Why and how is ICANN an exclusionary space?

The role of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has been much debated over the past few years for various reasons. While ICANN claims itself to be an organisation which is purely into technical oversight of the Internet, there are several instances which prove that issues which are passed off as ‘technical’ clearly have a political hue to it, which brings it in the domain for public policy. By denying that it is the de facto institution which makes public policy and yet indulging in decisions which affect the lives of the entire world community, ICANN has clearly proved that there is an urgent need of an alternative governance framework which will address issues of Internet Governance.

This post specifically talks about ways in which ICANN operates and how those operations lead to alienating and excluding a majority of the world’s population (who may or may not be connected to the Internet) which call for the establishment of a democratic governance framework which will address issues of Internet Governance.

Exclusion is a very complex process and operates in a number of ways. One way is to judge it through its results – I don’t see anyone in ICANN – or anyone interacting with ICANN - who could be seen as representing (or speaking for) disadvantaged people from developing countries (this could be called the development constituency, for the purpose of the present conversation). It could either be because ICANN’s functions do not impact these people, which is clearly not the case. Or that these people are excluded from accessing ICANN policy making structures.

Other than to judge it in this direct way, as I said, exclusion is a very complex process. But, I will try to quickly summarize some points on what makes ICANN inaccessible to these people.

• ICANN proceeds from ideological principles which are alien to these people, and not acceptable to them for a global governance body. It starts with a private sector nomenclature which doesn’t mean the same to these people as it means to ICANNists, and this vocabulary isn’t the practice at global governance bodies. It goes on to its view of the world as a marketplace (and not much else), and to its predominant catering to corporate interests. Its mission and core values speak about the value of competition but forget about values of collaboration (despite it, people have shown the unprecedented possibilities of collaboration on the Internet), it speaks about markets but avoids terms like publics and commons…. ICANN zealously upholds IPR but hasn’t done anything to promote universal access to knowledge. People know which places will welcome them, and which to avoid. No one declares exclusion.
• Typical governance structures try to over-represent interests that need special protection, and build strong systems to minimize influence of vested interests that already dominate and could skew the processes their way. This is the essence of the principle of equity. ICANN seems to actively encourage the latter. There are good amount of elements in ICANN of working as a professional association of a particular trade which does everything to maximize its membership’s interests (which have an ever present tendency to go against wider public interest). The development constituency is very wary of such ‘privatized governance’ and it has seen its ill-effects in many social sectors… They aren’t willing to be party to new forms of such governance which can be trend-setting for the information society.
• ICANN hides its public policy impacts and tries to present itself as a technical coordination body. Now, these people (the development constituency), I refer to, and those who speak for them, are not techno-fascinated and are NOT interested in technical management. They do not want to be in a body which says, well, there isn’t any public policy work that we do. But we all know the public policy impact of ICANN’s functions. I am very clear that the public policy implications of ICANN’s work can be separated from the technical functions and presented in socio-political language of their real content, which, in case of the impact on these excluded people I refer to, will be presented in a way they can connect to. But it doesn’t serve ICANN to do so. It seems to think that its survival in its present form depends on underplaying (and for this purpose camouflaging in technical terms/ discourse) its public policy impact. This doesn’t help participation from other than a charmed circle of insiders.
• ICANN invents and drives a discourse which aids self-preservation. For instance, it speaks of its accountability to the ‘global internet community’. Whether it involves all those who in some ways are internet professionals (including internet businesses), whereby it becomes a trade body, or all those who use the Internet, or all those who are impacted by the Internet (which is practically, everyone in this world). One can’t associate with an organization which doesn’t clarify its legitimate constituency. The development constituency works with and for people who may still not be big users of the Internet (if at all), but Internet polices affect them in important ways, including as a set of significant possibilities to change power equations that at present dis-empowers them. One is not sure in interacting with ICANN if one is siding with an insider group which doesn’t consider the outsider group as its constituency.
• Through its individuation of its constituency, and not taking into account that people are organized in various social forms which are as relevant as their individual identities (no doubt done to avoid governments staking the claim to be representing their people) ICANN is able to actively avoid participation of most people. They are increasingly allowing governments in under pressure, but what about others….. Not willing to be discussed at IGF, and not facing those people who cannot access ICANN structures is a further link in, and proof of, this process of exclusion. ICANN just doesn’t speak the language of these people I am talking about, and the two sides have a good distance to travel before they set into a meaningful interaction….. Who is supposed to make the effort? And this is the final test of inclusion/ exclusion. Inclusion doesn’t happen by making self-righteous claims, it happens through an active outreach to constituencies which may feel as outsiders and/or neglected. Does ICANN do it? For starters, they can have a session of interactions at the IGF.

These were some points that come to my mind in describing ICANN’s inaccessibility for some important constituencies… I must say here that I have no doubt that ICANN does some very important global work, and many at ICANN are trying to improve the world in all possible ways. What I mean to stress here is that they need to look out to the larger world with a more open and welcoming mind.