Despite its appealing ubiquity, the Internet remains in many aspects a centralized resource. Data traffic is excessively concentrated in developed countries and a majority of Internet technology firms are originally from such countries.
Continuing efforts from all Internet Governance’s stakeholders to bring knowledge and capacity building worldwide is an ongoing process. But at the same time that different institutions that are responsible for the management and operation of Internet critical resources move towards a truly global multitstakeholder framework, the single fact that their operations are submitted to national jurisdictions might trigger a number of dilemas.
One pressing example of such situation is the little attention internationalization has received in the current review process of ICANN’s accountability and the transition of the IANA functions. Article 8th of the Affirmation of Commitments states that ICANN´s legal presence must remain in the United States. What are the impacts of such provision moving forward with the transition of the IANA functions and the implementation of a new accountability model?
Can an organization such as ICANN serve the global public interest in being subject to the legislation of the state of California? Or is the specific legal presence of such an institution irrelevant as long as it remains under a predictable and stable regime? Is it possible to confer these Internet corporations an "international status"? Are there any existing international governance models that could be taken into account in the IG domain? What are the limits and possibilities that exist in contemporary International Law?
