ICANN’s ill-timed review of the Internet’s Root Server System Governance Structure puts it on a collision course with the Trump Administration and the US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, as early as next week in Mumbai, India. If the ICANN Board chooses to continue down the path outlined by the RSS Governance Working Group, it would vest the Root Server System Council with the ability to revoke the United States Government’s (USG) administration of critical national infrastructure. Despite having a global monopoly over the allocation of the Internet’s unique identifiers and an annual budget of $170 million, the ICANN Board is potentially about to self-inflict a fatal injury that may lead to its ultimate demise.

Why This Matters

The Root Server System is composed of thirteen Root Server Operators, who sit at the apex of the global domain name system (DNS) that seamlessly handles trillions of queries per day, resolving domain names such as <ICANN.ORG> to their corresponding IP address 192.0.43.7. Given the historic leadership role that the USG had in the creation and growth of the Internet, the USG currently operates three of the thirteen Root Servers: E (NASA); G (US Department of Defense - NIC); and H (US Army - Research Lab). The proposed governance structure that the ICANN Board is poised to move forward on would give the Root Server System Council the authority to revoke a Root Server Operator’s status. While some of the governance principles set forth in the framework are sound, the proposal to move forward with a governance framework that would allow a committee acting under the auspices of a California public benefit corporation to revoke the Department of War’s status over critical national infrastructure is just tone-deaf.

Why This Will Not End Well for ICANN

Despite ICANN’s recent representation that it has been constructively collaborating with the National Telecommunication and Information Agency (NTIA). There does not appear to be much love for ICANN, which was established during the Clinton administration and gained its autonomy from the USG in the waning days of the Obama administration. Perhaps there is no clearer insight into the Trump Administration’s thinking than this statement from Stephen Miller from back in 2016 regarding the pending expiration of the IANA functions contract:

“The US created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. US oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship—a fundamental American value rooted in our Constitution’s Free Speech clause. Internet freedom is now at risk with the [President Obama’s] intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost.”

Another key concept in the Governance Principles for the Root Server System is that a Root Server Operator has “no authority to publish an altered or alternative root zone.” While this is an incredibly prudent and sound technical principle, I do not know whether the Trump Administration would agree with it if it were to engage in a military operation against a foreign government. As President Trump’s former press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders recently stated, “the fastest way to get [President Trump] to do something is to tell him that he can’t.”

See Something Say Something

There will undoubtedly be readers who question the timing of this article, which I would like to address proactively. I have invested over 25 years in ICANN’s unique multistakeholder model. I still believe that is the optimal governance model for the Internet’s unique identifiers. However, it is clear that the current ICANN model has been captured and is broken. By suggesting an off-ramp for the ICANN Board, they can avoid a direct confrontation with the Trump administration. The alternative, raising this issue after any ICANN Board action, may invite a broadly scoped Presidential executive order seeking to reclaim the IANA function.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely my own and do not reflect the views, positions, or policies of any employer, client, or affiliated organization.