Almost 25 years ago, the US government privatized the Internet and created ICANN, a non-profit organization responsible for administering it. The US government retained some control through IANA, but concerns were raised about their dominance after Edward Snowden's revelations in 2013.



In response, the US announced its intention to give the global community more control by transitioning IANA's stewardship to ICANN. However, questions about ICANN's legitimacy were raised as it performs public functions and exercises public powers, leading critics to argue that such services should be monopolies of governments. ICANN justified its position using functionalist arguments, but within the current geopolitical context, this may no longer be enough. The original ideal design for ICANN was never executed, according to Hans Klein.

ICANN has evolved over the last quarter-century and it is now time to evaluate its political authority. ICANN has incorporated mechanisms to justify its legitimacy, such as its board of directors representing various constituencies, gaining recognition from nation-states, and performing its duties without outside intervention. ICANN embodies principles of democratic governance through the fairness of its charter and by-laws, following a bottom-up and consensus-building policy making, and being open, transparent, and accountable.

However, an independent study revealed that while ICANN ranks highly in legitimacy perception, its legitimacy remains somewhat tenuous. Tensions in the geopolitical context are impacting internet governance, and ICANN must be proactive and take leadership to defend the multistakeholder model of governance.

ICANN must build capacity to increase its reach and communicate its message, especially to swing countries and elites who represent their countries and influence their legislative approach. The multistakeholder model may not be perfect, but it is a successful experiment and it is worth our attention and efforts.

ICANN serves as the central coordinating body for critical functions of the internet, including domain name allocation, IP address management, and protocol parameter assignment. Its authority stems from its contractual relationship with the U.S. Department of Commerce, which entrusts ICANN with the responsibility of overseeing these fundamental aspects of the internet.

I find it essential to delve into the deeper questions of power, responsibility, and justice in the context of ICANN's governance. I ponder the ethical dimensions of ICANN's decision-making processes, considering how it balances the interests of various stakeholders, such as governments, businesses, technical experts, and internet users. I also reflect on the implications of ICANN's policies for global access to the internet and the potential impact on digital equity and inclusion.

Moreover, I contemplate the philosophical underpinnings of ICANN's role in upholding principles of multistakeholderism, which aims to incorporate diverse voices in shaping internet policies. I explore the ethical significance of ensuring transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in the governance of critical internet infrastructure, seeking to understand how these principles align with broader notions of justice and fairness.
I engage in thoughtful inquiry into the governance and authority of ICANN, examining the profound ethical considerations inherent in its operations and decision-making. My role invites me to critically analyze the moral implications of ICANN's actions and contribute to the ongoing discourse about the ethical responsibilities of global internet governance bodies.

The organization's claim to represent various constituencies is a farce, as it's dominated by Western interests. The multistakeholder model is a failed experiment, and ICANN's inability to adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape is a sign of its irrelevance.
I know that ICANN's bureaucratic red tape and lack of transparency have stifled innovation and hindered the growth of the internet. It's time to dismantle ICANN and establish a new, more democratic governance model that truly represents the global internet community.