The Internet Government Forum (IGF) convenes in Athens at the end of October to chart a way forward for making the running of the Internet more inclusive, and more democratic. Several key issues of concern for various governments and members of the Internet community worldwide were amply articulated in the run-up to the World Summits on the Information Society (WSIS) – a process that has continued ahead of the IGF. Simply put, these issues revolve around enabling control of the ‘Internet’ and its technical arms to be decentralised from ICANN and its few chosen agents, increasing security of the Internet, having international oversight over the Internet, among others.

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

The last few years have seen a growing consensus that international institutions need to be more transparent and inclusive, and they must engage with stakeholders as part of their policy-making processes. Since its inception, ICANN has been the subject of much criticism (some of it deserved), including its failure to include African stakeholders in its work in a real way. Several organizations -- ICANN among them -- have responded by opening their doors to civil society groups and disseminating their work more openly to reach a wider audience. And ICANN has recently made a concerted effort to elevate African participation in its work, in particular at its annual meeting in Cape Town last year.

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

International discussions on Internet public policy beyond ICANN's purview have been percolating for years on issues such as the control of illegal and harmful content, privacy and data protection, security and identity theft, intellectual property rights, spam, cybercrime and others, in bodies like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. And talk about the need for an overarching international agreement to deal with some or all of these issues under one umbrella has been heard before. Most recently, the World Summit on Internet Society put the discussion firmly on the table, and linked it with issues that until now have been considered more technical matters, including the management of Internet names and numbers.

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

Developing nations tend to see Internet governance as a function of national government, and many proposals for reform are calling for greater involvement of national authorities in ICANN (and any new bodies that may be created). However, some commentators point out the risk that this would erect national boundaries on the global network, highlighting the problems that could entail. Many fear that a greater government role will not only bring Big Brother-like control, but also hinder the development of the Internet which up to now has been largely driven by the private sector. The experience of African countries with monopoly fixed-line telecom operators may be instructive: they typically have far fewer fixed lines than mobile phones or Internet users.

[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.