ICANN - but not yet

Internet spared FIFA-like governance risks, for now

The internet has been spared a FIFA-like governance risk — for now. Uncle Sam is delaying the transfer of control over domain names to an international watchdog. Waiting makes sense. Whatever replaces the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, needs to be thought-through, representative and accountable.

Like soccer before it became a global business, the online world was largely organised by enthusiasts. Volunteers and institutions worked in the 1980s through government contracts to coordinate a far-flung system of assigning website names and numbers — the likes of <I>.com, .edu </I>and <I>.org. </I>The task seemed simple enough until 1998, when the number of applications for addresses reached about 200,000 each month.

Complaints of trademark violations, uncertain rules and government-created monopolies prompted the United States to hand administrative responsibility to ICANN. The government, though, kept control over what is essentially the master internet-protocol address file. If ICANN slipped up, the feds could step in.

It has worked well enough. But the plan was always to transfer control to a global institution. Edward Snowden’s revelations about US internet monitoring provoked an international outcry to speed up the process.

As FIFA has shown, though, power-grabs and graft can be tough to resist when there’s a lucrative global resource at stake. The soccer World Cup is one thing, but the potential profit from doling out desirable internet addresses is mind-boggling.

What’s more, not all countries share America’s view that the internet should be largely free of restrictions. Policing what’s said, shown or sold online — and who can access it — could become a minefield if certain governments or even companies gained too much influence.

As a result of the complexities, the Commerce Department has delayed handing over the reins until at least 2016. Maybe the task will go to a version of ICANN with beefed-up checks and balances involving various governments, individuals and public and private organizations. Some have suggested a United Nations agency, but that would raise technical and political questions.

It’s worth taking the time to create a transparent and independent entity that the online world can trust. Otherwise, soccer-style governance trouble could infect cyberspace.