Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Power and Multistakeholderism: The ICANN Experiment
View through CrossRef
Functioning under the political oversight of the US government, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is considered today as one of the most powerful private corporations in the world. It is an agreed-upon thesis in the literature on ICANN that the corporation derives its potential power from a combination of technical and political factors1 (see Mueller, 2002; Friedlander and Cooper, 2000; Froomkin, 2000; Kleinwachter, 2000; Weinberg, 2000; Holitscher, 1999; Post, 1999a, b).
First, ICANN was delegated policymaking authority over the single-root Internet Domain Name System (DNS), which translated into the right to decide how many and which top-level domains would be authorized, and who would benefit from the intense user demand for registration services in the most lucrative top-level domains. And, second, ICANN enjoys the unfading US Department of Commerce’s (DoC) support, which culminated, in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) debate (2003 - 2005), in sustaining the US unilateral control over ICANN2.
This paper focuses on the rationalities and practices of policy-making for the Internet DNS as they emerged in the late 1990s and up to 2002, when ICANN was reformed. In this sense, it is an exercise in unraveling “the history of the present” (Michel Foucault).
Title: Power and Multistakeholderism: The ICANN Experiment
Description:
Functioning under the political oversight of the US government, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is considered today as one of the most powerful private corporations in the world.
It is an agreed-upon thesis in the literature on ICANN that the corporation derives its potential power from a combination of technical and political factors1 (see Mueller, 2002; Friedlander and Cooper, 2000; Froomkin, 2000; Kleinwachter, 2000; Weinberg, 2000; Holitscher, 1999; Post, 1999a, b).
First, ICANN was delegated policymaking authority over the single-root Internet Domain Name System (DNS), which translated into the right to decide how many and which top-level domains would be authorized, and who would benefit from the intense user demand for registration services in the most lucrative top-level domains.
And, second, ICANN enjoys the unfading US Department of Commerce’s (DoC) support, which culminated, in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) debate (2003 - 2005), in sustaining the US unilateral control over ICANN2.
This paper focuses on the rationalities and practices of policy-making for the Internet DNS as they emerged in the late 1990s and up to 2002, when ICANN was reformed.
In this sense, it is an exercise in unraveling “the history of the present” (Michel Foucault).
Related Results
Choosing the Right Path to a Permanent Accountability Framework for ICANN
Choosing the Right Path to a Permanent Accountability Framework for ICANN
Over the next month, the ICANN Board will consider its options for ensuring that some framework is in place to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community after ...
Comments of Michael Palage, PFF to Dept. Of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) NOI on 'ICANN 3.0'
Comments of Michael Palage, PFF to Dept. Of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) NOI on 'ICANN 3.0'
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has strayed from the technical coordinating mandate originally envisioned in the 1998 White Paper and has become a q...
ICANN's Economic Reports: Finding the Missing Pieces to the Puzzle
ICANN's Economic Reports: Finding the Missing Pieces to the Puzzle
The global business community and a number of national governments have expressed significant concerns about ICANN's proposal for processing large numbers of applications for new T...
The End of the Experiment: How Icann's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed
The End of the Experiment: How Icann's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed
ICANN's experimentation in running a representative and open corporate decision-making process to manage the domain name system has largely failed. This failure has manifested itse...
ICANN's Implementation Recommendation Team for New gTLDs: Safeguards Needed
ICANN's Implementation Recommendation Team for New gTLDs: Safeguards Needed
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) pledged at its recent Mexico City meeting to establish an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT). This team of 24...
A Jurisdição da ICANN: Desafios Atuais e Prospectivas Futuras
A Jurisdição da ICANN: Desafios Atuais e Prospectivas Futuras
O presente artigo visa analisar os meios existentes de atribuir imunidades jurisdicionais à ICANN para evitar sua submissão às cortes e leis dos Estados Unidos, de forma que a miss...
Controlling Internet Infrastructure: The 'IANA Transition' and ICANN Accountability, Part II
Controlling Internet Infrastructure: The 'IANA Transition' and ICANN Accountability, Part II
In Part 1 of this series on Controlling Internet Infrastructure, we described the “IANA transition,” the U.S. government’s plan to relinquish its special oversight role in connecti...
Disrupting Global Governance: The Internet Whois Service, ICANN, and Privacy
Disrupting Global Governance: The Internet Whois Service, ICANN, and Privacy
The Internet’s Whois service allows anyone to type a domain name into a Web interface and then receive the name and contact details of whoever has registered it. ICANN contracts ma...

