res. 127), H.R. 1580 stated that “It is the policy of the United States to preserve and
advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet.” On May 14, 2013, H.R.
1580 was passed unanimously (413-0) by the House of Representatives.
Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation
In October 2013, the President of ICANN and the leaders of other major organizations
responsible for globally coordinating Internet technical infrastructure64 met in Montevideo,
Uruguay, and released a statement calling for strengthening the current mechanisms for global
multistakeholder Internet cooperation. Their recommendations included the following:
They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and
warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong
concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users
globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance.
They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance
challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution
of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation.
62 Statement delivered by Ambassador Terry Kramer from the floor of the WCIT, December 13, 2012. U.S. Department
of State, Press Release, “U.S. Intervention at the World Conference on International Telecommunications,” December
13, 2012, available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/12/202037.htm.
63 The official ITU list of signatories and non-signatories is at http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/
signatories.html.
64 The Internet Society, World Wide Web Consortium, Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Architecture Board,
and all five of the regional Internet address registries.
Congressional Research Service
24
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions,
towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments,
participate on an equal footing.65
NETmundial
The day after the Montevideo Statement was released, the President of ICANN met with the
President of Brazil, who announced plans to hold an international Internet governance summit in
April 2014 that would include representatives from government, industry, civil society, and
academia. NETmundial, which was described as a “global multistakeholder meeting on the future
of Internet governance,” was held on April 23-24, 2014, in Sao Paulo, Brazil.66 The meeting was
open to all interested stakeholders, and was intended to “focus on crafting Internet governance
principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance
ecosystem.”67
The outcome of NETmundial produced a nonbinding “NETmundial Multistakeholder
Statement”68 that set forth general Internet governance principles and identified issues to be
discussed at future meetings on the future evolution of Internet governance. According to the U.S.
government delegation at NETmundial, the meeting outcome reaffirmed the multistakeholder
model of Internet governance, endorsed the transition of the U.S. government’s stewardship role
of IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community, emphasized the importance of
strengthening and expanding upon the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum, and
underscored the importance of human rights in the implementation of a free and open Internet.69
NETmundial Initiative
On August 28, 2014, the creation of a NETmundial Initiative for Internet Governance
Cooperation and Development was announced by the World Economic Forum in partnership with
ICANN and other governmental, industry, academic, and civil society stakeholders. While having
no formal relationship with the April 2014 NETmundial summit held in Brazil, the purpose of the
NETmundial Initiative is “to apply the NETmundial Principles to solve issues in concrete ways to
enable an effective and distributed approach to Internet cooperation and governance.”70
2014 Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan
The ITU’s three-week Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Republic of Korea, concluded on
November 7, 2014. The purpose of the conference, which meets every four years, is to set ITU
general policies, adopt four-year strategic and financial plans, and elect ITU officials. Prior to the
conference, the U.S. delegation (headed by the State Department) had concerns that some ITU
members would attempt to expand ITU’s role in Internet governance. In the view of the State
Department, the conference concluded successfully, with “the member states decid[ing] not to
65 Full statement is available at http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htm.
66 Further information on NETmundial is available at http://netmundial.br/.
67 Ibid.
68 Available at http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf.
69 United States Diplomatic Mission to Brazil, “Official Statement by the USG Delegation to NETmundial,” April 25,
2014, available at http://brazil.usembassy.gov/statementusgdeletationnetmundial.html.
70 World Economic Forum, NETmundial Initiative, available at http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_1NetmundialInitiativeBrief.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
expand the ITU’s role in Internet governance or cybersecurity issues, accepting that many of
those issues are outside of the mandate of the ITU.”71
WSIS+10
On December 15-16, 2015, the United Nations General Assembly is holding a high-level meeting
in New York to review the implementation of outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS). The meeting has been preceded by an intergovernmental process that takes into
account inputs from all relevant WSIS stakeholders.72 During this process, some nations have
argued for an enhanced role for national governments in Internet governance and the
internationalization of ICANN and the domain name system.73
Issues for Congress
Congress plays an important role overseeing NTIA’s stewardship of the domain name system and
ICANN. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation have held numerous oversight hearings exploring
ICANN’s performance in general, as well as specific DNS issues that arise (e.g., the proposed
gTLD expansion). Additionally, other committees, such as the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees, maintain an interest in the DNS as it affects Internet policy issues such as
intellectual property, privacy, and cybercrime. Since 1997, congressional committees have held
39 hearings on the DNS and ICANN.74
The 114th Congress is likely to closely examine NTIA’s March 14, 2014, proposed transitioning
of its authority over ICANN and the DNS to a wholly multistakeholder-driven entity. Congress
will likely consider whether the proposed transition is in the best interest of the United States and
in the best interest of the Internet. As a transition plan is developed by ICANN and the Internet
community, Congress will likely monitor and evaluate that plan, and seek assurances that a DNS
free of U.S. government stewardship will remain stable, secure, resilient, and open. As part of its
examination, Congress will likely continue assessing to what extent ongoing and future
intergovernmental telecommunications conferences constitute an opportunity for some nations to
increase intergovernmental control over the Internet, and how effectively NTIA and other
government agencies (such as the State Department) are working to counteract that threat.
Finally, the ongoing debate over Internet governance will likely have a significant impact on how
other aspects of the Internet may be governed in the future, especially in such areas as intellectual
property, privacy, law enforcement, Internet free speech, and cybersecurity. Looking forward, the
institutional nature of Internet governance could have far-reaching implications on important
policy decisions that will likely shape the future evolution of the Internet.
71 U.S. Department of State, Media Note, “Outcomes from the International Telecommunication Union 2014
Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Republic of Korea,” available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/11/
233914.htm.
72 Information on WSIS+10 is available at http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/GA-High-Level-Meeting.
73 See for example comments submitted to the UN General Assembly by China (http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/
Internet/Documents/UNPAN95318.pdf) and Russia (http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/
UNPAN95301.pdf).
74 For a complete list, see the Appendix in CRS Report 97-868, Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy
Issues, by Lennard G. Kruger.
Congressional Research Service
26
link to page 32 Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
Appendix. ICANN Basics
ICANN is a not-for-profit public benefit corporation headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, and
incorporated under the laws of the state of California. ICANN is organized under the California
Nonprofit Public Benefit Law for charitable and public purposes, and as such, is subject to legal
oversight by the California attorney general. ICANN has been granted tax-exempt status by the
federal government and the state of California.75
ICANN’s organizational structure consists of a Board of Directors (BOD) advised by a network
of supporting organizations and advisory committees that represent various Internet
constituencies and interests (see Figure A-1). Policies are developed and issues are researched by
these subgroups, who in turn advise the Board of Directors, which is responsible for making all
final policy and operational decisions. The Board of Directors consists of 16 international and
geographically diverse members, composed of one president, eight members selected by a
Nominating Committee, two selected by the Generic Names Supporting Organization, two
selected by the Address Supporting Organization, two selected by the Country-Code Names
Supporting Organization, and one selected by the At-Large Advisory Committee. Additionally,
there are five nonvoting liaisons representing other advisory committees.
The explosive growth of the Internet and domain name registration, increasing responsibilities in
managing and operating the DNS, and the rollout of the new gTLD program has led to marked
growth of the ICANN budget, from revenues of about $6 million and a staff of 14 in 2000, to
total support and revenue of $159 million and a headcount of 373 budgeted for 2015.76 ICANN
has been traditionally funded primarily through fees paid to ICANN by registrars and registry
operators. Registrars are companies (e.g., GoDaddy, Google, Network Solutions) with which
consumers register domain names.77 Registry operators are companies and organizations that
operate and administer the master database of all domain names registered in each top level
domain (for example VeriSign, Inc. operates .com and .net, Public Interest Registry operates .org,
and Neustar, Inc. operates .biz).78
75 ICANN, 2008 Annual Report, December 31, 2008, p. 24, available at http://www.icann.org/en/annualreport/annual-
report-2008-en.pdf.
76 ICANN, FY15 Adopted Operating Plan and Budget, pp. 6, 10, available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/
files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-01dec14-en.pdf.
77 A list of ICANN-accredited registrars is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/agreements.htm.
78 A list of current agreements between ICANN and registry operators is available at http://www.icann.org/en/
registries/agreements.htm.
Congressional Research Service
27
Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress
Figure A-1. Organizational Structure of ICANN
Source: ICANN; http://www.icann.org/en/groups/chart.
Author Contact Information
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070
Congressional Research Service
28