Rethinking Accountability in Cyberspace: A New Perspective on ICANN

Abstract

One of the most persistent debates regarding Internet governance concerns ICANN's accountability deficit. This paper identifies the habitual application of a state frame of reference, by which scholars and politicians address accountability issues regarding the domain name system, as the source of this debate. Re-examination of the assumptions underlying two exemplary solutions for the deficit, direct elections and intergovernmental supervision, shows that the state frame of reference informing this debate ultimately breaks down. The availability of alternative services renders the call for a state-based model by which to judge and design ICANN's accountability provisions superfluous. The latter part of the paper shows that a market model is more appropriate to assess ICANN's accountability mechanisms and its role among other domain name services providers. In addition, a market frame of reference enables us to understand ICANN's hybrid organisational structure better.

Notes

1. See The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘ICANN general information (factsheet)’, available at www.icann.org/general/ (accessed 19 March 2007).

2. For the purposes of this paper, this rough sketch of domain name resolving suffices. For a more in depth treatment see National Research Council (U.S.) Signposts in Cyberspace: The Domain Name System and Internet Navigation, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.

3. Authoritative servers are servers that get their information directly from the root zone file.

4. TLDs are divided into general (g)TLD's like .org, .com etc. and country code (cc) TLDs like .uk and .de etc. For an overview of registrations see Verisign Inc. ‘The Verisign domain report’, The Domain Name Industry Brief, Vol 2, 2005.

5. This is a simplification of reality. Caching makes it possible to access content directly avoiding the use of authoritative name servers. The data in the caches however needs regular updating in order to guarantee the validity of the information. Eventually, the caches will also contain updated information regarding the deleted data (see op cit, note 2).

6. The debate concerning ICANN's decision not to add the proposed .xxx domain to the root zone file forms an interesting illustration, see for example the ICM Registry website ‘The voluntary adult top-level domain (TLD) - .xxx’, available at www.icmregistry.com (accessed 19 March 2007). See also The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘ICANN publishes revision to proposed ICM (.XXX) Registry Agreement’, 2007. ‘ICANN announcements’, available at www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-05jan07.htm (accessed 19 March 2007). The question whether to add this TLD to the root zone file raises implications regarding freedom of speech, protection of citizens, privacy issues and so on. Cf. L R Lessig and P Resnick ‘Zoning speech on the Internet: a legal and technical model’ Michigan Law Review Vol 98, No 2, 1999.

7. Cf. H Klein and M Mueller ‘What to do about ICANN: a proposal for structural reform’, 2005, available at www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/igp-icannreform.pdf (accessed 19 March 2007).

8. J Weinberg ‘ICANN and the problem of legitimacy’ Duke Law Journal Vol 50, No 1, pp. 187–260, 2000.

9. See ibid, note 130 and M Froomkin ‘Wrong turn in cyberspace: using ICANN to route around the APA and the constitution’ Duke Law Journal Vol 50, No 1, pp 17-184, 2000.

10. See D Hunter ‘ICANN and the concept of democratic deficit’ Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Vol 36, 2003. For Klein and Mueller's comments see op cit, note 7.

11. See H Klein ‘The pro-democracy movement in ICANN’, 2001, available at http://atlargestudy.org./kleinpaper.html (accessed 19 March 2007).

12. J G Palfrey Jr ‘The end of the experiment: how ICANN's foray into global internet democracy failed’, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No 93, 2004; Berkman Research Publication No. 2004-02, available at http://ssrn.com/paper=487644 (accessed 19 March 2007).

13. For ICANN's post reform bylaws see The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, 15 December 2002, available at www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm (accessed 19 March 2007).

14. Working Group on Internet Governance ‘Report of the WGIG’, 2005, available at www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf (accessed 19 March 2007).

15. The source of the power is; Department of Commerce (USG) & Network Solutions, I. N. ‘Amendment 11 to Cooperative Agreement between NSI and U.S. Government’, 1998, available at www.icann.org/nsi/coopagmt-amend11-07oct98.htm (accessed 19 March 2007). While NSI continues to operate the primary root server, it shall request written direction from an authorized USG official before making or rejecting any modifications, additions or deletions to the root zone file. See also M Mueller ‘US unilateral control of ICANN backfires in WSIS’, 1 October 2005, available at http://mail.klein.org/pipermail/incom-I/2005-October/000854.html (accessed 19 March 2007).

16. See for the UN's commitment; World Summit on the Information Society ‘Plan of action’, 12 December 2003, available at www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/swiw/doc/S03-SIS-DOC-0005!!PDF-E.pdf (accessed 13 March 2007).

17. Europe has shown concern about the US position since the nineties. At the WSIS Europe held an intermediate position pleading for an independent forum which would act as a platform for all stakeholders. V Reding ‘Opportunities and challenges of the ubiquitous world and some words on Internet governance’, 2005, available at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/docs/speeches/ubiquitous_world_20051710.pdf (accessed 19 March 2007).

18. United States Government ‘Domain names: US principles on the Internet's domain name and addressing system’, 2005, available at www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNS principles_06302005.htm (accessed 19 March 2007).

19. See World Summit on the Information Society ‘Tunis ‘Summit of Solutions’ now in sight’, 30 September 2005, available at www.itu.int/wsis/newsroom/press/releases/wsis/2005/30sep.htm (accessed 13 March 2007), and K McCarthy ‘US wins net governance battle’, 16 November 2005, available at www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/16/us_wins_net_governance (accessed 19 March 2007).

20. This is expressed in Lincoln's Gettysburg address when he talked about government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ cf. L H Tribe American Constitutional Law Foundation Press, New York, 2000, p 19ff.

21. D Post, ‘Governing Cyberspace ‘Where is James Madison when we need him?’’ ICANNWatch, 1999, available at www.icannwatch.org/archive/governing_cyberspace.htm (accessed 19 March 2007).

22. This principle has a long tradition. An early exposition of democratic theory can already be found in Aristotle, T A Sinclair et al, The Politics, Harmondsworth, New York, Penguin, Book IV, 1290a ff.

23. Op cit, note 18.

24. See op cit, note 2, p 103.

25. Open Root Server Network ‘ORSN (about and FAQ)’, available at http://eurpean.nl.orsn.net/about.php, and http://european.nl.orsn.net/faq.php (accessed 19 March 2007).

26. Ibid.

27. Apart from the ORSN, there are many satellite servers (copies of the authoritative server). It remains to be seen how many of them are likely to copy unwanted US deletions in the root zone file.

28. The debate regarding the US domination of the root zone file focuses mainly on the possible deletions of existing TLDs due to US influence.

29. For an overview see Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) ‘Generic top-level domains’, available at www.iana.org/gtld/gtld.htm (accessed 19 March 2007), and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) ‘Index by TLD Code’, available at www.iana.org./root-whois/inex.html (accessed 19 March 2007).

30. See Paul Vixie in an interview, C Rhoads ‘Endangered domain’ Wall Street Journal 19 January 2006, available at www.dotirl.com/content/view/3 (accessed 19 March 2007).

31. AlterNic, eDNS and Iperdome for example were early alternative DNS providers.

32. New.Net ‘New.net domain names’, available at www.new.net (accessed 19 March 2007).

33. Tiscali ‘About us’, available at www.tiscali.com/about (accessed 19 March 2007).

34. New.Net ‘New.Net partners’, available at www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp (accessed 19 March 2007).

35. RightNow Technologies ‘RightNow powers CRM For top Latin American network services provider’, 2005, available at www.rightnow.com/news/article.php?id=4495 (accessed 19 March 2007).

36. Unified Root ‘FAQ’, available at www.unifiedroot.com/dynroot/page_82 (accessed 19 March 2007). Unified Root also works on a commercial basis in order to promote the liberalisation of the domain name market. It has also contracted Tiscali in order to provide access to their extended universe see also TechRepublic Staff ‘Dutch tech firm want to rid the Web of the .com’, 26 November 2005, available at http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/2100-1009_11-5972183.html (accessed 19 March 2007).

37. Public-Root ‘Public-Root (homepage)’, available at http://public-root.com (accessed 19 March 2007). Public-root offers its global root server system as well to alternative domain names. It has recently launched a TLD system in Turkey see TDN Staff ‘Top level domains launched in Turkey’ Turkish Daily News, 23 June 2005, available at www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=16484. (accessed 19 March 2007).

38. PDO Staff ‘China adds top-level domain names’ People's Daily Online, 28 February 2006, available at http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html (accessed 19 March 2007).

39. BBC Staff ‘China and the break-up of the internet’ BBC News, 7 March 2006, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/techonology/4779660.stm (accessed 19 March 2007).

40. R MacKinnon ‘China's new domain names: lost in translation’ RConversation, 28 February 2006, available at http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2006/02/chinas_new_doma.html#comment-14511452 (accessed 19 March 2007).

41. Bylaws ICANN at The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘Bylaws’, Article II, Section 1, 15 December 2002, available at www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm (accessed 19 March 2007).

42. Ibid, Article VII Section 4 and 5.

43. Op cit, note 41, Article VI Section 2(1).

44. Op cit, note 41, Article XIII Section 2.

45. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘At-large Advisory Committee (homepage)’, available at http://alac.icann.org (accessed 19 March 2007).

46. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘Governmental Advisory Committee (homepage)’, available at http://gac.icann.org (accessed 19 March 2007).

47. T Bettinger et al, Domain Name Law and Practice: An International Handbook Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

48. Op cit, note 41, Article XI, Section 2(1)(j).

49. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘Governmental Advisory Committee (about)’, available at http://gac.icann.org/web/about/gac-outreach_English.htm (accessed 19 March 2007).

50. For an example of public policy discussed within the GAC concerned the cooperation of law enforcement with regards to the potential .xxx TLD, see The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘GAC Communiqué -Wellington, New Zealand’, 28 March 2006, available at http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac24com.pdf (accessed 19 March 2007).

51. Op cit, note 41, Article VII, Section 2.

52. Op cit, note 41, Article IX, Section 3(1).

53. Op cit, note 41, Article X, Section 3(1).

54. See United Nations Charter Article 2(1).

55. See for example M Mueller ‘Competing DNS Roots: creative destruction of just plain destruction?’ ITU Strategy and Policy Unit Lunch Seminar, 23 November 2001, available at www. itu.int/osg/spu/seminars/mueller/tprc2001.pdf (accessed 19 March 2007).

56. See for the Chinese additions cf. op cit, note 40.