Internet governance: We the networks

The organisation that runs the internet address book is about to declare independence

IF A satirist were to create a parody of an international conference, amping up the insularity and tedious intricacies for comic effect, he might come up with something rather like the meeting that will take place this week in Marrakech. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, known as ICANN, will bring together 1,300 participants for 346 sessions. The gatherings include “NCPH Reception and Informal Meeting: CSG with the NCSG” and “CJK Generation Panels Co-ordination Mtg with Integration Panel”.

Barring any last-minute hiccups, though, something remarkable will happen at the meeting. After two years of negotiations, ICANN is set to agree on a reform that would turn it into a new kind of international organisation. If this goes ahead, a crucial global resource, the internet’s address system, will soon be managed by a body that is largely independent of national governments. And some of ICANN’s champions reckon this is just a start. In future, similar outfits could be tasked with handling other internet issues that perplex governments, such as cyber-security and invasions of privacy.

The beauty of the internet is its openness. As long as people stick to its technical standards, anybody can add a new branch or service. For everything to connect, though, the network needs a central address book, which includes domain names (such as economist.com) and internet-protocol addresses (such as 216.239.38.21). Whoever controls the address book can censor the internet: delete a domain name and a website can no longer be found.

That is why, as the internet grew up, America decided not to hand control to the United Nations or another international body steered by governments. Instead, in 1998 it helped create ICANN, a global organisation that gives a say to everybody with an interest in the smooth running of the network, whether they be officials, engineers, domain-name holders or just internet users. Because few precedents existed, and because of a fear that ICANN would lack legitimacy, America kept it on a long leash. American approval is still required in some areas, including changes to the innards of the internet’s address system.

Most were happy with the arrangement at first. But American oversight came to seem odd as the internet grew into a vast global resource with much traffic no longer passing over American cables (see chart). Then came revelations that the National Security Agency had spied on internet users in America and elsewhere. The snooping was unrelated to the management of internet addresses. But America’s Department of Commerce, which oversees ICANN, was provoked to announce in March 2014 that it would relinquish its role if it were convinced that ICANN would be truly independent and able to resist power grabs by other governments and commercial interests.

America’s decision to let go triggered much wrangling and some stalling by those who benefit from the status quo. Gradually, though, plans for an independent organisation have come together. The new ICANN will resemble a state, says Thomas Rickert of eco, Germany’s internet association and co-chairman of one of the main negotiation committees.

It will have a government (the organisation’s board), a constitution (its by-laws, which include its mission and “core values”), a judiciary (an “independent review process”, which leads to binding recommendations) and a citizenry of sorts (half-a-dozen “supporting organisations” and “advisory committees”, which represent the different interest groups). These will have the right to kick out the board and block its budget.

Even some of ICANN’s harshest critics, such as Milton Mueller of the Georgia Institute of Technology, say the proposals are pretty good on balance—though he would like the citizenry to have more powers. One point, however, could cause trouble in Marrakech. More than a dozen countries, including Brazil, France and Russia, argue that governments will have too little sway in the new structure. ICANN’s board is obliged formally to weigh advice from a government advisory council only if that group has adopted such advice with “full consensus”, meaning no government openly objects. The dissenting countries say that full consensus will be tough to achieve. Governments are being expected to jump over a higher bar than others, complains one representative from a dissenting state.

Discussions are likely to be heated, if incomprehensible to outsiders, but few expect the reform plans to be derailed in Marrakech. How American politicians will react is another matter. Some Republicans, in particular Senator Ted Cruz, who is running for president, dislike the idea of America letting go of ICANN. Opponents have not managed to pass legislation that would give Congress the right to stop the change: as things stand, a report sent to the relevant committees would suffice. But Republicans have blocked the commerce department from spending any money on the transition. Reform could well become mired in the presidential race, and other hurdles could pop up. Some lawmakers now argue that giving ICANN more independence amounts to the transfer of government property, which requires a vote by Congress.

Dissenting governments and recalcitrant Republicans notwithstanding, an independent ICANN is not only likely to come to pass but also to become a model for other sorts of internet governance. The network is becoming Balkanised, with each country seeking to control what goes on within its own borders. Without generally accepted global rules, governments are bound to create their own, even if these cannot be implemented. “Multi-stakeholder” outfits like ICANN, where all opinions are aired, might well be the best hope to come up with rules that work.

The consensual model is hardly perfect. It seems to work well for settling technical questions (see article) but can stumble when things get more political. And it is not clear who would launch other ICANN-like organisations. NETmundial, an initiative created in 2014 to do just that, has only produced some worthy “internet governance principles”.

Perhaps Fadi Chehadé, ICANN’s president and one of the instigators of NETmundial, will be more successful getting such efforts off the ground in his new job. He will step down after the meeting in Marrakech, to be succeeded by Göran Marby, a Swedish telecoms regulator, and join the World Economic Forum to create all sorts of multi-stakeholder groups. “We need many little ICANNs,” he says.

Original