From World Afropedia
Jump to: navigation, search
FoundedSeptember 18, 1998
FocusManage Internet protocol numbers and Domain Name System root
Key people
Fadi Chehadé (CEO and President), Steve Crocker (Chairman of the Board)
SloganOne World. One Internet.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN /ˈkæn/ EYE-kan) is a nonprofit organization that is responsible for the coordination of maintenance and methodology of several databases of unique identifiers related to the namespaces of the Internet, and ensuring the network's stable and secure operation.[1]

Most visibly, much of its work has concerned the Internet's global Domain Name System, including policy development for internationalization of the DNS system, introduction of new generic top-level domains (TLDs), and the operation of root name servers. The numbering facilities ICANN manages include the Internet Protocol address spaces for IPv4 and IPv6, and assignment of address blocks to regional Internet registries. ICANN also maintains registries of Internet protocol identifiers.

ICANN performs the actual technical maintenance work of the central Internet address pools and DNS Root registries pursuant to the IANA function contract.

ICANN's primary principles of operation have been described as helping preserve the operational stability of the Internet; to promote competition; to achieve broad representation of the global Internet community; and to develop policies appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes.[2]

ICANN was created on September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998.[3] It is headquartered in the Playa Vista section of Los Angeles, California. On September 29, 2006, ICANN signed a new agreement with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) that moves the organization further towards a solely multistakeholder governance model.[4]


Before the establishment of ICANN, the IANA function of administering registries of Internet protocol identifiers (including the distributing top-level domains and IP addresses) was performed by Jon Postel, a Computer Science researcher who had been involved in the creation of ARPANET, first at UCLA and then at at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI).[5][6] In 1997 Postel testified before Congress that this had come about as a "side task" to this research work [7] The Information Sciences Institute was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, as was SRI International's Network Information Center, which also performed some assigned name functions.[8]

As the Internet grew and expanded globally, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated a process to establish a new organization to take over the IANA functions. On January 30, 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, issued for comment, "A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses." The proposed rule making, or "Green Paper", was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1998, providing opportunity for public comment. NTIA received more than 650 comments as of March 23, 1998, when the comment period closed.[9]

The Green Paper proposed certain actions designed to privatize the management of Internet names and addresses in a manner that allows for the development of robust competition and facilitates global participation in Internet management. The Green Paper proposed for discussion a variety of issues relating to DNS management including private sector creation of a new not-for-profit corporation (the "new corporation") managed by a globally and functionally representative Board of Directors.[citation needed] ICANN was formed in response to this policy.[citation needed] ICANN manages the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) under contract to the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and pursuant to an agreement with the IETF.[10]

ICANN was incorporated in California on September 30, 1998, with entrepreneur and philanthropist Esther Dyson as founding chairwoman.[3] It is qualified to do business in the District of Columbia.[11] ICANN was established in California due to the presence of Jon Postel, who was a founder of ICANN and was set to be its first CTO prior to his unexpected death. ICANN formerly operated from the same Marina del Rey building where Postel formerly worked, which is home to an office of the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California. However, ICANN's headquarters is now located in the nearby Playa Vista section of Los Angeles.

Per its original Bylaws, primary responsibility for policy formation in ICANN was to be delegated to three supporting organizations (Address Supporting Organization, Domain Name Supporting Organization, and Protocol Supporting Organization), each of which was to develop and recommend substantive policies and procedures for the management of the identifiers within their respective scope. They were also required to be financially independent from ICANN.[12] As expected, the Regional Internet Registries and the IETF agreed to serve as the Address Supporting Organization and Protocol Supporting Organization respectively,[13][14] and ICANN issued a call for interested parties to propose the structure and composition of the Domain Name Supporting Organization.[15] On 4 March 1999, the ICANN Board, based in part on the DNSO proposals received, decided instead on an alternate construction for the DNSO which delineated specific constituencies bodies within ICANN itself,[16][17] thus adding primary responsibility for DNS policy development to ICANN's existing duties of oversight and coordination.

On July 26, 2006, the United States government renewed the contract with ICANN for performance of the IANA function for an additional one to five years.[18] The context of ICANN's relationship with the U.S. government was clarified on September 29, 2006 when ICANN signed a new Memorandum of understanding with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC).[19] This document does give the DoC a final, unilateral oversight over some of the ICANN operations.[19][20]

In July 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce reiterated an earlier statement[21] that it has "no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN". The letter also stresses the separate roles of the IANA and VeriSign.[22]

Notable events

On March 18, 2002, publicly elected At-Large Representative for North America board member Karl Auerbach sued ICANN in Superior Court in California to gain access to ICANN's accounting records without restriction. Auerbach won.[23]

In September and October 2003, ICANN played a crucial role in the conflict over VeriSign's "wild card" DNS service Site Finder. After an open letter from ICANN issuing an ultimatum to VeriSign, later supported by the IAB,[24] the company voluntarily shut down the service on October 4, 2003. Following this action, VeriSign filed a lawsuit against ICANN on February 27, 2004, claiming that ICANN had overstepped its authority. In this lawsuit, VeriSign sought to reduce ambiguity about ICANN's authority. The antitrust component of VeriSign's claim was dismissed in August 2004. VeriSign's broader challenge that ICANN overstepped its contractual rights is currently outstanding. A proposed settlement already approved by ICANN's board would resolve VeriSign's challenge to ICANN in exchange for the right to increase pricing on .com domains. At the meeting of ICANN in Rome, which took place from March 2 to March 6, 2004, ICANN agreed to ask approval of the US Department of Commerce for the Waiting List Service of VeriSign.[citation needed]

On May 17, 2004, ICANN published a proposed budget for the year 2004-05. It included proposals to increase the openness and professionalism of its operations, and greatly increased its proposed spending from US $8.27 million to $15.83 million. The increase was to be funded by the introduction of new top-level domains, charges to domain registries, and a fee for some domain name registrations, renewals and transfers (initially USD 0.20 for all domains within a country-code top-level domain, and USD 0.25 for all others).[citation needed] The Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR), which represents the Internet registries of 39 countries, rejected the increase, accusing ICANN of a lack of financial prudence and criticizing what it describes as ICANN's "unrealistic political and operational targets". Despite the criticism, the registry agreement for the top-level domains jobs and travel includes a US $2 fee on every domain the licensed companies sell or renew.[25]

After a second round of negotiations in 2004, the TLDs eu, asia, travel, jobs, mobi, and cat were introduced in 2005.

ICANN meeting, Los Angeles USA, 2007. The sign refers to Vint Cerf, then Chairman of the Board of Directors, who is working on the Interplanetary Internet.

On February 28, 2006, ICANN's board approved a settlement with VeriSign in the lawsuit resulting from SiteFinder that involved allowing VeriSign (the registry) to raise its registration fees by up to 7% a year.[26] This was criticised by some people in the US House of Representatives' Small Business committee.[27]

In February 2007, ICANN began the steps to remove accreditation of one of their registrars, RegisterFly amid charges and lawsuits involving fraud, and criticism of ICANN's handling of the situation. ICANN has been the subject of criticism as a result of its handling of RegisterFly, and the harm caused to thousands of clients as a result of what has been called ICANN's "laissez faire attitude toward customer allegations of fraud".[28] Backend cybercrime detection within the ICANN sphere of influence is also lacking.

On May 23, 2008, ICANN issued Enforcement Notices against 10 Accredited Registrars and announced this through a press release entitled: "Worst Spam Offenders" Notified by ICANN, Compliance system working to correct Whois and other issues.[29] This was largely in response to a report issued by KnujOn called The 10 Worst Registrars in terms of spam advertised junk product sites and compliance failure.[30] The mention of the word spam in the title of the ICANN memo is somewhat misleading since ICANN does not address issues of spam or email abuse. Website content and usage are not within ICANN's mandate. However the KnujOn Report details how various registrars have not complied with their contractual obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).[31] The main point of the KnujOn research was to demonstrate the relationships between compliance failure, illicit product traffic, and spam. The report demonstrated that out of 900 ICANN accredited Registrars fewer than 20 held 90% of the web domains advertised in spam. These same Registrars were also most frequently cited by KnujOn as failing to resolve complaints made through the Whois Data Problem Reporting System (WDPRS).

On June 26, 2008, the ICANN Board started a new process of TLD naming policy to take a "significant step forward on the introduction of new generic top-level domains." This program envisions the availability of many new or already proposed domains, as well a new application and implementation process.[32]

On October 1, 2008, ICANN issued Breach Notices against Joker and Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd.[33] after further researching reports and complaints issued by KnujOn. These notices gave the Registrars 15 days to fix their Whois investigation efforts.

In 2010, ICANN approved a major review of its policies with respect to accountability, transparency, and public participation by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.[34] This external review was in support of the work of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency Review team.[35]

On February 3, 2011, ICANN announced that it had distributed the last batch of its remaining IPv4 addresses to the world’s five Regional Internet Registries, the organizations that manage IP addresses in different regions. These Registries began assigning the final IPv4 addresses within their regions until they ran out completely.[36]

On June 20, 2011, the ICANN board voted to end most restrictions on the names of generic top-level domains (gTLD).[37][38][39] Companies and organizations became able to choose essentially arbitrary top level Internet domain names. The use of non-Latin characters (such as Cyrillic, Arabic, Chinese, etc.) will also be allowed in gTLDs. ICANN began accepting applications for new gTLDS on January 12, 2012.[37] The initial price to apply for a new gTLD is $185,000.[40] The renewal or the annual fee of the domain will further be $25,000.[41][42] It is anticipated that many corporations will apply for gTLDs based on their brands. ICANN expects the new rules to significantly change the face of the Internet. Peter Thrush, chairman of ICANN's board of directors stated after the vote: "Today's decision will usher in a new Internet age. We have provided a platform for the next generation of creativity and inspiration. Unless there is a good reason to restrain it, innovation should be allowed to run free."[43] Some would argue that the innovative freedom Peter Thrush refers to starts at $185,000, and thus is not accessible to everyone.[44]

The 2013 NSA spying scandal has led to ICANN endorsing the Montevideo Statement.


At present ICANN is formally organized as a non-profit corporation "for charitable and public purposes" under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. It is managed by a 16-member Board of Directors composed of eight members selected by a nominating committee on which all the constituencies of ICANN are represented; six representatives of its Supporting Organizations, sub-groups that deal with specific sections of the policies under ICANN's purview; an At-Large seat filled by an At-Large Organization; and the President / CEO, appointed by the Board.[45]

There are currently three Supporting Organizations. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) deals with policy making on generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) deals with policy making on country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs). The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) deals with policy making on IP addresses.[46]

ICANN also relies on some advisory committees and other advisory mechanisms to receive advice on the interests and needs of stakeholders that do not directly participate in the Supporting Organizations.[47] These include the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is composed of representatives of a large number of national governments from all over the world; the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which is composed of individual Internet users from around the world selected by each of the Regional At-Large Organizations (RALO) and Nominating Committee; the Root Server System Advisory Committee, which provides advice on the operation of the DNS root server system; the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), which is composed of Internet experts who study security issues pertaining to ICANN's mandate; and the Technical Liaison Group (TLG), which is composed of representatives of other international technical organizations that focus, at least in part, on the Internet.[48]

Governmental Advisory Committee

Governmental Advisory Committee representatives

The Governmental Advisory Committee has representatives from 111 states (108 UN members, the Holy See, Cook Islands, Niue and Taiwan), Hong Kong, Bermuda, Montserrat, the European Commission and the African Union Commission.[49]

In addition the following organizations are GAC Observers:[50]

Democratic input

In the Memorandum of Understanding that set up the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. government, ICANN was given a mandate requiring that it operate "in a bottom up, consensus driven, democratic manner." However, the attempts that ICANN have made to set up an organizational structure that would allow wide input from the global Internet community did not produce results amenable to the current Board. As a result, the At-Large constituency and direct election of board members by the global Internet community were soon abandoned.[51]

ICANN holds periodic public meetings rotated between continents for the purpose of encouraging global participation in its processes. Resolutions of the ICANN Board, preliminary reports, and minutes of the meetings, are published on the ICANN website, sometimes in real time. However there are criticisms from ICANN constituencies including the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) that there is not enough public disclosure and that too many discussions and decisions take place out of sight of the public.[citation needed]

In the early 2000s, there had been speculation that the United Nations might signal a takeover of ICANN,[52] followed by a negative reaction from the US government[21] and worries about a division of the Internet.[53] The World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia in November 2005 agreed not to get involved in the day-to-day and technical operations of ICANN. However it also agreed to set up an international Internet Governance Forum, with a consultative role on the future governance of the Internet. ICANN's Government Advisory Committee is currently set up to provide advice to ICANN regarding public policy issues and has participation by many of the world's governments.[54]

Some have attempted to argue that ICANN was never given the authority to decide policy, e.g., choose new TLDs or shut out other interested parties who refuse to pay ICANN's US$185,000 fee, but was to be a technical caretaker. Critics[who?] suggest that ICANN should not be allowed to impose business rules on market participants, and that all TLDs should be added on a first-come, first-served basis and the market should be the arbiter of who succeeds and who does not.[citation needed]


One task that ICANN was asked to do was to address the issue of domain name ownership resolution for generic top-level domains (gTLDs). ICANN's attempt at such a policy was drafted in close cooperation with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the result has now become known as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This policy essentially attempts to provide a mechanism for rapid, cheap and reasonable resolution of domain name conflicts, avoiding the traditional court system for disputes by allowing cases to be brought to one of a set of bodies that arbitrate domain name disputes. According to ICANN policy, a domain registrant must agree to be bound by the UDRP—they cannot get a domain name without agreeing to this.

A look at the UDRP decision patterns has led some[55] to conclude that compulsory domain name arbitration is less likely to give a fair hearing to domain name owners asserting defenses under the First Amendment and other laws, compared to the federal courts of appeal in particular.

Proposed elimination of public DNS whois

The initial report of ICANN's Expert Working Group has recommended that the present form of Whois, a utility that allows anyone to know who has registered a domain name on the Internet, be scrapped. It recommends it be replaced with a system that keeps most registration information secret (or "gated") from most Internet users, and only discloses information for "permissible purposes".[56][57] ICANN's list of permissible purposes includes Domain name research, Domain name sale and purchase, Regulatory enforcement, Personal data protection, Legal actions, and Abuse mitigation.[58] Whois has been a key tool of investigative journalists interested in determining who was disseminating information on the Internet.[59] The use of whois by the free press is not included in the list of permissible purposes in the initial report.


Since its creation, ICANN has been the subject of criticism and controversy.[60][61] In 2000, professor Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law argued that ICANN's relationship with the U.S. Department of Commerce is illegal, in violation of either the Constitution or federal statutes.[62] In 2009, the new Affirmation of Commitments agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce, that aimed to create international oversight, ran into criticism.[63]

In December 2011, the Federal Trade Commission stated ICANN had long failed to provide safeguards that protect consumers from online swindlers.[64]

Also in 2011, seventy-nine companies, including The Coca-Cola Company, Hewlett-Packard, Samsung and others, signed a petition against ICANN's new TLD program (sometimes referred to as a "commercial landgrab"[65]), in a group organized by the Association of National Advertisers.[66] As of September 2014, this group, the Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight, that opposes the rollout of ICANN's TLD expansion program, has been joined by 102 associations and 79 major companies.[67] Partly as a response to this criticism, ICANN initiated an effort to protect trademarks in domain name registrations, which eventually culminated in the establishment of the Trademark Clearinghouse.

The Obama administration that had joined critics of ICANN in 2011[68] announced in March 2014 that they intended to transition away from oversight of the IANA functions contract. The current contract that the United States Department of Commerce has with ICANN will expire in 2015, in its place the NTIA will transition oversight of the IANA functions to the 'global multistakeholder community'.[69]

In June 2014, France strongly attacked ICANN, saying ICANN is not a fit venue for internet governance and that alternatives should be sought.[70]

See also


  1. "ICANN Bylaws". 18 March 2011. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
  2. "Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and Internet Corporation for assigned names and numbers". 25 November 1998. Retrieved 2009-09-30.
  3. 3.0 3.1 California Secretary of State, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Accessed 2009.09.18.
  4. ICANN-DOC JPA 09-29-2006
  5. V. Cerf (October 17, 1998). "I REMEMBER IANA". IETF. RFC 2460. 
  6. Zittrain, Jonathan. "No, Barack Obama Isn't Handing Control of the Internet Over to China". The New Republic. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
  8. DeNardis, Laura (2009). Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance. ISBN 978-0-262-04257-4.
  9. "Management of Internet Names and Addresses". Dept of Commerce/NTIA. Retrieved 14 March 2013.
  10. B. Carpenter, F. Baker, M. Roberts (June 2000). MoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA. IETF. RFC 2860. 
  11. D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Accessed 2009.09.18.
  12. "Executive Summary of DNS/ICANN Issues". Berkman Center. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
  13. "Santiago Resolutions". ICANN Board Resolutions. ICANN. Retrieved 22 May 2012.
  14. "Executive Summary of DNS/ICANN Issues". Harvard Cyberlaw Briefing Book. Berkman Center. Retrieved 21 May 2012.
  15. "DNSO Application Timetable". DNSO. Retrieved 21 May 2012.
  16. ICANN Board. "DNSO Singapore Statement". ICANN. Retrieved 21 May 2012.
  17. "DNSO Formation Concepts". ICANN. Retrieved 21 May 2012.
  18. "United States cedes control of the Internet - but what now?". The Register. July 27, 2006.
  19. 19.0 19.1 Wolfgang Benedek; Veronika Bauer; Matthias C. Kettemann (2008). Internet Governance and the Information Society: Global Perspectives and European Dimensions. Eleven International Publishing. p. 16. ISBN 978-90-77596-56-2. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
  20. Rebecca MacKinnon (31 January 2012). Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle For Internet Freedom. Basic Books. p. 207. ISBN 978-0-465-02442-1. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
  21. 21.0 21.1 "Bush administration annexes Internet". The Register. July 1, 2005.
  22. "U.S. DoC letter to ICANN's Chairman". 2008-07-30. Retrieved 2008-08-03.
  23. "Court Grants Access to Net Regulatory Corp Records", Media Release, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EEF), 29 July 2002
  24. Geoff Huston (2003-10-17). "Wildcard entries in DNS entries". IAB. Retrieved 2008-06-23.
  25. "ICANN imposes $2 Internet tax". The Register. March 31, 2005.
  26. "ICANN Board Approves VeriSign Settlement Agreements", Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 28 February 2006, retrieved November 1, 2006
  27. CNET: Domain name price hikes come under fire
  28. The Register, Burke Hansen Of ICANN and the Registerfly meltdown, March 3, 2007
  29. "'Worst Spam Offenders' Notified by ICANN, News release, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 23 May 2008
  30. "2008 ICANN Registrar Report",
  31. "Registrar Accreditation Agreement", Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 17 May 2001 with updates 2002-2006
  32. "32nd International Public ICANN Meeting". ICANN. 2008-06-22.
  33.[dead link]
  34. "Accountability and Transparency Review Team – Selection of Independent Expert and Update on ATRT Review", News release, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 10 August 2010
  35. "The First AART (Accountability and Transparency Review Team) Review was Completed in December 2010", Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 17 January 2012
  36. "Available Pool of Unallocated IPv4 Internet Addresses Now Completely Emptied", News release, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 3 February 2011
  37. 37.0 37.1 New Internet Name Rule Opens Door to Huge Changes. Voice of America, June 20, 2011. Accessed June 20, 2011
  38. Internet minders OK vast expansion of domain names, Associated Press, June 20, 2011. Accessed June 20, 2011
  39. Icann to allow any word as a domain, ZDNet, June 20, 2011. Accessed June 20, 2011
  40. ICANN increases web domain suffixes, BBC News, June 20, 2011. Accessed June 20, 2011
  41. "ICANN Approves Historic Change to Internet's Domain Name System – Board Votes to Launch New Generic Top-Level Domains", News release, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 20 June 2001
  42. "ICANN Approves New Top-Level Domains, So Prepare For .Whatever", Stan Schroeder, Mashable Tech, 20 June 2011
  43. Icann announces huge expansion of web domain names from 2012, The Guardian, June 20, 2011. Accessed June 20, 2011
  44. "When free markets make it worse: new TLDs". A smart bear. 18 July 2011. Retrieved 10 April 2012.
  45. BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS | A California Nonprofit Public-Benefit Corporation. ICANN. Retrieved on 2014-04-28.
  46. "Bylaws For Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers". Go to Governance, Bylaws, ARTICLE VIII-Article X. 25 February 2012.
  47. "Bylaws For Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers". Go to Governance, Bylaws, ARTICLE XI and ARTICLE XI-A. 25 February 2012.
  48. "Bylaws For Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers". Go to Governance, Bylaws, ARTICLE XI and ARTICLE XI-A, Section 2. 25 February 2012.CS1 maint: location (link)
  49. GAC Representatives
  50. GAC Observers
  51. ICANN decided to reduce direct public ("at large") participation on March 14, 2002, at a public meeting in Accra, Ghana.
  52. "U.N. Summit to Focus on Internet". Washington Post. December 5, 2003.
  53. "Power grab could split the net". CNET. October 3, 2005. Archived from the original on July 12, 2012.
  54. ICANN Government Advisory Committee[dead link]
  55. Hannibal Travis, The Battle for Mindshare: the Emerging Consensus that the First Amendment Protects Corporate Criticism and Parody on the Internet, 10 Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 3, 32-34 (2005),
  56. "Initial Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services: A Next Generation Registration Directory Service" (PDF). ICANN Expert Working Group. Retrieved 23 September 2013.
  57. Murphy, Kevin (13 June 2014). "Whois "killer" is a recipe for a clusterfuck". Domain Incite. Retrieved 21 June 2014.
  58. Intellectual Property Solutions & Legal Support Services. CPA Global. Retrieved on 2014-04-28.
  59. Sjmc: Common Sense Journalism. Retrieved on 2014-04-28.
  60. Fuller, Kathleen E. (14 February 2001). "ICANN: The Debate Over Governing the Internet" (PDF). Duke Law & Technology Review. Duke University. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  61. Malcolm, Jeremy (2008). "2.1.3. Criticisms". Multi-Stakeholder Public Policy Governance and its Application to the Internet Governance Forum (Ph.D.). Murdoch University. OCLC 436943765. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  62. Lua error in ...ribunto/includes/engines/LuaCommon/lualib/mwInit.lua at line 17: bad argument #1 to 'old_pairs' (table expected, got nil).
  63. Gross, Grant (1 October 2009). "New ICANN Agreement Runs Into Criticism". PC World. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  64. Milian, Mark (21 December 2011). "Keepers of the Internet face their greatest challenges ever". CNN. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  65. Arthur, Charles (13 June 2012). "Icann criticised over 'commercial landgrab' of internet". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  66. Chappell, Bill (14 June 2012). "ICANN's Call For New Domain Names Brings Criticism, And $357 Million". NPR. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  67. "Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight (CRIDO)". ANA. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  68. Shapira, Ian (1 March 2011). "Obama administration joins critics of U.S. nonprofit group that oversees Internet". The Washington Post. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
  69. "NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions". NTIA. NTIA. Retrieved 25 October 2014.
  70. "France attacks ICANN as unfit for internet governance". Yahoo! News. Agence France-Presse. 25 June 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2014.

Further reading

External links

Lua error in Module:Authority_control at line 1008: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).