When you connect to the Internet from your phone, laptop or desktop computer on October 1, maybe you won't feel any different。But in the decades-long history of the Internet, this day may have special significance。

On this day, the United States government finally handed over the management of Internet domain names to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (I-CANN), ending nearly 20 years of unilateral monopoly over the Internet's resources。

The question that follows is, has the United States really ceded control of the Internet？

In fact, this "transfer of power" is not the willingness of the US government, but a little concession under the strong pressure of the international community。At the same time, the US government is not casually "handing over power", but setting strict preconditions, that is, handing over power to the "global Internet multi-stakeholder community", and setting up a complex system of checks and balances to ensure that it still has invisible control after the form of "handing over power"。

ICANN, a non-profit international organization headquartered in California, USA, was established in 1998，Under contract with the Telecommunications and Information Bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce，It is responsible for the management of the global Internet domain name system, Internet protocol (IP) address assignment, protocol parameter configuration, and root server system management，And the Bureau of Telecommunications and Information has the final say on how the agency is run。

Since the beginning of ICANN's establishment, the US government has promised to hand over the management of the Internet domain name system in the future, but it has been "big thunder and little rain".。Only in 2013, after the "Snowden incident" exposed the extensive surveillance of the Internet by US intelligence agencies, in order to quell the anger of the international community, the United States announced the accelerated transfer process in March 2014。

Hong Yu, an Internet research expert at the University of Southern California, said that the United States government has maintained unilateral monopoly control over the allocation of advanced Internet domain names, which constitutes a single geopolitical and military deterrent, so it is unpopular in the scope。The "Snowden incident" has exposed the illusion of the United States as the self-proclaimed "guardian of the open Internet" and seriously weakened its moral foundation in Internet foreign policy。

At the same time, the Internet has been transformed from a cutting-edge technology to a global infrastructure, which is gradually regulated by national laws。In this situation, it does not make much sense to insist on national privileges at the level of basic Internet resources, but puts the US government in a passive position。These are all important factors leading to the final decision of the United States to "hand over power"。

As the U.S. Telecommunications and Information Administration recently acknowledged in a background statement，For a long time，The U.S. government's role in managing the Internet's domain name system "has been a source of frustration for foreign governments."，They have therefore called for the United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union or a new intergovernmental body to take over the administration of the domain name System，"If the U.S. government does not complete this transfer of power，The call for countries to replace the multi-stakeholder model with a multilateral approach will only grow."。

It should be said that after the United States Telecommunications and Information Bureau handed over the control of ICANN, on the surface, the ability of the United States to intervene in the management of domain names was indeed greatly weakened, but the United States has made full use of the power of the latter period, laying the groundwork for the future evolution of I-CANN, and the "multi-stakeholder model" is the key。

The so-called "multi-stakeholder model" refers to the diverse participation of academics, civil organizations, industry organizations and even the government。However, in order to avoid control or "hostile takeover" by another government or a third party after the transfer of power, the Government and intergovernmental organizations are limited to the role of policy formulation advisers in the terms of the transfer。More than 160 governments participate as an advisory committee, which must reach consensus before issuing policy recommendations。

As a result, ICANN's takeover of Internet domain name management is more likely to lead to "privatization" rather than multilateral government operations。This does not fit with the other claims。

Milton Miller, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the United States who has written several books on global Internet governance, believes that this model of Internet governance is an "important innovation"。He told Xinhua: "This marks the move from sovereignty in cyberspace to people's sovereignty。But he admits that it will be necessary to wait until the model is up and running to see if it is practical。

It is worth noting that the Internet giants will play an important role in the "multi-stakeholder model", and the United States will continue to maintain influence through a much stronger enterprise, hardware and software technology, talent, and so on。

Hong Yu believes that although the "global Internet multi-stakeholder community" supports diverse participation in principle, in practice Internet companies will have great influence, so the handover has been supported by giants such as Amazon, Google, Cisco, Microsoft and Facebook, which are all American companies。In addition, domain name assets with commercial value, such as premium domain name。com ", ranking fifth"。net "are in the hands of the American enterprise Verisign, will not change with the transfer of rights," the political and economic pattern of the domain name industry has not changed for the time being."。

In addition, the control of the United States law on the future management of the Internet also remains。Lawrence Stricklin, director of the U.S. Telecommunications and Information Administration, has said ICANN "has been and will continue to be subject to the (U.S.) antitrust laws."。The transfer plan also makes it clear that the agency will remain headquartered in California and must comply with local laws。

In the long run, it remains to be seen whether ICANN will be able to establish a parallel organization outside the United States, such as Switzerland, to enhance its international legitimacy。It can be seen that the United States has taken a step toward global governance of the Internet, but there is still a long way to go and many challenges to face before the Internet can truly get rid of the invisible control of the United States。