Why do governments want a say in ICANN?

During the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) in 2005, the issue of Internet governance and the role of government was subject to a huge debate.

The governments felt that the Internet should not be controlled by one government (read the U.S.). They wanted matters of the Internet to be regulated by an inter-governmental body like the International Telecommunication Union.

Then the name calling ensued, with some calling the ITU a sleeping giant and others referring to it as a dinosaur. The private sector wondered why governments wanted to fix something that wasn’t broken.

The WSIS debate gave birth to the Internet Governance Forum, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) invited governments to participate in ICANN through the Government Advisory Council (GAC).

After the Tunis meeting in 2005, government participation in ICANN increased, but the GAC felt somehow isolated, given that its role is merely advisory.

Unsatisfied with the advisory role, governments now want to be at par with other ICANN constituencies. The secretary general of the ITU made it clear that the GAC was merely cosmetic, but GAC Chair Janis Kirklins thinks the structure is fine.

But why do governments want to have a bigger say?

Is it to slow down things and bring more regulations and roadblocks? It has been argued that the private sector is faster and more efficient in running enterprises.

Governments have the ITU, which means, as Kirklins put it, “They have the show.” Shouldn’t they concentrate on the ITU and making sure that people can access power and other factors of production that affect ICT?