Once again, the debate over governorship of ICANN, the semi-private body which doles out new top-level domains (like .com, .eu, .org) every so-often, has resurfaced, this time over the European Union’s demand for the end of the collaboration agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Neither side – the EU nor the US – wants to budge over ICANN’s governorship, but fears expressed in the United States primarily center over whether a globally-restructured de-governmentalization of ICANN would lead to the body taking a more activist, less impartial approach towards its governorship of domain allocation. The more extreme fears are that an internationalization of ICANN may result in it kowtowing to the demands of governments – directly or by corporate proxy – for the deposition or censorship of certain media from the Internet, an affront to the long tradition of U.S. constitutional upholding of free speech; such a fear stems from the practices of governments such as those of the People’s Republic of China, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and Iran towards their own domestic media.
Ironically, such was the fear inside the United States in the last decade regarding the demands of domestic religious organizations for the creation of the .xxx domain as a place of outer, censored darkness to cast and imprison all "mature/adult" media; this move was ultimately defeated by ICANN for free speech motivations, but it ultimately showed that the danger of affronting free speech and free thought on the Internet was as much domestic as it was international, and as much religious as it was political.
In my opinion, the fear of foreign censorship of international media and the demand for a non-governmental restructuring of such an important international body should compliment each other rather than rule each other out. Why not incorporate international organizations which act both as effective checks on the power of ICANN and its actions as well as watchdogs for freedom of speech on an international, Internet-wide level?
No, its not just a global democratization of ICANN that is necessary (although proportional representation is a good way to gauge the fuller breadth of international opinion and interest), but also an introduction of constitutionalism, judicial review (and restraint), and other features that those U.S. free speech advocates who would feel more at ease with U.S. governance or influence would wish to be copied and enhanced to an internationalized governance.
But of course, one person on Digg has highlighted the political nature of the debate over ICANN, which may not be the necessitating factor for such a move; ultimately, money and heightened economic factors have to be involved with the lack of any shift of ICANN governance before there is a stronger change of the status quo.
