[Fifth of eight commentaries in a sub-series on ICANN and Internet governance]

Questions around whether ICANN or the UN is the best place to house “Internet governance” forms the heart of the debate about the WGIG report and the future of ICANN. At this point pretty much everyone agrees that it is important for Internet governance to be conducted in a transparent, pluralistic and democratic way, but there are differing views on what this means, how it can be achieved, and which actors are to be trusted to take it forward.

Even though ICANN’s mandate is narrow (the technical coordination of the domain name system), its role is best understood as a metaphor for decentralized control. In other words, when we say “ICANN or UN” in the context of Internet governance, what we mean is “decentralized control where authority is shared by many and dominated by none vs. centralized control by governments acting through a treaty organization.”

This debate turns on how "Internet governance" is defined. The WGIG report has taken the concept of Internet governance beyond the original mandate of ICANN and gives attention to a wider array of issues; but nonetheless the WGIG recommendations focus in large part on reform in areas currently covered by ICANN. So the question of what to do about ICANN hangs in the air. Even the mildest model proposed would involve changes to the ICANN system. But it is not clear that the changes suggested so far would fix the problems with ICANN without creating new, and bigger, problems. For example, many commentators believe that the creation of a new oversight body linked with the UN would make ICANN's Government Advisory Committee (GAC) unnecessary, and should therefore replace it. However, others wonder why a new, more formal body could be expected to be any more open, reasonable, or representative than the current GAC structure. 

Achieving Transparency, Pluralism And Democracy With Legitimacy

The questions here focus on whether the current ICANN-based system of decentralized self-regulation is sufficient and legitimate for managing the basic Internet architecture, or do concerns about national sovereignty justify a move to a UN-linked or UN-led body to take control. ICANN has claimed to be a bottom-up democratic organization (and there is clearly evidence that the good intentions were there for that to happen); however, it has failed in many respects. Due to lobbying and business involvement, and uneven representation of developing countries, it is unrealistic to say that ICANN is transparent, pluralistic or democratic either.

However, UN bodies have not generally been characterized by transparency, pluralism, or democratic decision-making either, and there are fears that the involvement of the UN in ICANN matters will make the decision-making process slower and less flexible than it was before the WGIG. Moreover, transforming an inter-governmental body like UN into a multi-stakeholder body, as the WGIG is calling for, is unlikely. Even with its deficiencies, ICANN may stand a better chance on this point, even though most agree that further reform is needed for it to achieve the acceptable level of transparency and administrative fairness.

What Do You Think?

• Do you agree that the debate between ICANN and the UN in this context can be characterized as choice between decentralized and centralized control?
•  Do you think Internet names and numbers should be managed by ICANN in a decentralized way, or by the UN in a more centralized way?
• Which organization is better suited to take into account the interests of Africa in the management of Internet names and numbers? Why?

Please share your views with us via email or post them in the "comments" box under this commentary. (Email responses will be posted to the website too.)

Want to know more about ICANN and Africa?

See the CIPESA public briefing on ICANN, Internet governance and Africa, 7 October.