As the Internet becomes more widespread, pervasive and mature, policymakers worldwide are recognizing the need for new modes of governance and coordination to address the global challenges that the Internet poses. Some nation-states are deferring to nontraditional, global coordinating or policymaking organizations, either for guidance in harmonizing national lawmaking or for the actual creation of binding policy. These entities are making decisions that once would have been made by nation-states through traditional legislation and administrative rulemaking.
This shift in the locus of societal decision-making represents an important development and challenge for governance and social coordination as we know it. Such a trend may fulfill its promise to enable efficient, stable and international policymaking to support a rapidly growing industry, but will not do so legitimately without adequate mechanisms for protecting the public interest on a global level.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names (ICANN) represents such an effort to create a new mode of coordination or "governance" outside the traditional framework of international organizations and national governments. Its key objectives include promoting core principles of administration for the Internet:
As such, ICANN was designed to represent stakeholders directly, rather than through nation states. Moreover its decisions are to be guided by consensus. Yet, the legitimacy of ICANN's structure and decision-making process has been questioned by various players in the Internet community. The central plank of this criticism is that ICANN's organizational structures and activities do not comport with the ethos of good and democratic governance. This need for new global governance structures that include the public voice underpins the current debate of ICANN's At-Large Membership and forms the subject of this report. In particular, our goal is to offer some insights in how to address the current debate about democracy and legitimacy at ICANN.
The idea that Internet coordination should include some sort of membership body of Internet users has been apparent in Internet policy debates since at least 1992 (then in reference to the Internet Society ). Since ICANN's formation, the organization has been plagued by a deep confusion over who exactly should be represented on its board. Its bylaws call for an "At-Large Membership" of Internet users from which just under half of the ICANN Directors should be elected, yet this principle for direct representation of "user" interests has never been fully satisfied.
The first At-Large Membership election, held in 2000, was widely seen as an important experiment to establish representation, accountability, and transparency in ICANN by giving interested individuals a means to be informed about and participate directly in ICANN governance.
In the aftermath of the election, the ICANN board created an independent Study Committee to undertake an "At-Large Membership Study" (http://www.atlargestudy.org/) in order to evaluate the 2000 election, to assess the role that a user membership body should play in ICANN, and to determine how best to structure individual user participation and representation. The board emphasized that such a study should be structured so as to allow and encourage the participation of organizations worldwide.
This Report is a response to the above call for participation and study of the At-Large Membership. It is the result of research conducted by the "NGO and Academic ICANN Study" (NAIS) group. Our report addresses the need to ensure inclusion of a diverse set of regional, sectoral and disciplinary viewpoints in a study of the ICANN membership; and connects advocacy groups and experts of all regions that share certain public interest concerns and that can produce a valuable, independent and legitimate study. The main objectives of this report are:
This report poses a variety of questions and probes answers with regard to: Why is there a need to include the public voice within ICANN? How was it reflected during and since the creation of ICANN? How is the At-Large Membership organized and structured worldwide? How did the At-Large election take place regionally? What models of representation, elections and governance exist in the region and is there a relationship? How were the election results and possible complaints communicated, perceived and evaluated by the different stakeholders? What improvements with regard to participation and representation of different interests within ICANN were suggested? And perhaps more importantly: What lessons can be learned with regard to the procedures and processes of an At-Large membership and the structure of the ICANN Board? Are there other participation and representation mechanisms for individual Internet users that should be considered that enable legitimacy, effectiveness and efficiency within ICANN?
As such, this report is structured in five parts. The first part considers the need to include the public voice within ICANN, first from a value-based approach and then by analyzing ICANN's founding documents, public statements made by its officers, and its agreements with the U.S. government which committed ICANN to meaningful representation of the Internet user community on its board of directors. The second part reviews comparatively the At-Large Election and the way the At-Large Membership is structured. The third part contains our final recommendations for how to provide structure and representation for the At-Large Membership. The fourth part discusses the specific actions and a proposed timeline for ICANN to follow in implementing our recommendations. In the fifth part, we summarize our conclusions. And finally, in an addendum, we discuss the varied options we considered when contemplating the best way to improve user participation and representation within ICANN.
This report was prepared over a period of nine months by an international team of academics and representatives of non-governmental organizations. The NAIS team includes members who have long involvement with ICANN and others with expertise in issues of Internet technology, election systems and political theory. The report is based on extensive outreach and consultation on a worldwide basis. In preparation of this report, NAIS members conducted over ninety interviews (see list of interviewees in Appendix III). NAIS held public outreach sessions at the ICANN meetings in Melbourne in March, 2001 and in Stockholm in June, 2001. In addition, NAIS published an interim report (available at http://www.naisproject.org/report/interim/) reflecting our tentative conclusions about the ICANN regional elections held in 2000, and options for moving forward. This final report is based in part on reaction and feedback to the interim report.
The NAIS team includes members from each of the five ICANN regions of the globe. Our collaborative efforts in producing this report relied extensively on online consultation and exchange through a team mailing list. We also held regular conference calls, and met face-to-face in team working sessions at ICANN meetings over the last year in Los Angeles, Melbourne and Stockholm, as well as additional meetings in New York and Washington, DC.
| Table of Contents | 1. The Public Voice, Legitimacy and ICANN |
© 2001 NAISProject.org
Privacy Policy
webmaster@naisproject.org