Guiding the future of the Internet

The backdrop of this week’s Senate ICANN hearing is the future of Internet governance.  Since the Obama administration announced that it was breaking the last ties that bind the U.S. Government to ICANN, there’s been a struggle to conjure up a legitimate authority that would stand behind the technical decisions that guide the Internet.

If the U.S. government steps back from it’s current role, will the Internet be in danger of capture by governments that don’t believe in an open and free Internet? And how can we ensure that politics don’t creep into the decisions about the Internet’s future?

{mosads}But ICANN itself should ensure that the future of the Internet is in responsible hands. Since it’s inception in 1998, you can point to three stages of ICANN; The first was a wild west era, when there was little organization and conflict was rife. But around 2005, to its credit ICANN began to professionalize it’s operations and become more responsive with the creation of the Policy Development Process that created a way to make decision within ICANN that were accountable and transparent for the business side of the ICANN equation, the registries and registrars.

Now we head into what is ICANN 3.0, and the stakes are high. The organization will be as independent as its ever been, and must stand up to world governments that will want to bend Internet policy to its national aims. And it fends off governments; ICANN itself must resist mission creep that expands it into policy issues.

So, at the heart of the future of Internet governance is the behavior of ICANN itself. That is why ICANN must convince the Internet community that it is serious about being accountable and making important technical decisions in a transparent way that does not favor one governments opinion over any others.

The words accountability and transparency get thrown around a lot when it comes to ICANN, but they don’t always mean the same to everyone so it’s important to spell them out. A good start would be for ICANN to assure the Internet community on two key principles:

·      Meaningful Redress. ICANN must ensure that there is redress for the community when it is determined that the organization has not acted in accordance with its bylaws, or has acted in an unaccountable manner. There must be a process – and final arbiter – to hold ICANN accountable.

·      Transparency and Openness. ICANN would go a long way towards assuring transparency by creating an open document policy that allows you to follow the decision making process similar to tracking legislation. 

·      A second tier of transparency would be a Freedom of Information function that is administered by an independent third party. That means enabling stakeholders to gain access to appropriate documents and communications that speak to ICANN’s decision-making and policymaking process anytime the process does not show clarity through the regular order. 

If ICANN takes these steps, it will demonstrate that even without the U.S. government serving as a backstop, it’s decisions are based on a sound decision-making process and legitimate. A credible ICANN will have the strength to stand up and resist government pressure to shape its positions for a country’s gain.

That is why the September timetable for the U.S. government to step back from its ICANN role should be a guideline, not a deadline. And the Obama administration, to it’s credit, seems to recognize that it’s more important to get this right than get it done fast.

And as the Senate prepares to explore these issues, it can and must play a constructive role in helping guide the process that leads to an independent ICANN. That means asking tough questions of ICANN and the Commerce Department on what this transition will look like and what are the potential risks to it.

Senators can do that by asking specific questions about the timetable for ICANN independence. And getting past pat answers to the specific issues that must be addressed before the transition takes place. For example, once ICANN is independent, what entity will serve as the arbiter when the community disagrees with an ICANN decision? If we don’t solve that, two bad things will happen. Courtrooms, with long drawn-out battles, will become the new dispute resolution mechanism. And worse, gradually ICANN will lose credibility.

So, there is a lot at stake here, and ICANN must understand it’s in its interest to address these issues, for the sake of its long-term viability. And senator must understand that asking the tough questions now will save grief later.

ICANN 3.0 can be a time of great advancement in the Internet. But it must be built on a foundation of accountability, transparency and the credibility that comes with it.

Tews is a digital policy expert.