On May 31, 2002, a special committee appointed by the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) issued its recommendations for reform of ICANN governance. The committee adopted some of the recommendations made by ICANN President Stuart Lynn in February, but rejected his proposal that governments be given seats on the ICANN board in lieu of voting by Internet users worldwide. Lynn's plan drew opposition from critics for proposing to eliminate the at-large positions which were intended to give the world’s 500 million users a direct voice in ICANN.
The committee’s plan, like Lynn’s, assigns seven seats on the ICANN board to the heads of organizations representing domain name sellers, security experts, government delegates, and other established technical and commercial groups. Another five to seven seats would be chosen by a nominating committee to represent the Internet community as a whole. The report did not elaborate on the composition of that nominating committee. The plan provides that complaints could be filed with an ombudsman, or be heard by an independent arbitration forum, in cases where an outsider believed ICANN was violating its bylaws.
The committee consists of four members of the ICANN board, but its report stated that it did not represent the official views of the board. The committee requested public comment and expressed hope that a governance reform plan would be approved at ICANN’s upcoming meeting in Bucharest to be held at the end of June. "For ICANN to be successful in the future, when it will face even more difficult challenges, it must evolve into a more effective entity," the report said.
Why This Matters: The committee’s report stressed that it did not represent the official position of the ICANN board, but it was released just five days after the board met over the Memorial Day weekend to coordinate its approach on the issue. While it presents a new direction, Lynn’s suggestion that government re-enter the picture may not go away too easily. Many legislators have been displeased with the governance of ICANN and others are baffled by how the organization makes decisions. One thing is clear, however, if ICANN fails to reorganize its governance soon, it increases the likelihood that those who want government intervention will prevail.
This article originally appeared in ADLAW By Request, a publication of Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood LLP.
The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.