Here at Aplus.Net, we want to make sure our customers have a good idea of what’s going on with the agencies that decide the fate of the Internet. The most logical place to start is ICANN, the non-profit organization that oversees domain name registrations and IP addresses on behalf of the U.S. government.

That’s one big mandate, and it covers every corner of the Internet. For example, when it was recently decided to add many more new domain name suffixes (such as .biz, .tv, the just-approved .asia, and many more) to the originals (.com, .org, .net, and .gov), ICANN was the entity charged with the task. Every person, organization, or company that hosts a website must deal with ICANN. If you have a website, you have an account with ICANN—although it’s probably handled by your hosting provider. And every new government regulation must correlate with ICANN’s activities.

Having this essential, central role makes ICANN an obvious lightning rod for criticism. Much of it stems from the fact that ICANN works on behalf of the U.S. government, yet regulates domain names on a worldwide basis. That’s even more risky than it sounds. Consider the recent situation in which ICANN was pressured to suspend the domain name of a British company that has refused to comply with rulings handed down by U.S. courts. Read the story here.

The very nature of a U.S.-based organization—even a non-profit—dictating rules for the Internet worldwide is bound to cause some controversy. To offset this, ICANN’s board of directors represents six continents, and it holds many of its public forums in remote overseas locations—which in turn generates complaints about making decisions in locales far removed from most Internet users. Its policy of keeping domain name registration in the public forum is heavily criticized for the tool that provides to hackers and spam merchants; yet ICANN is also condemned by some for lack of public disclosure in other areas. A reluctance to impose sweeping regulations is among the other complaints.

Of course, there are reasons why ICANN does things these way, reasons that rely on the necessities of commerce and transparency. You can find more details on the organization’s workings on ICANN’s website. Its Wikipedia entry provides some good details, as well.

Whatever you think of it, ICANN is definitely an organization with a lot of power. Therefore, as Internet business people, it’s in our best interests to stay on top of what’s happening. Check Google News for ICANN every now and then. You’ll be surprised at how many stories appear, and how the decisions made by ICANN affect the entire Web.

Any comments? What do you think of ICANN? Have you had any experience with them, or any opinions to share?

Hey gang. I’m wondering, how many of you out there actively read the Aplus.Net newsletter? Do you all receive it? What do you think of it? The most recent issue went out last week, and I’d love to get your feedback on it.

The opinions of our customers are very valuable to us. We mean it when we say this: We can only be successful if you are. So, we naturally want to know if our newsletter is helping your success, or maybe just providing an entertaining read. (If that.)

So please take a moment and let us know what you think of the Aplus.Net newsletter.

Nathan Denny, Aplus.Net

There’s an important debate going on in the Internet world today. It’s called “net neutrality”—a simple name for a complex issue.

There’s already been a lot of talk, and controversy, surrounding this topic, so there’s a good chance you may have already heard about it. But for the benefit of those who haven’t, it’s important enough to run through again quickly:

Net neutrality is a general term for legislation in the U.S. Congress that would apply “common carrier rules” to Internet service providers (ISPs) and broadband carriers. In other words, ISPs would be required to manage all Internet traffic on equal terms and ensure that all web content remains equally accessible to all users.

If the net neutrality provisions fail, service providers will have the ability to give priority or preference to specific companies and their websites—a power they don’t currently have.

A lot of the argument against net neutrality comes from free-market principles. These principles suggest that the ISPs have the inherent privilege of dictating how service provided, because they are the ones providing it. Just like a television station can choose to show one program and not another, ISPs (net neutrality opponents argue) should have the ability to provide what they want.

So what’s wrong with that? Big name companies with large revenues will be able to pay for service, while free community-based sites (such as Craigslist) would be overshadowed. Although it’s true that Craigslist is large enough at this point that they may not be damaged by these new rules, the free Web environment that allowed them to be created would be gone. There would very likely be no new sites like Craigslist.

Aplus.Net has publicly endorsed net neutrality provisions. Aplus.Net’s official statement on net neutrality can be found here.

Find a much more detailed discussion of this topic here.