9,082
edits
Changes
→The ICANN Multistakeholder Model
# Provides a defined Policy Development Process (PDP) for its Supporting Organizations
# Provides a defined Policy Development Process (PDP) for its Supporting Organizations
# A public meeting forum is maitained by the international internet governing body
# A public meeting forum is maitained by the international internet governing body
During the World Summit on the Information Society ([[WSIS]]), participants in the event questioned the effectiveness of the multistakeholder model in internet governance given the fact that the nature of the internet is diverse, complex and global. Many suggested that the management should be handled inter-governmental body while others emphasized that the existing multistakeholder process is appropriate where all public and private stakeholders participate in a bottom-up process and arrive at a consensus in addressing issues and creating internet policies. ICANN's multistakeholder model was criticized by governments for two reasons; they lack adequate influence on ICANN's decisions on policies affecting the internet and the United States still holds undue legacy influence and control over ICANN and the Domain Name System([[DNS]]). In 2011, criticisms and debate over ICANN's multistakeholder model was again sparked due to the approval of the [[.xxx]] sTLD. Although the the Governmental Advisory Committee ([[GAC]]) strong expressed opposition to implement .xxx, the ICANN Board approved it. The European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda was disappointed and asked the National Telecommunications Information Administration [[NTIA]] to defer the implementation of .xxx but the NTIA responded that it will not interfere with ICANN's decision. According to the NTIA, ''"While the Obama Administration does not support ICANN’s decision, we respect the multistakeholder Internet governance process and do not think that it is in the long-term best interest of the United States or the global Internet community for us unilaterally to reverse the decision. Our goal is to preserve the global Internet, which is a force for innovation, economic growth, and the free flow of information. I agree with you that the Board took its action without the full support of the community and accordingly, I am dedicated to improving the responsiveness of ICANN to all stakeholders, including governments worldwide."'' Another issue that posed challenged to the multistakeholder process was the 2012 new gTLD expansion program. Many organizations particularly the Association of National Advertisers ([[ANA]]) and the Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight ([[CRIDO]]) and other trademark advocates criticized the program and asked the NTIA and United Congress to stop it during a Congressional inquiry. Once again the NTIA decided not to interfere with ICANN's decision and stood firm in its commitment in promoting the multistakeholder model in internet governance. The NTIA reiterated, ''"NTIA is dedicated to maintaining an open, global Internet that remains a valuable tool for economic growth, innovation, and the free flow of information, goods, and services online. We believe the best way to achieve this goal is to continue to actively support and participate in multistakeholder Internet governance processes such as ICANN. How ICANN handles the new gTLD program will, for many, be a litmus test of the viability of this approach. For its
part, NTIA is committed to continuing to be an active member of the GAC and working with stakeholders to mitigate any unintended consequences of the new gTLD program."''<ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42351.pdf Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress, Lennard G. Kruger, February 9, 2012]</ref>
==ICANN Structure==
==ICANN Structure==