News and Research articles on Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Facing fragmentation of digital space in the Snowden aftermath, this article considers regulatory models available to avoid the balkanisation of the internet.

This article looks at the basis for use- or content-related takedown of domain names in the terms of services of 30 European country-code top-level domain names.

Management of the internet by the principle of the multistakeholder governance model has survived attempts of replacing it with inter-government management. What additional principles are useful to guide global internet governance and enhance ICANN’s legitimacy, seen in light of recent challenges? Are the disagreements over global internet governance also about diverging understandings of the goals in internet governance?

Net neutrality consultations that tap into networked publics rest on a thin version of participation that maintains existing inequality.

This paper explores how four approaches to cyber security are constructed, motivated and justified by different values such as privacy, economic order and national security and what this means for the actors involved.

This paper discusses resolution of the contested meanings of inclusiveness, accountability and transparency in trade policymaking.

Cyberspace governance struggles with three accountability challenges, the problem of many hands, the profusion of issue areas, as well as the hybridity and malleability of institutional arrangements. In order to address and mitigate these challenges, accountability relationships need to be consciously reframed and discursively constructed.

Do ICANN’s policies and operations have an impact on human rights? Civil society engagement in the organisation seeks to inscribe human rights in internet infrastructure.

Datafication leads to subtle forms of governance; this article explores them by drawing on science and technology studies as well as sociologies of visibility.

Internet governance bodies agree that improving online security is important, but disagree on what a more secure internet would look like.

The internet and its regulation are the result of continuous conflicts. By analysing policy fields as fields of struggle, this essay proposes to observe processes of discursive institutionalisation to uncover core conflicts inscribed into internet policy.

While intermediary liability is becoming an issue of increasing importance in internet governance discussions, little is being made at the institutional level to minimise conflicts across jurisdictions and ensure the compliance of intermediary liability laws with fundamental rights and the freedom to innovate.

One multi-stakeholder process is not like another, but how can we distinguish those that promote meaningful inclusion from those that don't?

This article revisits the multistakeholder approach to internet policymaking and makes a case for a new model recognising the heterogeneity of stakeholders’ interests.