Governed from Cyberspace

At its recent meeting in Marina Del Rey, California, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers announced that ".info", ".biz" and ".name" as well as four other top-level domain names would soon join the familiar ".com" and ".gov" on computer screens. But a question that still leaves many people stumped is, what is ICANN and why is it making decisions regarding, well, anything?

ICANN is not governmental in the usual sense. It does not oversee a country, State or territory. It does not have an army or even a police force.

At present, its authority appears somewhat limited: ICANN has responsibility for the management of the internet's address book.

That is, it makes rules that determine who gets the rights to website names and manages the technical facilities that make CNN's website appear when you type "http://www.cnn.com" into your browser.

ICANN is not part of the US Government -- or any other government for that matter. It's a private, non-profit corporation created by the late Jon Postel, one of the architects of the internet.

As significant as it is to net aficionados and entrepreneurs, ICANN is more noteworthy as a harbinger of government evolution in the globalisation era. With trade, communications, crime -- almost every form of human activity -- routinely crossing borders, political boundaries are less relevant every day. As a result, the mechanisms we rely upon to regulate everything from accounting standards to telephony are creaky and outdated.

How can the US Food and Drug Administration meaningfully protect Americans from dubious drugs if manufacturers around the world have direct access to US consumers? How can local law enforcement officials from Germany or Bolivia punish operators of rogue gambling operations based in the Caribbean? How can Australian financial regulators verify the claims made by issuers of stocks and bonds on the other side of the world?

The solution is a world government run by people in polyester jumpsuits. But this approach is far-fetched. National governments will not vote themselves out of existence -- and most people would look terrible in unitards. More likely, entities like the World Trade Organisation and the World Intellectual Property Organisation will proliferate and governments of the world will slowly cede to them greater authority over international transactions and activities. They will propagate and enforce regulations that apply in all jurisdictions.

ICANN takes the governance experiment one step further. Unlike treaty-based organisations, ICANN hopes to sever all formal ties to national governments and be responsible only to "the internet community". This is immensely appealing -- on paper. But the early experiences of ICANN indicate that this model of quasi-government introduces vexing challenges.

• Representativeness: Identifying those eligible to participate in ICANN decision-making is difficult and contentious. Vocal critics argue that ICANN is biased towards corporations interested in commercial property rights. Recently, ICANN bowed to objections and cancelled an indirect election of new board members. In its stead, it ran a direct election open to anyone who registered in advance. Although marred by procedural complaints, the election saw at least one ardent ICANN critic join the board. ICANN has subsequently delayed additional elections and extended terms for some incumbent directors. Not surprisingly, critics have again cried foul. Are objections to the composition of the ICANN board likely to end anytime soon? Don't bet on it.
  
  
• Challenges to authority: Unlike traditional governments, ICANN has no monopoly on force, physical or otherwise. Indeed, there are ways to circumvent or ignore ICANN. For example, even as ICANN has established and implemented procedures for arbitration of domain-name disputes, opportunities to litigate disagreements abound in various jurisdictions. Maintaining authority is difficult when dissatisfied parties can shop for a new venue.
  
  
• Accountability: At present, the US Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration informally oversees ICANN. In the future, however, it is anticipated that ICANN will not look to Uncle Sam for guidance. But that will leave ICANN unsupervised. Who will hear objections? Who will investigate alleged wrongdoing?

  These concerns are expressed now in theoretical terms. But "what if?" can quickly become "what now?" ICANN raised a few eyebrows by granting the Palestinian Authority its own top-level domain name, the same status accorded nation-States. The resulting diplomatic hiccup provided a small reminder that organisations have a funny habit of using authority in ways that few imagine.

  ICANN may some day make decisions that affect the ability of national governments to protect property rights or police internet transactions. The consequences could be more than symbolic.

  ICANN remains an obscure entity with an odd acronym. So was the WTO before the violent protests in Prague and Seattle. The world is changing and government is adapting, taking new forms to accommodate the new reality. Who can tell you what it will look like? ICANN.

  Copyright 2000, Australian Financial Review