<div id="confocus">
<div id="doctitle">
<p class="title">Looking Towards the Future</p>
<p class="subtitle">Vint Cerf</p>
<p class="docdate">October 2007</p>
</div>
<p> <strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Introduction </strong></p>
<p>The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was
formed nine years ago. Its creation followed a period of considerable
debate about the institutionalization of the basic functions performed
by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Nearly simultaneous
with the inauguration of ICANN in September 1998 came the unexpected
and untimely death of the man, Jonathan B. Postel, who had
responsibility for these functions for over a quarter century. The
organization began with very limited sources of funds, a small and
overworked staff, and contentious debate about its organizational
structure, policy apparatus, and operational procedures. The
organization underwent substantial change through its Evolution and
Reform Process (ERP). Among the more difficult constituencies to
accommodate in the organization's policy making process was the general
public. An At-Large Advisory Committee emerged from the ERP and has
recently formed Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) in all of
ICANN's five regions. </p>
<p>Today, ICANN is larger, more capable, more international, and better
positioned to fulfill its mandate. It stands for one global
interoperable Internet and the model of stakeholder representation has
worked. But the Internet and its vast user population have grown during
the same time by a factor of over 20 in all dimensions. The 50 million
users of 1997 have become nearly 1.2 billion users today. The 22
million hosts on the network have increased to nearly 500 million
today. The bandwidth of the core data circuits in the Internet have
grown from 622 million bits per second to between 10 and 40 billion
bits per second. This dramatic growth in physical size has been
accompanied by an equally dramatic growth in the number and diversity
of applications running on the Internet. All forms of media now appear
on and are carried by Internet packets. Consumers of information are
producing more and more of it themselves with email, blogs, instant
messaging, social and game playing web sites, video uploads, and
podcasts. The Internet continues to evolve and while ICANN has achieved
more than most people realize, it must continue to evolve along with it.</p>
<p><strong>Operational Priorities </strong></p>
<p>ICANN's primary responsibility is to contribute to the security and
stability of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. In the most
direct way, it carries out this mandate through its operation of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. There can be no doubt that the
conduct of this function in an exemplary fashion is essential not only
to ICANN's mission but also to inspiring confidence in ICANN as an
organization. </p>
<p>But ICANN's role in the Internet goes beyond these specific IANA
functions. ICANN is an experiment in the balancing of multiple
stakeholder interests in policy about the implementation, operation and
use of the Domain Name System and the address spaces of the Internet.
Its policy choices can have direct impact on the business models of
operating entities involved in the management of domain names and
Internet addresses. The privacy and Internet-related rights of
registrants and more generally, Internet users, may also be directly
affected. Some policy choices raise public policy issues in the view of
governments and methods are and will be needed to factor such concerns
into the making of ICANN policy. </p>
<p>Effective, fair and timely policy development should be a priority
for ICANN. That this needs to be achieved in a global setting is simply
another challenge to be met. ICANN leadership and staff must seek to
maintain and improve the ability of all of ICANN's many constituencies
to achieve consensus or at least to prepare the Board to make choices
when consensus may not be forthcoming. Because policies often have
technical, economic, social and governance implications, it is vital
that ICANN's practices draw on expertise in all of these domains. </p>
<p>Clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the many participants
in the Internet arena, especially those with specific interest in ICANN
policies and practices, will be helpful and should be documented. In
some cases, the documentation might take the form of relatively formal
relationships such as the contracts between ICANN and domain name
registries and registrars. In other cases, they may need only to
characterize in plain terms the roles that each party plays. </p>
<p>In some areas, such as root zone operation, excellence can be
measured in such terms as responsiveness, scalability, resilience to
disruption, and ability to adapt to changing needs such as Domain Name
System Security (DNSSEC), internationalized domain names (IDNs) and the
addition of IPv6 records to the root zone. Many parties currently play
a role in the maintenance of the root zone file and clear documentation
of responsibility and lines of authority will be beneficial. As the
technology of the Internet continues to evolve, the roles of various
parties may need to change to meet the objective of stability and
security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. Managing the
evolution of these roles represents another priority for policy
development and implementation. </p>
<p>Because of the potential impact of decisions made through the ICANN
policy process, it is important to put into place checks and balances
that serve to make all aspect of ICANN's operation accountable and
transparent. There is still work to be done in this area so that
legitimate issues arising out of policy making can be independently
reviewed where this is deemed necessary. At the same time, it is vital
that the mechanisms chosen do not have the effect of locking up the
policy making process and preventing any decisions from being made. One
seeks a balance between a potentially unfair tyranny of the majority
and an equally unacceptable tyranny of the minority. </p>
<p>The general success of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP)
suggests that ICANN should seek mechanisms for resolving disputes
arising in connection with implementing ICANN policy that scale, permit
choice without abusive "forum shopping", and make efficient use of
ICANN resources. </p>
<p>Outreach, transparency, and broadly participatory processes on an
international basis are not inexpensive. It is vital for ICANN to
continue to refine its models for sustainable operation, taking into
account the economics of the various actors in the Internet arena that
rely on ICANN's operation, and fairly apportioning costs of ICANN
operation to appropriate sources of support. Not all of the
beneficiaries of ICANN's work derive the same level of revenue from the
Internet (and some, none at all). ICANN must take into this into
account in devising mechanisms for supporting its operation and should
work to make transparent the need to provide services to parties who
may not be in a position to contribute commensurate with cost. Adequate
and stable funding for ICANN is necessary if ICANN is to fulfill its
charter. Over the past several years, ICANN has significantly increased
its ability to staff vital functions, contributing to the effectiveness
of the organization. It should be a priority to assure adequate
reserves to weather unanticipated expenses or periods of decreased
income. </p>
<p><strong>Organizational Perspectives </strong></p>
<p>ICANN is a multi-stakeholder institution operating in the private
sector but including the involvement of governments. Throughout its
history, ICANN has sought to draw on international resources and to
collaborate, coordinate and cooperate with institutions whose expertise
and responsibilities can assist ICANN in the achievement of its goals.
ICANN should see to establish productive relationships with these
institutions, cementing its own place in the Internet universe while
confining its role to its principal responsibilities.</p>
<p>As part of its normal operation, ICANN engages in self-examination
and external review of the effectiveness of its organizational
structure and processes. Improvements in all aspects of ICANN operation
and structure will increase confidence in the organization and its
ability to sustain long-term operation. </p>
<p>Finding and engaging competent participants and leaders in each of
ICANN's constituent parts must be a priority. ICANN should seek to
improve its ability to identify from around the world and attract
highly qualified staff, executive leadership, board and supporting
organization participants. It is possible and even likely that
improvements in the processes by which this is done today will have
significant payoff in the future. </p>
<p>While ICANN does not bear a specific responsibility for achieving
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) developed during the conduct of
the World Summit on the Information Society, it has an opportunity to
contribute to them in direct and indirect ways. Its operation of its
IANA functions and support for actors in the Domain Name, Internet
Address and standards development areas provides ICANN with a specific
opportunity. Participation in forums dedicated to developing policies
for Internet expansion and use offer indirect ways for ICANN to draw
upon and provide expertise in these areas.</p>
<p>It has been demonstrated that the presence of ICANN staff in various
regions and time zones around the world and familiarity with local
languages and customs has been beneficial to parties reliant on ICANN
for its services. ICANN should continue to seek ways to improve its
effectiveness in this area. The introduction of the Fellowship program
that supports the participation of qualified candidates in
ICANN-related activities is a vital step in facilitating ICANN's
outreach to the developing world. Expansion of this program through
partnerships with other like-minded organizations should be pursued in
the interest of globalization of ICANN.</p>
<p>It is possible that the present formulation of ICANN as a
not-for-profit, charitable research and education entity under
California law could be beneficially adapted to a more international
framework. As part of its long-term strategic development, ICANN should
evaluate a variety of alternatives on the possibility that a change
could increase the effectiveness of its operation. </p>
<p>The successful creation of five Regional At-Large Organizations, one
in each of ICANN's five regions, needs to be followed by a serious
effort to engage these entities in the formulation of ICANN policies
and in dialog with the general user community. The various constituency
reviews that form part of ICANN's normal processes should address the
role of these entities in the conduct of ICANN business. To the extent
that Civil Society is not fully represented through the Governmental
Advisory Committee and the ALAC/RALO system, an organizational home may
be needed to accommodate the interests of that constituency.</p>
<p>The five Regional Internet Registries represent a key element in the
Internet and ICANN pantheon. The RIRs have responsibility for
allocating IP address space to Internet Service Providers and sometimes
individual end-user organizations. They are the means by which
bottom-up global policy is developed and recommended, through the
Number Resource Organization, to ICANN. It will require substantial
coordination and cooperation between the RIRs and ICANN to work through
the coming years of depletion of available new IPv4 address space and
the rising implementation of the new IPv6 address space. There is
little doubt that economic incentives will emerge that will distort
fair and neutral IPv4 address space allocations as the available space
is depleted. Minimizing the impact of this transition will be the joint
responsibility of ICANN and the RIRs. </p>
<p>Similarly, ICANN's cooperative relationship with the Root Server
operators will also demand coordination and capacity building as IPv4
and IPv6 addresses are associated with old and new domain names and as
the IPv6 infrastructure grows. A vital objective is to assure that the
IPv6 Internet and the IPv4 Internet are, to the extent possible,
completely and totally co-terminous. Every termination needs to be
reachable through both address spaces. In the absence of this
uniformity, some IPv6 addresses may be unreachable from others,
defeating the goal of a single, interoperable and fully reachable
network. </p>
<p><strong>Meeting the Challenges </strong></p>
<p>As ICANN approaches the close of its first decade, the operational
Internet will be turning twenty-five. In the course of its evolution,
it has become a global digital canvas on which a seemingly endless
array of applications has been painted. Despite the broad swath of its
current applications, it is almost certain that many, many more will be
invented. All of them will rely, for the foreseeable future, on the
basic architecture of the system, including the global Internet address
space and Domain Name System. But the structure will become more
complex. Two parallel address spaces, IPv4 and IPv6, will be in use.
ICANN needs to promote the adoption of IPv6 so as to limit the
side-effects of the exhaustion of the unique address space provided by
IPv4. </p>
<p>A vast and new range of non-Latin, internationalized domain names
may be registered, certainly at the second or lower levels in the
Domain Name hierarchy and many will be proposed for the top level.
Their diversity will create new challenges for the protection of users
from confusing and potentially abusive registrations. New dispute
resolution principles may be needed to deal with domain name
registrations and delegations of new top level domains. The exposure of
ASCII punycode strings in browsers or other applications may produce
additional stresses in the intellectual property arena (e.g. xn-
-cocacola). </p>
<p>Digital signatures will play an increasingly important role in
validating the assignment of domain names and Internet addresses and
new protocols are certain to be invented and their parameters recorded
by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Infrastructure for the
management of digital certificates or other authentication mechanisms
will be needed to realize the value of the DNSSEC concept. </p>
<p>More generally, the Internet's multi-layer architecture shows
vulnerabilities of various kinds that demand redress. Attacks against
the Domain Name System's root servers, name resolvers and general name
servers at all levels must be mitigated. Some of the components of the
Domain Name System are actually used to exacerbate the effects of
Denial of Service attacks. While ICANN does not have responsibility for
developing the Domain Name technology, it can use its visibility and
area of responsibility to highlight the need for increased security
measures for the protection of the Internet's technical infrastructure
and to facilitate its implementation where ICANN has a direct
involvement in its operation. </p>
<p>An increasing number of mobile devices will become Internet-enabled
as will appliances of all kinds. Access speeds will increase, enabling
many new applications and enhancing older ones. All of this will
contribute to increasing reliance on the Internet for a wide range of
functions by an increasingly large user population. Electronic commerce
will continue to expand, placing high priority on the stable, secure
and reliable operation of all aspects of the Internet, including those
within ICANN's purview. </p>
<p>While some of these aspects of the Internet's evolution will be of
direct concern to ICANN, there will be additional matters to which the
ICANN organization and processes will need to pay attention. The
business processes that sustain the management of the Internet's
address space and domain names will almost certainly need to adapt to
account for new applications. Some of these will monetize various
aspects of the Internet in unexpected and innovative ways that will
challenge existing policy and procedures. It will be extremely
important for ICANN to evolve and strengthen its implementation of
multi-stakeholder policy development. The interests of a wide range of
entities must be balanced in the process. </p>
<p>While adherence to a set of technical standards has allowed millions
of component networks and systems to interwork on the Internet, it is
also the case that many varying business models have sustained their
operation. The richness and diversity of these models is one of the
reasons that the Internet has proven to be so resilient in many
dimensions. ICANN's policy development processes need to take into
account an informed understanding of the economics of these varying
business models and the ways in which ICANN policy may affect them. </p>
<p>On the Domain Name side, the development of market-savvy rules of
operation for operators will be essential. ICANN needs to assure
compliance with policies developed through the ICANN consensus process
to establish confidence in the policy processes and their execution.
Clear rules for the creation of new TLDs of all kinds must be adopted
and enforced. </p>
<p>The roles of registrars, registries, wholesale registry operators,
root server operators, regional Internet address registries,
governments, standards and technical research and development bodies,
among others need to be characterized so as to set expectations and
permit the establishment of practical working relationships. The
documentation of best practices will be beneficial especially where the
introduction of the Internet is new. </p>
<p>In matters of public policy, including but not limited to public
safety, security, privacy, law enforcement, conduct of electronic
commerce, protection of digital property and freedom of speech, broad
and international agreements may be needed if the Internet is to serve
as a useful, global infrastructure. Many of these matters lie outside
the formal purview of ICANN, but some ICANN policies and resulting
operational practices will contribute to the global framework for life
online. ICANN must seek to contribute to public confidence in the
Internet and the processes that govern its operation. It cannot do this
alone. The coordinated and cooperative efforts of many distinct
entities will be essential to achieving this goal. At the same time,
ICANN must protect its processes from capture or abuse by interests
that are inimical to the openness and accessibility of the Internet for
everyone. </p>
<p><strong>A Collective Goal </strong></p>
<p>As of this writing, there are only about 1.2 billion Internet users
around the world. Over the course of the next decade that number could
conceivably quintuple to 6 billion and they will be depending on ICANN,
among many others, to do its part to make the Internet a productive
infrastructure that invites and facilitates innovation and serves as a
platform for egalitarian access to information. It should be a platform
that amplifies voices that might otherwise never be heard and creates
equal opportunities for increasing the wealth of nations and their
citizens. </p>
<p>ICANN's foundation has been well and truly fashioned. It is the work
of many heads and hands. It represents a long and sometimes hard
journey that has called for personal sacrifices from many colleagues
and bravery from others. It has demanded long term commitments, long
hours, days, months and years. It has called upon many to transform
passion and zeal into constructive and lasting compromises. ICANN has
earned its place in the Internet universe. To those who now guide its
path into the future comes the challenge to fashion an enduring
institution on this solid foundation. I am confident that this goal is
not only attainable but that it is now also necessary. The opportunity
is there: make it so.</p>
</div>