spkr-mueller

Why ICANN failed Milton Mueller Associate Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies

Internet Governance • Governance definition: – the exploitation of technical bottlenecks or access to technical resources to regulate socio-economic conduct. – E.g., broadcasting

• ICANN is in the business of governance, not technical coordination – dispute resolution policy and famous marks – imposing a business model on domain name registration – WG discussions – Sovereignty claims to TLDs

ICANN’s Pre-history • Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 1990; Internet Society (ISOC), 1992 • IANA’s attempt to privatize itself, 1995-6 – 150 new gTLDs, $2000 + 2% of revenues

• The IAHC and the gTLD-MoU – – – –

ISOC-IANA, WIPO, ITU, new registrars shared registry model cartel-ized top-level domain space links domain name assignment to trademark protection

The White Paper and ICANN • White Paper abdicates direct government action • Behind-the-scenes agreement with US Govt, Europeans, IBM, WIPO, and ISOC-IANA on governance agenda – essentially the same as gTLD-MoU

• Initial Board gives complete control of ICANN to gTLD-MoU faction

Conclusions  The rhetoric of “industry self-regulation” was a mask that allowed a specific coalition of actors, led by the Internet Society, IBM, and a small number of European allies, to take over the administration of the Internet.  Administration concentrated exclusively on ecommerce and ignored implications of handing governance power to an unaccountable private entity

Conclusions  ICANN’s initial board was controlled by a single faction with a specific governance agenda that did not command consensus.  The determination of that faction to implement its agenda as quickly as possible fatally undermined the new corporation’s ability to:  function as a vehicle for consensual “self-regulation”  develop durable, trusted processes

Difficult questions for the future • Can ICANN be fixed or should we start over? • How much globalization is appropriate?