ICANN Be Reorganized

Support for any type of governmental control over the Internet is just about as popular as kicking puppies. To most hard-core Internauts the thought of government control over the Internet is absurd. So why would ICANN leadership propose just that?

by Julie Wheeler [March 7, 2002]

Late last month ICANN President M. Stuart Lynn dropped a bomb on the Internet community. The incendiary device was delivered as a proposal titled, ICANN—The Case for Reform. Contrary to U.S. Department of Commerce designs to privatize the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, Lynn proposes to governmentalize ICANN operations.

Even though the U.S. government was instrumental in the development of the Internet, it has become the favorite marketing, research, entertainment, and communication tool of the private sector. Consequently, kicking the government out onto the curb of the "Information Super Highway" remains a very popular concept among most hard-core Internauts.

So why would Lynn possibly think that government control of ICANN would be a good idea? That's what the Internet community is asking.

Method or madness
Throughout ICANN's short life, its been plagued by problems. Pretty much everyone has been highly critical of the organization for one thing or another, at one time or another. The press, the public, and even members of the board have expressed their disapproval over various decisions and philosophies. There are entire groups like ICANNWatch, eternally dedicated to discussing nothing but ICANN—its future and the way it performs a key role in global Domain Name System (DNS).

ICANN has been fiscally challenged by its budget limitations from inception. At each meeting constituents grapple over what to do with members that default of their dues. Outstanding debts contribute greatly to ICANN's various funding shortfalls.

Last year's squabbles with the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) constituency didn't help, either. Because the ccTLD group didn't feel the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) was serving their best interests, they withdrew from the group, refusing to pay for services they didn't feel they were receiving. Instead, ccTLD constituents want to build their own support organization, complete with board representation. Since ccTLD issues are slightly different than generic top-level domain (gTLD) priorities, this kind of makes sense.

But for those of you that are deeply concerned about governmental influence over ICANN, remember that many, if not most, of the ccTLDs are still run by the governments of the countries they represent. As a result, governmental control is already an operational factor for ICANN.

But ICANN infighting doesn't stop at the border. ICANN has the responsibility of trying to manage a global medium in a fair and proportionate manner. It will have to endure the inevitable legal hiccups concerning issues like jurisdiction. A problem ICANN has had of late with its Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). These problems are not necessarily with the UDRP itself, but with the ramifications of what happens when people disagree with UDRP decisions and opt to take their quarrels to court.

Another broad point of opinionated departure over ICANN concerns the very legitimacy of the group in question. ICANN is a quasi-governmental organization that answers largely to itself. Even though its charter requires that ICANN answer to the worldwide Internet community, what exactly "the worldwide Internet community" is remains illusive. How do you suppose a community that defies definition could agree on anything, let alone take ICANN seriously if it has no real authority?

Checks and balances
So which is better? Just sitting back and complaining about ICANN while doing nothing to fix its problems, or entertaining a unorthodox proposal of government intervention in ICANN? Lynn' s proposal is a drastic one, but it will still have to be discussed by the board and the general public, which should make next week's Web cast of ICANN's public comment period in Ghana very interesting.

There are many problems in allowing governments to control the Internet. These dangers are evident in places like Australia with its strict control over issues of quality in Internet material, especially pornographic material. This is not a stance that all governments would take. As a result, governmental representation on ICANN's board probably doesn't mean that you won't be able to access any type of material you desire. It probably also doesn't mean that irreverent addressing systems that ignore ICANN's philosophy would be outlawed. It just isn't that drastic.

Most likely, if a governmental stake in ICANN is built into its board of trustees, and the representatives hale from a range of different types of government, from different geographic regions, they would no more agree on the kind of control any one government should have over the Internet than they could over many other issues. It is, in fact, entirely unlikely that the various governments on the board would unite and take control over the Internet. Even if they did unite, they only have a one-third stake, which allows them to be outvoted by the remaining two-thirds of the board consisting of board members and elected business officials.

The most common fear up to this point is that the Internet could be ruled under the thumb of the government—one government—along with its respective ideologies and social conscience. Whether it's the U.S. government or any other, this would be horrific. In fact, Lynn calls the decision to completely privatize ICANN's functions an overreaction to this fear of singular governmental control.

He claims, "I also am convinced that, for a resource as changeable and dynamic as the Internet, a traditional governmental approach as an alternative to ICANN remains a bad idea. The Internet needs effective, lightweight, and sensible global coordination in a few limited areas, allowing ample room for the innovation and change that makes this unique resource so useful and valuable."

It's not as if Lynn proposes to turn over the keys to ICANN's headquarters to the government—any government. He said, "what is needed at this stage if ICANN is to carry out its mission is neither a totally private nor a totally governmental solution, but rather a well-balanced public-private partnership." Lynn also mentioned that this partnership must be "one that combines the agility and strength of a private organization with the authority of governments to represent the public interest."

Spit it out
If you are genuinely outraged by Lynn's proposal—if you really think it would damn the future of the Internet, take action. Now is the time to voice your opinion. Perhaps your input will make for a better proposal—a brighter future for ICANN, the Internet, and the worldwide online community in general.

ICANN's next public meeting is being held March 10-14 in Accra, Ghana, Africa and you're invited. Not that you couldn't just hop a plane to Ghana at a moment's notice—given the multitude of immunizations required before departure you would need to make travel plans well in advance of next week. But you certainly can and should attend the meeting via Web cast. Participating in the public comment period is a privilege, not a right. This is your Internet, you have a say in how it's organized.

—End