- ICANN’s efforts to suppress media coverage during the AFRINIC crisis have cast serious doubts on its commitment to transparency.
- The organisation’s fluctuating approach to transparency has sparked growing concerns regarding its governance practices.
- By seeking greater control over regional registries, ICANN is putting the integrity of multistakeholder governance at risk.
ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is facing mounting criticism for its actions that seem to disregard its own rules, particularly in relation to the governance of regional internet registries like AFRINIC. As ICANN’s credibility is increasingly questioned, the key issue remains: Can the organisation regain trust after repeatedly failing to uphold its governance principles?
ICANN’s suppression of the press
A particularly alarming development occurred in early July when ICANN CEO Kurtis Lindqvist sent a letter to AFRINIC’s court-appointed receiver, advising against engaging with the media about AFRINIC’s governance crisis. This move contradicted ICANN’s public commitment to transparency and accountability, instead prioritising control over openness. By reprimanding media outlets like BTW Media, ICANN demonstrated a willingness to suppress independent reporting, viewing it not as essential oversight but as a threat to its narrative.
Also read: Transparency or tactic? ICANN’s suppression of the press in AFRINIC’s governance crisis
ICANN’s approach to transparency has been notably inconsistent. The organisation publicly called for openness in the governance and election procedures of AFRINIC, but when critical media reports emerged, ICANN responded with threats rather than fostering a dialogue. This selective commitment to transparency suggests that ICANN uses openness only when it aligns with its agenda, while suppressing it when it challenges its position. This inconsistency further erodes trust in ICANN’s ability to manage global internet governance.
A power grab in the name of reform
Alongside suppressing media coverage, ICANN has introduced changes to its ICP-2 framework that allow for unilateral actions, such as derecognising regional internet registries like AFRINIC. By bypassing multistakeholder processes, ICANN is consolidating control over regional registries rather than fostering fair governance. This centralisation of power undermines the core principles of democratic oversight that have long been integral to global internet governance.
Can trust be restored?
For ICANN to regain trust, it must demonstrate a true commitment to transparency, not just when it serves its own agenda but consistently across all aspects of governance. If ICANN continues to suppress independent media and centralise power, its ability to regain credibility will remain in serious doubt.
