‘Trust me’ is a bad model for Internet governance

When the U.S. government announced last year that it was relinquishing its historic oversight of the Domain Name System (DNS) — the technical architecture of the Internet — stakeholders began working feverishly to construct a secure and stable model for multi-stakeholder Internet governance. The core challenge is that without continued oversight by the U.S. government, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) — the nonprofit organization responsible for managing these key Internet functions — would be operating independently without serious checks and balances. To address this problem, concerned stakeholders have been working to reform ICANN’s system of governance to ensure it is fully accountable to the Internet community. With the clock ticking, it is crucial that these reforms move forward so that the transition can succeed.

{mosads}Creating strong accountability principles has become even more critical in light of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade’s recent inflammatory comments. Last week, during a breakfast with domain name industry insiders, Chehade disparaged the independent team working to create more accountability within ICANN. “There is no one today in the CWG [Community Working Group] who even understands how the functions work,” Chehade said. “I sent my CTO David Conrad to explain to them how the system works. … Frankly, no one there even knew that he was talking about.”

These disappointing comments show that unless the Internet community, including the U.S. government, demands strong accountability reforms, the ICANN CEO is likely to dismiss these efforts out of hand. The greatest concern is that a future CEO or board might take ICANN in an undesirable direction. “Trust me” is not a model for good governance on the Internet or anywhere else.

As I have previously written, the U.S. government has played a role in protecting ICANN from all manner of threats, such as capture by government or private-sector interests, improper management and internal self-dealing. The next best alternative to the United States continuing this role is to empower the Internet community to have greater control over ICANN. The most compelling option to date is to use a feature of California state law that allows nonprofits to have statutory members (ICANN is incorporated in the state). These statutory members could include chairs of the various ICANN “supporting organizations” and “advisory committees” and would have the power to remove board members, overturn board decisions, and control other various checks and balances. To make sure these statutory members do not hold too much power, their actions could be limited to situations that need a supermajority consensus to have an effect.

To ensure the DNS system is protected against future corruption and malfeasance, there are a number of principles that should also be baked into ICANN’s bylaws well before the transition occurs. First, ICANN should have a clear and narrow mandate. ICANN should have its specific responsibilities enumerated by its charter, and it should not be able to deviate from those responsibilities.

Second, ICANN should have a limited budget and revenue. ICANN currently finances its operations by levying fees on the resources it controls. For every domain name that is registered, renewed or transferred, ICANN receives between $0.18 and $0.25 per transaction. This means that the organization’s own financial interests are put at odds with keeping costs down for Internet users and businesses. Without controls, ICANN could easily raise a substantial amount of revenue from the backs of these users with little to no accountability. Therefore, ICANN should not be allowed to transition without strict controls over its budget and the amount of revenue it can access.

Third, ICANN’s bylaws should require it to establish equitable agreements with registries and registrars. This requirement will help protect against sweetheart deals and corruption. And finally, ICANN should commit to openness and transparency. In particular, it should implement an open data action plan that provides convenient and accessible access to key data sets for the public. Open data has become a global best practice among many organizations, such as governments and nongovernment organizations alike.

These principles should be integrated into ICANN’s bylaws now — well before any transition occurs — and any transition plan should make sure that any changes to its bylaws or deviations from these principles require a supermajority of the ICANN board and its members.

Congress should vigorously continue its oversight of this transition process to make sure these principles do not get brushed aside by ICANN’s leadership. Only by putting oversight, accountability and transparency into the DNA of ICANN can we hope to see the multi-stakeholder vision of Internet governance succeed in the years to come.

Castro is the vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF).