[ncdnhc-discuss] Zoe Baird on ICANN

[James Love]

http://www.iht.com/articles/56121.html

    Who can speak for the Internet? More voices would help

     Zoë Baird
     Monday, April 29, 2002

Alongside the economic boom times for the tech sector in recent years grew
an increasing recognition of the need for new ways to govern the borderless
new world brought forth by the Internet.

But just as technology's financial world hit rough times, so too the
information world's governance structures have now hit a rough patch.

Some fundamental assumptions are under attack. Organizations involved in
borderless governance are entering a more mature phase. There is an
opportunity at hand for the result to be a more inclusive, practical,
effective approach to international policy-making.

The dot-com era of experimentation in technology has been closely allied
with experimentation in Web governance and policy-making, conceived by
Silicon Valley libertarians and dedicated to the proposition that government
would never "get it" or move fast enough. Self-regulation with bottom-up
control emerged as the most appropriate power structure. Innovation and
market creation arrived as paramount values.

The result: an Internet community's preference for an Internet governance
model that mirrored the decentralized, private structure of the Internet
itself. It included the private sector, interested technology experts, and
almost no notion of how the interests of other Internet users would be
represented. Technology was moving forward at warp speed, so the deadening
presence of governments was especially unwelcome.

A leading forum for experimentation was ICANN, the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers, which plays the central role of coordinating the
Internet's name and address system.

To many people, this might seem like arcane stuff, but it has powerful
implications for how the world uses and reaps the benefits of what has
become one of the most significant global resources of our time.

Maintaining a functional, accessible Internet is a matter of deep public
interest because of the Internet's pervasive penetration into virtually
every aspect of everyday life around the world - including business,
government, health care, education and social interaction. ICANN's role is
to manage a set of policies that keep the Internet operating effectively and
fairly and, as such, its success or failure matters to all Internet users.

ICANN was originally dominated by business and technical interests. But in
2000, the Internet community decided to experiment with direct elections,
theoretically allowing anyone in the world with an e-mail address to vote
for about half of the members of ICANN's directors. The idea was to conduct
an experiment in creating a direct, public voice to participate in the
oversight and control of the Internet.

But last month, members of ICANN found themselves responding to a
controversial proposal by the organization's president, Stuart Lynn, to
scrap direct public representation in favor of having the public represented
on ICANN's board by, of all things, governments.

To critics, this flies in the face of the spirit that created ICANN as an
alternative to government. On the other side, Lynn insists that experience
has proven the current system to be unworkably costly, inefficient and mired
in debate. But, at bottom, there are many challenges to maintaining the
involvement of those who can speak or act for the huge diversity of Internet
users in a sustained way.

Ultimately, the essentially libertarian ideals of the freewheeling 1990s
have not resulted in a technology policy-making organization that
effectively provides for innovation and market creation on the one hand and
democratic transparency, accountability and legitimacy on the other. It is
time to grapple with the key issues that have emerged from the ICANN
experiment and gain a clearer understanding of what works and what doesn't.

The complexities fall into a few general areas. For one thing, globalization
and the diffusion of the Internet have dramatically increased our
interdependence. Both the dot-com bust and Sept. 11 demonstrated starkly
that this interdependence carries with it profound economic and security
risks. Finding the right balance between our open, networked system and the
security of a more closed environment demand input from many stakeholders,
certainly governments among them.

Second, as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank have learned the hard way, expanding world trade and accelerating
technological change are fraught with contradictions. The process has
winners and losers. It empowers some people more than others. In such a
world of multiple, competing imperatives, inclusive governance is a must.
Developing nations and noncommercial voices need to be heard, and
participate with equal dignity, if they are to win their share and accept
outcomes as legitimate when they lose.

Third, a number of nontraditional bodies have arisen in recent years that
engage in regulation and oversight of the Internet and whose decision-making
processes, unlike those of democratic governments, are both inaccessible and
unaccountable to those most affected by the decisions.

The recent controversy surrounding Truste is a case in point. This nonprofit
entity substitutes for government in providing a stamp of approval for Web
sites' privacy policies. But when Yahoo abruptly changed its policy
preferences for consumers without their consent, Truste allowed Yahoo to
continue to carry its "trustmark." There is no public accountability for
Truste in making that decision.

Lynn's call for government representatives is all right as far as it goes,
but it can only be seen as a first step in a larger process. It is time to
consider whether circumstances have changed and whether there is a more
appropriate way for the decisions now vested in ICANN to be addressed in
another institution. This search will help highlight the criteria for an
effective ICANN should it earn the right to continue through a set of
internal reforms.

ICANN's mission needs to be narrowed radically from the direction it has
been heading. In addition, the ICANN board needs to invite wide, multisector
participation that includes noncommercial interests along with the private
sector. Nongovernmental organizations in particular lend legitimacy to
efforts where they are involved.

Even with a narrowing of the mission and wider participation, oversight of
ICANN is still needed and ICANN needs to develop better internal
accountability mechanisms. No self-regulatory organization I am aware of
functions without some form of serious public oversight.

And internally, ICANN needs clear, publicly available procedures for the
resolution of complaints and the development of due-process principles.
Additionally, ICANN staff should be kept accountable to a clear set of
professional norms and standards established by ICANN's board and overseen
by outsiders.

Finally, ICANN's processes and decisions need to be made more transparent.
This would include holding open meetings as well as creating a process for
systematically documenting decisions in a way that explains the rationale
behind policy options and ICANN's actions.

Making fair and effective public policy in our networked society is an
enormous challenge, and one that won't be overcome just because we have
begun to recognize the inherent complexities. But we will be heading in the
right direction if we keep the global public interest at the forefront.

***********

Baird is president of the New York-based Markle Foundation, which promotes
communications industries that address public needs.



--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love at cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040