tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/icann-4489/articlesICANN – The Conversation2015-08-14T05:35:12Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/460332015-08-14T05:35:12Z2015-08-14T05:35:12ZBreaking the US government’s hold on the internet won’t be easy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91819/original/image-20150813-21428-1ucpjzq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C1766%2C5000%2C2589&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">America by shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The internet today is far bigger and more inextricably linked to our daily lives than its creators in the 1970s and 1980s could have imagined. So perhaps it is not surprising that some of the structures put in place decades ago may have failed to keep pace with its rapid evolution.</p>
<p>Chief of these is perhaps the nonprofit organisation ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. ICANN is responsible for the key roles of assigning the unique internet protocol (IP) addresses that locate individual websites on the net, and managing the domain name system (DNS), which translates the human-readable web addresses we type (such as www.theconversation.com) into IP addresses (such as 192.68.0.1). Its policy decisions have an <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-london-meeting-that-could-shape-the-future-of-the-internet-28278">important impact</a> on the internet’s evolution, for example the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/domain-name-expansion-signals-political-shift-of-the-internet-22865">expansion of top level domain names</a>. </p>
<p>However, since ICANN was established in 1998 its <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en">contractual links with the US Department of Commerce</a> have led to criticism of a perceived US and Anglo-centric bias. Controversies such as the original rejection of the <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/03/19/why-icanns-approval-of-the-xxx-domain-is-an-important-precedent/">.xxx domain name for pornography</a> led to criticism that the US had <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2003_1/komaitis">too much sway</a> over ICANN’s decisions, and calls for ICANN to disassociate itself from the US, or be replaced with a truly independent, global agency, increased.</p>
<h2>ICANN’T remain so US-centric</h2>
<p>The ICANN-US government relationship has been steadily renegotiated, first in a 2009 <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en">Affirmation of Commitments</a> that released ICANN from direct government control but allowed continued influence over <a href="http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_067688.pdf">certain activities</a> such as the key function of issuing IP addresses. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">ICANN president Fadi Chehadé giving a speech in Toronto.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fadi-chehade-toronto.jpg">ICANN</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This accelerated after Edward Snowden <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23768248">revealed the extent of global US surveillance</a>, which led to a group of core internet organisations releasing the <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en">Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation</a> in 2013, calling for the speedy de-Americanisation of ICANN’s functions and the creation of a more global, equitable basis for internet governance. That ICANN’s own president and chief executive <a href="https://www.icann.org/profiles/fadi-chehade">Fadi Chehadé</a> was among the signatories is thought to have spurred the US government on to pass the bipartisan Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/805/all-info">DOTCOM</a>) Act in June 2015. </p>
<p>Congress now has a short window in which to approve the transition plans and temporarily extend the current agreement, if needed, past the expiry date of September 30. </p>
<h2>Breaking up is hard to do</h2>
<p>What next? ICANN is to transfer its functions to a multistakeholder organisation – a power-sharing agreement between governments, civil society, the private sector and other interested parties. This is a worthy approach but a firm guiding hand is needed to ensure the whole enterprise does not become a talking shop unable to make any decisions.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://www.icann.org/stewardship/coordination-group">ICANN Transition Coordination Group</a> has been set up to manage the transition, and a <a href="https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-proposal-EN.pdf">199-page</a> final transition proposal is <a href="https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/">open for public comment</a> until September 8.</p>
<p>However, the true complexity of this process has become apparent. Due to the overwhelming number of interested parties <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/icann-stewardship-transfer-looms-amid-doubts-over-deadline/">wanting a role in proceedings</a>, it is unlikely any agreement will be reached by the deadline.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alphabetsoup: who runs the internet?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lynnalipinski/ICANN</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Uncharted waters</h2>
<p>Under the proposals, ICANN’s IP address-assigning functions would be contracted out to a separate entity, overseen by staff drawn from domain name registries, with powers to make changes. There will also be a IANA review process that, as a last resort, could recommend that the contract be terminated. Anyone with a reasonable claim to be involved can be, and this way oversight is shared by a range of groups in a process that should provide balance. </p>
<p>Crucially, there is no direct role for any government or intergovernmental body, with the only route of influence through the <a href="https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee">Governmental Advisory Committee</a>, which has around 140 governments as members and 30 intergovernmental organisations as observers and advises the ICANN Board on wider policy issues. Like ICANN, this committee has also drawn criticism for <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/02/24/gac-backs-off-tld-censorship-a-bit-but-not-enough">being a mouthpiece of western governments</a>. However, any pressure applied by governments will come up against the slow-moving behemoth that is ICANN’s internal procedures, which require consensus from many advisory and technical committees.</p>
<p>Another body expected to assert its influence is the International Telecommunication Union, the UN’s information technology and telecoms agency. While it is a specialist organisation composed of many commercial and non-governmental expert groups, like the UN it is a member state organisation. In the past the union has been put forward as a body that could fulfil ICANN’s governance functions, moving away from perceived western-centrism. But as a body comprised of national government members, greater involvement could lead to a more “top-down” form of internet control subject to the whims of international relations between members and their national and commercial interests.</p>
<p>ICANN has many flaws, but its lengthy, measured deliberations have guided the internet in its evolution to its current state as an open, interoperable, worldwide network. The alternatives could be so much more damaging to the essential need for the internet to remain open and transparently governed. The proposals put forward would maintain elements of this; whether ICANN’s restructure will be resistant to political pressure remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46033/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Easton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If there’s to be one committee to rule them all, it needs to be handled right.Catherine Easton, Senior Lecturer, Law School, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/340232014-11-11T13:23:29Z2014-11-11T13:23:29ZNETmundial’s promises of grassroots internet governance leave a lot to be desired<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64128/original/v89hqt23-1415620382.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's hard carrying the weight of internet governance on your back.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">skunkworksphotographic</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The way in which the internet is governed has shifted from technical debates held in <a href="http://xplanations.com/whorunstheinternet/">obscure committees</a> to a hotly contested field in which various nations vie for influence. Online surveillance, cybersecurity and how to treat undesirable content are now widely discussed topics that affect us all – so it makes sense that this is reflected by including a wider range of people in deciding how the net is governed.</p>
<p>The newest addition to the group of internet governance organisations – and one that says it will bring a wider range of stakeholders into the process – is the <a href="https://www.netmundial.org/">NETmundial Initiative</a>. Perceptions of NETmundial vary, from a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/us-internet-governance-idUSKBN0IQ2O120141106">grass-roots discussion forum</a> to a “<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/internet_un_security_council_net_mundial_initiative/">UN Security Council for the internet</a>”. However, in contrast to its claims to promote citizen participation, the initiative more resembles an attempt by governments and large corporations to maintain their hold on power.</p>
<h2>Surveillance sours the pudding</h2>
<p>Back in June 2013, the revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden about mass surveillance by intelligence agencies such as NSA and GCHQ upended the public debates about “internet freedom”. Until then, those debates had, with <a href="http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/netfreedom/index.htm">careful nurturing</a> by the US State Department, focused on human rights in countries such as China and Iran. Now Western governments suddenly emerged as the aggressors as leaked documents revealed how surveillance was conducted against whole populations, politicians, and corporations. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/24/brazil-president-un-speech-nsa-surveillance">Addressing the UN general assembly</a> in September 2013, Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, accused the US of violating international law, arguing:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among nations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Countries such as Germany and Brazil discussed ways in which the internet could be used in a way that is less dependent on US internet companies and telecommunications infrastructure monitored by intelligence agencies.</p>
<h2>A third way</h2>
<p>Perhaps most significantly, the Brazilian government hosted a conference to discuss the future of internet governance, called <a href="http://netmundial.br/">NETmundial</a>. Representatives of national governments, private sector and civil society met in Sao Paulo in April 2014 to develop new principles of internet governance and a road map for the future.</p>
<p>Participants, particularly from <a href="http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/the-fair-of-competing-narratives-civil-societyies-after-netmundial/">civil society</a> and the developing world, praised NETmundial’s open and participative nature that allowed them opportunities to voice their concerns. <a href="https://www.icann.org">ICANN</a>, one of the chief regulatory organisations for the internet, had often been criticised for its close connections to business and the US government. But efforts by many countries outside the West to transfer some of its regulatory role to the International Telecommunications Union (<a href="https://www.itu.int">ITU</a>) were even more controversial, as they would allow authoritarian governments to increase their influence. </p>
<p>So in the context of this disagreement, NETmundial was a welcome arrival to encourage debate and – particularly – address the pressing, post-Snowden issues.</p>
<h2>Same name, new aim</h2>
<p>The recently launched NETmundial Initiative uses the same name, includes Brazil’s <a href="http://www.cgi.br">Internet Steering Committee</a> and might seem to continue these aims. But on closer inspection the new project raises serious doubts. Its leadership group now includes the <a href="http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance">World Economic Forum</a> – an organisation known for its close links to big business and political elites, rather than its commitment to participatory, grassroots politics and ground-up internet governance. </p>
<p>This new NETmundial’s website <a href="https://www.netmundial.org/">claims</a> its goal is “to energise bottom-up, collaborative solutions”. But assigning a core role to an exclusive, elite club seems to contradict these claims. With the World Economic Forum at its heart, the new NETmundial seems more like an attempt by what <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html">the Occupy movement called “the 1%”</a> to capture the NETmundial brand and sweep inconvenient debates such as those triggered by the Snowden files back under the rug.</p>
<p>The NETmundial Initiative is led by a Co-ordination Council with five “permanent members” modelled after the UN Security Council and 20 further members. ICANN, the Brazilian Steering Committee and the World Economic Forum have awarded themselves a permanent seat each, while the 20 non-permanent members will be drawn from academia, civil society, government, business and world regions. </p>
<p>While this is in line with a multi-stakeholder approach, the central role of an institution like the World Economic Forum leaves doubts over ICANN chair Fadi Chehade’s <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/internet_un_security_council_net_mundial_initiative/">claims</a> that “everything will be done bottom-up, this is the mother of all bottom-up processes”. ICANN’s role in the new initiative has been questioned, too, as ICANN is explicitly a technical body whereas NETmundial is due to focus on non-technical issues.</p>
<p>Civil society groups, internet organisations and activists are <a href="http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/in-multistakeholderism-we-trust-on-the-limits-of-the-multistakeholder-debate">faced with a conundrum</a>. Working with the NETmundial Initiative offers a way to be a part of the governance process and push for a new policy direction. But by doing so they may offer legitimacy to a return to elite-driven, business-as-usual politics and – potentially – to an attempt to draw a line under the many important debates triggered by the Snowden revelations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34023/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arne Hintz receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for the project 'Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society: UK State-Media-Citizen Relations after the Snowden Leaks'.</span></em></p>The way in which the internet is governed has shifted from technical debates held in obscure committees to a hotly contested field in which various nations vie for influence. Online surveillance, cybersecurity…Arne Hintz, Lecturer in Media, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315362014-09-11T05:11:00Z2014-09-11T05:11:00ZForums on internet governance reveal tensions over how the web should be regulated<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58717/original/d9585g7k-1410366615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Turkey may censor its internet but there is still, internationally, deep divisions over how the internet should be governed.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Republic_Protest_second_rally_Petates_3.jpg">Miguel Carminati</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How the internet is governed is no longer a matter seen fit to be left to mere technical committees. With the extent of online surveillance, so dramatically revealed by the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files">Snowden files</a>, increased content filtering and blocking, and the issue of net neutrality, which would allow telecoms firms to “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/10/tech-firms-go-slow-internet-net-neutrality">create fast web lanes</a>” for some companies, it is a contentious area with major social and political implications.</p>
<p>The Internet Governance Forum (<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article?id=1557:2014">IGF</a>), which has just met for the ninth time in Istanbul, revealed the extent to which the internet’s decision-making bodies such as <a href="https://www.icann.org/">ICANN</a> are heavily disputed, with schisms developing not just between governments but also different groups of civil society. A parallel <a href="https://iuf.alternatifbilisim.org/">Internet Ungovernance Forum</a> was organised by activists, advocates and academics to expose the areas of discussion not up for debate at the IGF and question the fundamental ideas of governance on which it rests.</p>
<p>Created following the UN’s World Summit on the Information Society (<a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html">WSIS</a>) in 2003 and 2005 and held annually since then, the IGF brings together government, business and civil society to try and build consensus around how the internet should be governed. As a forum for debate (with no mandate for action) it complements ICANN’s decision-making executive powers on a narrower range of critical internet resources. </p>
<p>The IGF is an open forum, anyone can register without a fee or other accreditation requirements. There are a huge range of workshops, talks and meetings on issues such as bringing broadband to the developing world, cyber-security, and freedom of expression. The current controversies over <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality">net neutrality</a> – which would allow companies to discriminate between certain data on their networks based on content, or how much the content’s owner has paid – was high on the agenda this year. The ongoing <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/06/tim-berners-lee-reclaim-the-web">fragmentation of the internet</a> into national jurisdictions and networks, each with different content limitations and legal requirements, was also a cause for concern. </p>
<p>But the Snowden files, whose revelations continue to expose mass surveillance by the likes of the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), were less prominently discussed than one might expect. Similarly the debate on content censorship was rather mute, particularly considering the <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa32f4f6-3855-11e4-9fc2-00144feabdc0.html">practices of host country Turkey</a>, where services such as Youtube and Twitter have been repeatedly shut down, and thousands of websites remain blocked. Turkish activists and academics had proposed several workshops on censorship in Turkey, but all were rejected by the IGF. </p>
<p>The official reason was that IGF workshops have to address broader issues than just one country – but this also reflects a long-standing IGF practice of treating the host country with cautious deference. </p>
<p>In response activists organised their Internet Ungovernance Forum as an alternative where the implications of censorship and surveillance are top of the agenda. Participants from around the globe discussed how information from dissidents is suppressed, <a href="http://surveillance.rsf.org/en/">in Turkey and elsewhere</a>. They raised ways in which people are profiled, persecuted and even <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/may/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/">killed</a> through the help of mass data collection, and how technical infrastructure and its functions are captured and controlled by the state or by the business sector. However they also explored ways to thwart such control with alternative, secure systems, such as activist-based <a href="https://help.riseup.net/">online communication services</a> and <a href="https://securityinabox.org/">encryption tools</a>.</p>
<p>Here, the keynote speakers were not government and business leaders but the likes of <a href="https://www.torproject.org/">Tor</a> developer and journalist Jacob Applebaum and, by video link, <a href="https://wikileaks.org/">WikiLeaks</a> founder Julian Assange (replacing Edward Snowden, who had to cancel due to technical difficulties). Shuttle buses to this parallel forum’s venue were even laid on to ensure that IGF participants could hear the alternative views.</p>
<p>However, the goals and arguably the significance of the Ungovernance Forum went beyond putting forward a different agenda. Its name is more than just a pun on the official forum. Whereas the IGF is a so-called multi-stakeholder process involving governments, business and civil society, the Ungovernance Forum questions the practice of engaging or collaborating with the governmental and commercial bodies, many of which abuse human rights and are striving to transform the internet into space of consumption and control. </p>
<p>While civil society groups participating in the IGF support this multi-stakeholder process and lobby for its <a href="http://igfcontinuation.org/">continuation</a>, the activists outside highlight the need for clear alternatives rather than the inevitable (and often imbalanced) compromises such a process leads to. They claim that civil society may not be in a position to significantly make its mark on an agenda dominated by others with diametrically opposed interests, instead only lending it a legitimacy it doesn’t deserve.</p>
<p>The IGF and the IUF thus highlighted different approaches towards understanding, developing and regulating the internet. The next IGF will take place in Brazil next year, and discussions about another alternative forum are already starting.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31536/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arne Hintz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How the internet is governed is no longer a matter seen fit to be left to mere technical committees. With the extent of online surveillance, so dramatically revealed by the Snowden files, increased content…Arne Hintz, Lecturer in Media, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/282782014-06-20T14:37:23Z2014-06-20T14:37:23ZThe London meeting that could shape the future of the internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51763/original/j34th6gc-1403256228.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Edgware Road: where big decisions are made.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/3694428710/sizes/l">HowardLake</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.icann.org/">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers</a> is holding its <a href="http://meetings.icann.org/icann50">50th public meeting</a> in London from June 22. </p>
<p>An international crowd spanning business, politics and civil society will be meeting across 60 events to try to reach agreements on some important issues about the shape of the internet. The summit comes at a time of great change for internet governance and some very important issues are on the table.</p>
<p>ICANN is the not-for-profit organisation that controls the registration of domain names – the web addresses at the heart of the internet. It is seen as the body that maintains “root” of the internet and therefore plays a key role in ensuring its stability as a global, decentralised communications system. Its function is mainly related to the code level of the internet with the basic aim of ensuring that whatever device you are reading this on is able to, once a connection is found, access the information held online.</p>
<p>So ICANN can be seen as a group of technicians. These are the engineers who enable the miracle of innovation that is the internet to keep on going. But since controlling the root of the internet comes with immense power, ICANN has necessarily had to become more political. Reflecting this change, ICANN shifted its structure in 2006 to share more power more equally between different countries rather than concentrating it in the US alone.</p>
<p>The last ICANN meeting happened in Singapore just three months ago, but regular meetings are needed because of the potentially dramatic changes under discussion at the moment. There are two key, current areas for debate which will have a significant role in shaping the future of the organisation and, indeed, the internet itself.</p>
<p>The first is the expansion of web addresses to allow generic top-level domain names (<a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/">g-TLDs</a>). This extension means anyone wanting to register a domain name is no longer restricted to using .com at the end of their web address. This is extremely significant development as it considerably increases the number of web addresses available. But it also raises problems for ICANN, which will have to control the registries, develop effective complaints mechanisms and protect existing rights holders.</p>
<p>The aim is to promote competition while minimising the potential for exploitation through, for example, g-TLD holders charging exorbitant fees for registration. The decision to expand the g-TLDs has drawn criticism because it could place extra burdens on people and businesses as they try to set up a web presence. It could also make it easier for those advising companies on maintaining a website to charge consultancy fees.</p>
<p>It is fitting that this is the subject of numerous meetings at ICANN50. Hopefully these will focus on developing robust, fair procedures to support the increase in domain names and ensure that the end user is at the centre of the discussion at all times.</p>
<p>The second key area relates to the very heart of ICANN itself and, in particular, its relationship with the US government. While this has been a subject of discussion for some time, the revelations of the past year about the extent to which US government agencies have been invading privacy through the internet has made it all the more pressing. ICANN started in the US and its ties to a state that has been systematically exploiting the internet to invade privacy has repercussions for internet governance.</p>
<p>The manner in which the root operates can be manipulated in order to make it easier to track information and infringe upon users’ privacy. While ICANN is a self-declared organisation with an international structure, it does operate under a contract with the US’ National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In March 2014, however, an announcement was made stating that the NTIA did not intend to renew this contract.</p>
<p>This came as a surprise to many but could be a step towards reducing the reach of the NTIA. Breaking the tie would leave ICANN as a truly international body without the “steadying hand” of one individual state. For many this would be seen as a positive step; a split from the body which had committed high-profile and ongoing violations of citizens’ trust.</p>
<p>But it will also mean that ICANN will have to reflect on its structure and procedures in order to ensure that control is shared equally and that certain interests are not protected more than others. ICANN has in the past been criticised for its lack of transparency and accountability, such as when it made the decision to expand g-TLDs. Some suggestions for ICANN’s future restructuring include separating the management of its technical functions from those that are more political, and creating an independent monitoring body to hold it to account. Hopefully there will be a great deal of introspection, planning and negotiation in London.</p>
<p>ICANN50 is crucial to the development of an open, stable and secure internet. It should therefore be a forum in which the concerns of everyone who uses the internet are addressed. There needs to be a renewed focus on human rights and protecting end users. Many, but not all, of ICANN’s meetings are public, so I urge you to <a href="http://meetings.icann.org/icann50">participate remotely</a>. More than ever, there’s a need for citizens to take part in the discussions that shape the internet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28278/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Easton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is holding its 50th public meeting in London from June 22. An international crowd spanning business, politics and civil society will be meeting across…Catherine Easton, Lecturer, Law School, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.