A new development involving ICANN is intended to address some of the international community's concerns about the domain name system. In September, the Department of Commerce signed a joint project agreement with ICANN, which replaces the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that previously linked the two organizations.

“The new agreement is less prescriptive,” said John Crain, chief technology officer for ICANN. “It talks more about how ICANN should be transparent to the community and be responsive to the community. We will no longer be writing reports every few months for the [Department of Commerce]. In the future, we'll write reports annually to the community.”

But ICANN still has plenty of critics. “The new agreement indicates a slightly lighter-handed role for the Commerce Department, but no major change,” said Milton Mueller, a professor at Syracuse University who specializes in Internet governance issues.

Noting that the contract for a top-level domain has 75 pages, Mueller argues that the current system “creates enormous entry barriers in the domain name system, many of which have no justification other than conservatism or protectionism.” Registrants must provide business plans and financial projections, as part of a process that Mueller said stifles innovation.

Auerbach offers an even harsher critique. “ICANN is clearly owned by the intellectual property and domain name registry industry,” he said, estimating that domain name registrants pay $300 million a year to VeriSign in its role as “.com” administrator.

Auerbach said there is no technical reason for what he sees as ICANN's reluctance to assign new top-level domains. In test beds, he said, “we've fired up domain name systems with millions of top-level domains with no problems.”

The new agreement between ICANN and the Department of Commerce expires in 2009, and critics hope that at that time, the Department of Commerce will back away from its involvement with ICANN. Should that occur, the question then becomes — if the Department of Commerce doesn't oversee ICANN, who should?

ICANN's current status as a non-profit corporation is a good starting point, Mueller and Vixie suggested.

ICANN shouldn't be privatized, Vixie said. “A private company is responsible to shareholders, and we don't want shareholders. It really is a public benefit function. You have to get people who want to play together to say, ‘I'll play according to these rules and change the ones I don't like.’”

Mueller and Auerbach said they'd like to see at least some ICANN board members elected by the general public. Currently, board members are selected by committee. “ICANN needs stronger internal accountability,” Mueller added. “There could be an appeals process. Did ICANN do something that broke its own rule or some parallel international or national law?”

Auerbach suggested potentially broader changes. “You need to go back to the beginning, take it apart and start afresh,” he said. “You need to answer questions like, what is the Internet and who are the beneficiaries? Is it users of the Internet, the domain name industry or the U.S. government? And how can you create an institution which isn't an arm of a national government?”