Mike Roberts was the 1st President and CEO of ICANN.<br><br><h3><a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110905_icanns_unelected_crisis/" class="blue">ICANN's "Unelected" Crisis</a>
</h3>
<div class="date pipedLinks">
</div>
<div class="byline">
<div class="postTools">
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20110905_icanns_unelected_crisis/" target="_blank" class="print red last"></a><a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110905_icanns_unelected_crisis/#add_comment" class="comment red"><br>
</a> </div>
By <a href="http://www.circleid.com/members/1787/" class="blue"><strong>Michael Roberts</strong></a> </div>
<div class="body">
<img src="http://www.circleid.com/images/member_photos/photo_1787.jpg" alt="Michael Roberts" class="memPhoto" border="0" width="80"> <p>The
leaked release of the European Commission's working papers on the
future of Top Level Domains highlights the impending collision between
adherents of the present "multistakeholder" ICANN governance model, and
an ever longer list of national governments who challenge that model.
</p>
<p>
At the core of the controversy is the question of how ICANN can claim
legitimacy in the DNS world when none of its Directors or Officers are
elected. Even worse, its only answer, when challenged legally, is that
it is responsive to its contract with an agency of the U.S. Government,
which agency claims authority from the elected Congress of the United
States through the agency's organic act, which nowhere mentions the
Internet, ICANN, or the Domain Name System.
</p>
<p>
Historically, the Internet has been all about getting the networking job
done. The motto of the Internet Engineering Task Force is "rough
consensus and working code." The attitude of the industry has been that
governments, the proverbial "lagging indicator," are the last people to
be guiding, directing or governing the Internet. There is loads of
empirical evidence that we would not have a global Internet today if
everyone had waited around for legislation.
</p>
<p>
But things have changed. The Internet today is not about packets and
their technology, it is about content, with all its social, political,
religious, and economic implications. There are daily illustrations of
its power to curb tyranny — the Arab "Spring" — and to empower pathology
and lawlessness — the London riots.
</p>
<p>
A decade ago, the balance of political sentiment was articulated in
"hands off the Internet." Today, content wars are pushing the pendulum
the other way, and the question is how far towards control by elected
bodies will ICANN and other Internet governance functions move.
</p>
<p>
In addition to the "unelected" problem, ICANN faces criticism of its
multistakeholder model. In many eyes, multistakeholder is a ruse to
cover effective control of ICANN by equally unelected special interests.
Scrutiny of the inner workings of ICANN shows domination by long time
insiders whose own economic welfare is bound up in ICANN decisions.
Representative democracy this is not.
</p>
<p>
Because of the tens of millions of dollars at stake, many ICANN decision
processes today — new TLDs being the latest example — suffer from the
smells attendant on political sausage making so familiar in Washington
and other capitals. Whatever level of idealism existed when the ICANN
experiment was begun, most of it has dissipated.
</p>
<p>
If ICANN is to maintain its quasi-independence, a hard boiled,
Kissinger-like brand of pragmatic statesmanship will be necessary. The
time for platitudes about sheltering the Internet from muddling by
ignorant government bureaucrats is over. The time for pretending that
lobbyists for domain name companies are "multistakeholders" is over.
ICANN still has the power to act like the enlightened regulator it
should be, but hasn't been. If it cannot step up to this challenge, then
a government dominated future is certain.
</p>
<p><strong>By <a href="http://www.circleid.com/members/1787/" class="blue">Michael Roberts</a></strong></p></div><br>