ICANN vs. the World

ICANN

Government representatives from around the world sit on ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee, but as the name implies, their role is only advisory and policy decisions are ultimately made by the ICANN board. Recently, however, governments around the world have been demanding control over ICANN’s actions. There are increasing calls for domain name authority to be transferred to the ITU and the world governments that run it.

U.S. Resisting UN by Leaning on ICANN

Although it has contracted with ICANN to govern the domain name system, the U.S. Government still ultimately controls it. Talking about Internet freedom, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner has said the U.S. is not too impressed with the prospect of UN control.

“We have a range of anxieties about throwing this issue into the United Nations,” said Posner. “We have great trepidation that if this became a UN-sponsored initiative, all the governments that have the greatest interest in regulating and controlling content and protecting against dissident speech in their own countries would be very loud voices.”

You might think, then, that the U.S. would stand up to foreign government and ITU encroachment on ICANN’s authority, but you would be wrong.

Last month the U.S. circulated a proposal that would have essentially given world governments a veto over any new proposed TLD “for any reason.” That proposal was ultimately softened under public pressure, but the Obama Administration continues to place pressure on ICANN to give governments more say over its policy decisions. If it’s too principled about free expression, the logic goes, ICANN and the U.S. may face overwhelming pressure to cede authority to the UN.

Uncertain Future

Internet freedom advocates have vowed to fight to preserve the Internet’s independent, non-governmental governance structure. Writing in Google’s public policy blog, Internet pioneer, former ICANN Chairman, and now Google “Chief Internet Evangelist” Vint Cerf blasted a UN committee’s decision to exclude non-governmental groups from a new working group on Internet governance.

“The current bottoms-up, open approach works—protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation,” he wrote. “Let’s fight to keep it that way.”

Time will tell how this saga turns out, but time may be running out for ICANN. The non-profit’s contract with the U.S. Government is up for renewal in September, and that will likely serve as another pressure point to demand more government control over what names are allowed.

Jerry Brito is a contributor to TIME. Find him on Twitter at @jerrybrito. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

Related Topics: government, ICANN, internet, legal, web, News
  • http://dashworlds.wordpress.com dashworlds

    ICANN vs.the WORLD?….OR Simply Allowing Internet Users the Opportunity to Compete on (Reasonably) Equal Terms with the few Corporations and Multi-Nationals that Seem to Hold All the Cards….

    With around 205 million domain names already registered (it may be 305 Million by the time you read this), trying to find a unique, relevant and memorable address for less than a few million dollars, has become an almost impossible task.

    Even if you manage to find something interesting (that’s not too expensive), just ask the person closest to you how many websites they can actually recall. The chances are maybe a dozen (and that will include the likes of Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Twitter). Things have to change to bring the Web back to a more level playing field.

    Sites such as Dashworlds.com are providing free domain names in the format “business-com”, “paris-fashion” and “social-network” (examples only). Totally outside the realm and control of ICANN, the public can create any domain or any TLD in any language, instantly and at no cost whatsoever.

    With users and members in over 90 countries worldwide, resolution is via an APP (although new ISP links are available to negate that need).

    Not-so-long-ago, people would have thought the Internet itself to be a complete waste of time effort and money. After all why would you want to buy a hugely expensive computer, get an extra phone line, buy a modem, buy an OS, learn how to use it all….Just so you could read the news? All you had to do was walk down to the newsagent…or simply turn on the not-so-flatscreen Television.

    Having just one Internet arena floating in infinite cyberspace is like saying you can visit anywhere in the USA as long as it’s on Route 66. So now, just as in the USA and everywhere else in the world, the Web has more than one option

  • http://nownewnews4u.wordpress.com nownewnews4u

    ICANN IPv6 News Conference | Miami, Florida

    https://sites.google.com/site/nownewnews4u/3mac/06-mac-2011

  • http://nownewnews4u.wordpress.com nownewnews4u

    World Wide Web Creator Worries About Internet Control
    video
    https://sites.google.com/site/nownewnews4u/3mac/07-mac-2011

  • RichardSRussell

    No country that has an anti-blasphemy or anti-sedition law should be allowed anywhere NEAR the levers of control of the Internet. That’s like having Libya on the UN’s Human Rights Commission.

  • papafoote

    This seems to me to be a Global question/answer – from The Old Goat!

blog comments powered by Disqus