Keep The Core Neutral

What is "The Core"?

The Core of the Internet (also called the "Domain Name System" or "DNS") is the network of computer servers where Internet domains are originally defined and coordinated for propagation across the Internet. Generic Top-Level Domains (such as ".com" or ".net" etc., abbreviated as "gTLDs") are among those defined on DNS Root Name Servers operated by 12 Root Server Operators (for more information, see DNS Root Name Servers Explained For Non-Experts). In particular, there is a database that runs on all Root Name Servers called the Root Zone File that defines all of the TLDs (including gTLDs) on the Internet. It contains the authoritative reference, including the Internet Protocol address (the "IP address" -- the numerical code that identifies a particular computer connected to the Internet), for every TLD in use on the Internet.

Who runs The Core?

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, determines what can and cannot be placed in the Root Zone File that defines all Top-Level Domains (TLDs) on the Internet, including Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). Under the current system, any gTLD name that is not included in the Core by being included in the Root Zone File cannot be reached by normal Internet communications.

ICANN is a private non-profit organization that was created and sub-contracted by the U.S. Government to control domain name and Internet Protocol address (IP address) assignments. ICANN operates under the authority of a Memo of Understanding (MoU) with the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Who makes policy at ICANN?

All policy at ICANN is determined by the ICANN Board of Directors, with input from a variety of ad hoc advisory and support groups (see ICANN organizational structure). Policy governing the expansion of new gTLDs may be voted on as early as the next ICANN board meeting in Los Angeles, 27 October through 2 November 2007.

What does it mean to keep The Core "Neutral"?

When ICANN decides how to approve applications for new Generic Top-Level Domains, it should not use any criteria other than technical and operational criteria. As long as new domains are technically and operationally satisfactory, they should be approved without question or delay.

Why would anybody want The Core not to be Neutral?

Some governments and commercial interests want to reject new Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) that they object to for either "moral" reasons or trademark-related reasons. But gTLDs are very different from trademarks, and the paradigm of trademark law does not correspond well to the nature of gTLDs, and could allow trademark holders to suppress many forms of free expression well beyond the domain of legitimate trademark concerns. And, moral judgments differ widely across different cultures, so using a least-common-denominator approach to moral judgments would lead to oppressive censorship that violates national sovereignty.

Why is this such a big deal? It's only domain names.

ICANN has been subject to growing "mission creep" over the last several years. It was formed in order to address only technical matters of Internet operation, to maintain the reliability of Internet operation and fairness in allocation of IP addresses and domain names. Over time, some members of some advisory groups have sought to expand ICANN's jurisdiction to address matters of more general public policy than the original technical mandate. The Memo of Understanding that authorizes ICANN's activities is fairly vague and weak in terms of specific oversight, so it is possible for ICANN to decide unilaterally to incorporate non-technical policy concerns into its operations and decisions without significant accountability to the public governance process that gives it its authority.

In particular, as ICANN stands ready to increase the number of Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) it approves each year, this process promises to become much more important than it was in the past, when only a few gTLDs were created. And, it also promises to establish a new precedent of addressing public policy concerns beyond the technical mandate for other activities, present and future.

Internet experts Michael Palage and Avri Doria (in their paper Please, Keep The Core Neutral) have called this a Pandora's Box, as it would set a precedent for allowing nontechnical policy concerns to affect ICANN decisions. With the current proposal to expand the number of gTLDs approved each year, it is now time to make a stand in this process. The longer this mission creep is allowed to grow without opposition, the harder it will be to roll it back, as ICANN begins to expand its jurisdiction to broader policy domains. It will be hard enough as it is, now. We need to make clear to the ICANN Board that this is unacceptable and should be stopped immediately.

For answers to objections to the principle of Core Neutrality, see Myth Busters