Internet governance inevitably involves the creation and operation of specific institutions. This note regards one such institution, ICANN. Most of this note is a short summary of ICANN’s history and structure with a brief comment on the relation between its form and function.

I have been involved in the Arpanet^[1] and Internet from the beginning, including the creation of the Request for Comments series of notes and chairing of the Network Working Group 1968-71. I was the first area director for security in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 1989-94, founding chair of ICANN’s Security and Stability Committee (SSAC) 2002-2008(TK), and ICANN board member 2003-2017, including board chair 2011-2017. This note reflects only my own opinions and do not speak for anyone else or any organization.

The Creation and Structure of ICANN

One of the first open Internet governance institutions was the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), though some might argue it evolved out of earlier organizations. Each Internet organization has grown out of specific needs. Usually something needs to be coordinated or managed, and often this is done first in an informal, low key way. As the needs grow, a more formal organization emerges. ICANN originated in this fashion. The domain name system (DNS) grew out of a need for a more flexible addressing system. For many years, Jon Postel and a small team at the University of Southern California (USC) administered top level of the DNS along with the underlying address space and protocol parameter registries. These functions were known collectively as the IANA functions.

With the explosive expansion of the Internet during the 1990s, and the inclusion of commercial networks, Postel’s small operation was overwhelmed, and it became clear a more formal and robust organization was needed. ICANN was the result, but the creation of ICANN posed a somewhat peculiar challenge. The IANA function serves the global Internet, but its funding came entirely from the U.S. Government. The new organization needed to be less tied to the U.S. government and more visibly responsive to the entire global set of Internet users. The only existing worldwide organization that represented most nations was the United Nations and its various components such as the ITU. However, the U.N. works through the national governments. In contrast, the Internet was spawned and nurtured by the U.S. and other governments that successively removed themselves from their sponsorship and oversight in favor of private sector solutions. The challenge was how to create a global organization based on participation from all sectors, i.e. based on a multi-stakeholder model, not one whose primary coordination was via national governments, i.e. a multilateral organization. What resulted is ICANN’s novel organization.

ICANN was created in 1998 as a not-for-profit corporation. As with any corporation, it has a staff headed by a president and chief executive officer (CEO) and is overseen by a board of directors. In addition, it was created with an unusual governance mechanism. Seven stakeholder groups formed by volunteers from the community also play a formal role in the governance of ICANN. These are called Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. The Supporting Organizations are the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country Code Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). The Advisory Committees are the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). These groups appoint several members to the board, develop formal policies that are in effect binding on the corporation, and provide advice. These groups all report to the ICANN board, not to the staff, though their work is often supported by ICANN staff members.

This aspect of ICANN’s structure is unlike any other organization. In an outside review of the ICANN board several years, reviewers commented that in other organizations, including the American Red Cross, which involves a very large number of volunteers, the volunteers report to the staff. In contrast, in ICANN, volunteers have specific and binding powers and report to the board.

The Quest for Legitimacy

While the overt mission of ICANN is the continued administration of the IANA function and oversight of the companies that sell use of domain names in the GTLD space, another major albeit implicit mission of ICANN was to gain the acceptance of its global role. There was no de jure mechanism for accomplishing this. Instead, ICANN had to gain acceptance by a combination of delivery against its formal mission and a very substantial public relations effort conducted worldwide with governments, businesses, civil society, and academia. The main components of this quest have been regular, open, and free ICANN meetings across all continents; travel support for students and members of each constituency, particularly from less developed parts of the world; and forceful responses to a variety of lawsuits. ICANN’s budget has also increased from almost nothing when it was first formed to about $140MM annually, thus giving it the resources to carry out both its explicit and implicit missions.

By some measures, these efforts have been successful and ICANN’s continued existence seems assured for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, ICANN’s emphasis on recognition and its primary focus on inclusiveness and adherence to process have had a major effect. It is virtually impossible to do anything without making sure all parties are involved. Technical problems are almost always approached via negotiations among competing parties instead of a cooperative problem-solving task. As a consequence, it sometimes takes years – or longer – instead of days or weeks to adjust operating procedures.

The Transition

From its creation until October 2016, the U.S. Government continued to provide oversight over ICANN and a degree of institutional protection through two separate mechanisms. One was a formal contract for IANA services between ICANN and the U.S. Government’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency within the Department of Commerce. The other was a series of less formal documents that outlined the role of ICANN and called for regular reviews of various ICANN functions.

When ICANN was created in late 1998, it was expected both of these mechanisms would be phased out within two years, i.e. by 2000. Many governments and stakeholders were requesting such a move from the U.S. Government in supporting an ICANN governance model that was not dependent on a single government. For multiple reasons, the original arrangement continued for many years. Finally, in March 2014, NTIA proclaimed it was time for ICANN to be on its own and no longer under the stewardship of the U.S. Government. Rather than simply phase out the two mechanisms abruptly, NTIA asked that the community express its opinions. The community took the opportunity to express a wide variety of concerns. It took two and a half years and considerable expenditures, much of it in legal fees, to complete the process.

A significant result of the deliberations by the community was the creation of yet another layer of governance around ICANN called the Empowered Community. The Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees were given additional roles including the power to recall either individual board members or the whole board, and the power to approve or disapprove bylaw changes.

An important but subtle issue debated during the creation of this Empowered Community was whether the Empowered Community would have broad general powers comparable to the shareholders in a corporation or more limited powers. Many people involved in the debate expected the result would be the former. The counter argument, which prevailed, is that ICANN serves the entire Internet community, not just the constituencies represented by the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees.

How Effective is ICANN?

ICANN is structurally composed of constituencies representing vested interests. It has a technical and managerial mission, but the dominant mode of interaction is negotiation based on its structure. Adherence to policy processes is the primary determinant of what it does and how it does it. There are no well-defined metrics for measuring ICANN’s actual effectiveness. Perhaps with the Transition completed three years ago, it’s time for ICANN and the ICANN community to develop effectiveness and efficiency metrics in addition to adherence to multi-stakeholder processes.

And as the Internet community creates additional organizations to address various aspects of Internet governance, the community might consider such organizations can be effective and efficient in addition to inclusive.

^[1] The Arpanet was the first heterogenous, general-purpose computer network. It was in operation beginning in 1969. Multiple network projects both within the U.S. Government and around the world followed, and the interconnection of these networks became the Internet.