2.2.5.1.3 Perception of ICANN's Mission and the Need for Public Representation

Public attitudes towards ICANN diverge significantly in North America, though apparently not along national lines. Responses from both American and Canadian interviewees about ICANN and about Internet governance in general were markedly similar, and suggest that nationally-oriented differences of opinion in North America were less influential to the election than in other regions.

To the (limited) extent that North Americans are cognizant of ICANN's existence and activities, they seem receptive to the notion that a non-governmental body would have responsibility for technical coordination online. And yet, in the significantly smaller population of those familiar with ICANN's activities, responses to ICANN are extremely mixed, and Internet "experts" have expressed serious reservations about the organization's activities so far.

The problem may lie in differing perceptions about just what "technical coordination" truly entails and implies. These perceptions lie on a continuum; at one end, ICANN is seen as engaging in a truly narrow set of activities, with such narrowness diminishing the need for public representation within the organization. In this light, ICANN is seen as a body that is best administered by technical experts, with little or no broad public input.

At the other end, even ICANN's technical decisions are considered to have obvious policy implications. According to this argument, many of ICANN's most conspicuous decisions to date have been nominally technical in nature, but have had enormous policy implications. Recent examples include the decisions to approve new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), as well as the amended agreements between VeriSign, ICANN, and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Both of these decisions, according to this view, had impacts that went beyond the scope of ICANN's mission, as established by its founding documents and bylaws.

Because there is no consensus about the true and proper nature of ICANN's mission-and, in fact, there are further variations of opinion that fall between these diametrically opposed views-questions have emerged about ICANN's legitimacy that are difficult to answer. Indeed, even among those who share similar views of ICANN's mission, there are differences of opinion about the role of public representation within that framework. Some people interviewed believed that, by opening up ICANN to the sort of public voice that is typical of government organizations, there is a danger of ICANN "mission creep"-that ICANN's actions would begin to spread beyond its original mandate. Others argue that public representation would actually help constrain ICANN from usurping authority in an inappropriate manner.

So, there is far from a broad consensus about ICANN's proper role, and there is even greater variation of opinion about the best way that public representation can keep ICANN on the right course (or whether there is any role for public representation at all). In fact, many respondents said it is this very lack of clarity that has plagued ICANN and its processes from the start.

2.2.5.1.2 Electoral systems and traditions

2.2.5.2.1.1 Voter registration