������Ƶ

“Control” of the Internet has been a contentious issue for a long time. The 1990s witnessed tension between the Internet’s founders such as Jon Postel and the U.S. government. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was created in 1998 as the agency that now manages, assigns, and controls Internet domain names worldwide. The U.S. government was connected to ICANN through a contractual agreement, which has led some to consider the US government the controller of the Internet. In the time since 1998, the number of Internet users around the world has grown to the billions and with this increased penetration has come growing opposition and criticism of the United States’ influential role in ICANN’s operations.

Aware of these critics, ICANN has developed and implemented a plan to . These activities have intensified since assumed its leadership. The internationalization of ICANN can also be seen as a response to internet governance challenges, such as those posed by country proposals to expand of the role of International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

An apparent big step was made this past Friday when the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition Internet domain name functions to a global multi-stakeholder community and that it will not renew with ICANN, which expires in September 2015. NTIA currently contracts with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which include assigning domain names (NTIA’s FAQ). Other IANA functions include: (1) the coordination of the assignment of technical Internet protocol parameters; (2) the processing of change requests to the authoritative root zone file of the DNS and root key signing key (KSK) management; (3) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and (4) other services related to the management of the ARPA and INT top-level domains (TLDs).

ICANN will maintain its authority over naming and numbers, but the NTIA will no longer hold formal contracts with ICANN as the influence over the organization will be transferred over to a multi-stakeholder internet governance body that will hopefully include various international governments, private sector, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders. The nature of this body is still unclear and concerns have already been rising.

The Wall Street Journal on Friday that the NTIA’s Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, Lawrence E. Strickling, is looking forward to the transition of ICANN to a model that “must ensure that ICANN is free from government influence” and that gives “stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.”[1]

In private communications with the authors, Brazilian Ambassador and Director of the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations’ Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs, Mr. Benedicto Fonseca Filho, praised the announcement saying it paves the way for the evolution towards ICANN becoming an entity whose comprehensive legal ‘status’ is not subject to a single jurisdiction while maintaining its multi-stakeholder nature. Benedicto explains that this has been a long standing request by Brazilian diplomats in regards to the consolidation of an internet governance ecosystem that is truly international and multi-stakeholder.

The move by NTIA has also been praised by civil-society organizations and coalitions. The Association for Progressive Communications the announcement and NTIA’s commitment to maintaining transparency in the process, but suggested that ICANN plan the transition in a way that does not exclude those outside of ICANN’s own multi-stakeholder process. Similarly, members of the Best Bits coalition also the historic announcement, but noted that the fight for inclusive Internet governance is not yet over.

Gene Kimmelman – president of the watchdog Public Knowledge – commented: “This is an opportunity for civil society and all other stakeholders to develop a workable open and transparent process for resolving Internet policy disputes. I hope advocates can come together and seize this invitation for reform.” And Kevin Bankston, Policy Director at ������Ƶ’s Open Technology Institute, notes that “a key challenge is how to create a democratic governance system, but a move towards a multi-stakeholder approach to governing the Internet is a positive step and a unique chance for all stakeholders to develop the free and open Internet of the future.”

Though NTIA’s decision is welcomed by a variety of stakeholders from civil society to government, the discussion on the possible concerns of a new system of Internet governance is far from over. NTIA has stated that it will not accept any proposal that replaces NTIA with another intergovernmental or government-led body, leading to questions on what role governments, especially those of developed countries, will play in the future of Internet governance. Though the United States government will no longer enjoy the benefits of a contract with ICANN, there are still concerns over whether developed countries’ governments or organizations will have more decision making power than those of developing countries. This concern also appears in regard to the power that might be exercised by non-democratic countries. For instance, conservatives in the United States have argued in the past that the U.S. needs to protect what control it has over the Internet and keep countries like China and Russia, which limit what citizens can see online, from making oversight decisions. With this in mind, Republicans have, on March 18th, called for a hearing and close congressional oversight to any change.

Though the prospects of an ICANN without United States government ties is praised by some, other important questions emerge. As it becomes increasingly independent, what will keep ICANN from using tactics such as revoking domain names to enforce ICANN global principles? How will decisions be made and what legitimacy model will they be based on – consensus among nation’s governments or amongst consumers? As a global multi-stakeholder organization, will the rules of ICANN replace already existing national and local rules regarding the Internet without the consent of consumers? Granted, domain name seizures have occurred under United States government oversight, but will these incidences increase, decrease, or be unaffected without government oversight? When planning the roadmap for ICANN, these questions must be seriously considered by looking at the checks and balances of United States oversight, or lack thereof, and revise them to effectively check the power of a more independent ICANN.

In its last week, NTIA outlined its requirement that any new Internet governance model “maintain the openness of Internet,” but there was no guarantee or mention of what role international human rights law will play into the creation of Internet governance principles that would guide ICANN’s work moving forward. On the other hand, in its to the upcoming Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, , the United States government included “protection of human rights” online as a necessary principle for internet governance.

ICANN’s shift towards an international, multi-stakeholder model is a step in the right direction for internationalizing governance of the Internet, but NTIA and ICANN must ensure the process is transparent and open for discussion with government, technology, private sector, civil society, and other affected actors around the world. An official transition plan for the September 2015 separation has yet to be drafted, but ICANN’s Noncommercial Stakeholders Group has its own proposed roadmap for Internet governance to NETmundial that could shed light on some ideas floating around ICANN’s transition planning. Other submissions to NetMundial also recommend that human rights be respected by any and all future Internet governance players, so ICANN should accept this principle as a starting point for its transition away from the United States government.

[1] Complete quote in Portuguese “O anúncio feito pelo governo norte-americano abre caminho para a evolução da ICANN no sentido de – mantida sua natureza multissetorial – tornar-se entidade com “status” jurídico global, não sujeito a uma jurisdição única, o que constitui antigo pleito da diplomacia brasileira. É importante que esse processo seja levado a cabo com serenidade e equilíbrio, mas também com a velocidade imposta pelo “tempo da Internet”. A Reunião Multissetorial Global sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet, a realizar-se em São Paulo, de 23 a 24 de abril próximo, poderá fornecer decisivo impulso nesse sentido.” By email on March, 17th, 2014.