Study suggests some sort of accountability required before ICANN is set free.
A new study, to be formally released Wednesday, suggests that ICANN must be reformed before its ties with the U.S. Department of Commerce are severed. The Joint Project Agreement between ICANN and the Department of Commerce concludes in August.
The study was authored by think tank Technology Policy Institute (TPI) and was co-authored by TPI’s Thomas Lenard and Lawrence White, a Professor of Economics at the NYU Stern School of Business. The study compares the structure and accountability of ICANN to several other similar organizations.
The authors write:
ICANN sits at the center of and has control over extremely important aspects of the Internet. This is an extraordinary position for a modest-sized non-profit organization that has almost no accountability. ICANN’s board is the ultimate decision-making authority for the organization. But that board has no shareholders to which it is accountable and no government agency to which it must answer (other than the loose oversight of the U.S. Department of Commerce). The board itself has considerable influence over the processes and entities that determine board membership. And, of course, ICANN itself is not a governmental organization and thus does not have the ultimate legislative accountability that would accompany a governmental structure.
ICANN employees often cite the company’s non-profit status as proof that it has the best interests of the internet community in mind. But the study points out that even non-profits have self-serving motives:
On being a non-profit structure: ICANN likely has multiple internal (or implicit) goals in addition to the technical administration of the DNS. Some of those goals may be useful, but they may well also include objectives that are not socially beneficial, such as: increasing ICANN’s influence on Internet policy; increasing the size of the organization; and increasing employees’ compensation, perquisites, and stature
I agree with the premise of the study — that ICANN needs to be accountable before being privatized — but disagree about to whom ICANN should be accountable. The study suggests that the registries and registrars are ICANN’s constituents. I believe the ultimate constituents (and funding source of ICANN) are domain name owners. Domain name owners’ objectives are not always aligned with the registrars and registries, and these interests must be considered.
You can read the report including TPI’s view of new top level domains, on TPI’s web site.
David J Castello says
I agree with this 100%. I’m sure few originally thought ICANN could ultimately make decisions that would have the power to potentially affect the world’s economy. The truth is they do.
Acro says
And for the love of God, ensure they don’t pull an AIG regarding bonuses.
gerry says
Thank you.
These are all points that I have been trying to drive home for the past couple of years.
From ICANN on down to the domainer there is very little accountability. Along with accountability comes responsibility.
We have seen very little of this from ICANN, the registrars, and the drop catchers.
ICANN and it constituents (the registrars) have very little time left to clean up its acts and to show that it can act responsibly.
The truth is they wield a great deal of power because of very little oversight from outside judiciary. There are no checks and balances in place to reign them in.
The time for self-examination is now and the time to hold registrars and registries accountable to adhering to policy is now.
Otherwise, yes…ICANN may end up being a shell of itself once the Department of Commerce enters into the picture.
Thanks for the post, Andrew.
Johnny says
This is a BIG step in the right direction….if this study carries any weight with ICANN. Does it? I sure hope so.
Andrew…. registries and registrars I belive are constiutents, but so are the domain owners. You are correct though…. registries and registrars should not equal the whole…that is certain.
However, if equal voting share/power, or however that is defined, is given then there might just be checks and balances as Gerry in the post above said was lacking.
Jeremy Leader says
I don’t agree that ICANN’s constituents are domain owners (I disagree even more strongly with the idea that their constituents are registries and registrars). It’s right there in the first letter of the acronym. ICANN is the INTERNET Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Their constituency is the entire internet.
While much of ICANN’s activity is focused on (and their funding comes from) domain name registration, through IANA they’re also responsible for things like IP address allocation, URI scheme registration, MIME type registration, etc.
Figuring out how to allow such a huge, widely distributed, diverse constituency control ICANN’s policies is an unsolved problem.