By Alexandrine Gauvin, CENTR Communications Manager - On 7-8 July, I got to attend the European Communication Summit in Brussels: the overarching theme this year was social acceptance. Considering the crucial accountability discussions now underway at ICANN, the sessions’ topics were very easy to link to the current DNS industry context. One of the main sessions asked the question of conditional acceptance: due to the ongoing debate over the role of companies in the wider society, the premise was that achieving social acceptance is vital to ensuring the ability to operate.
The concept of companies needing a “social licence” to operate started in the mining sector: it was all about getting the backing of the community to function efficiently and for the company to fulfil its social responsibilities. In today’s challenging environment (unstable European economy, political uncertainty, new social dynamics), organisations are under increasing pressure to act responsibly and to go beyond the now-traditional “corporate social responsibility” stand-alone, siloed actions: these goals now need to be integrated in the overall business strategy.
In the DNS industry, this social licence to operate can very easily be translated into the multistakeholder approach, which, done right, relies entirely on the community’s support to operate. ccTLD registries, more specifically, get their social license to operate by their local Internet community. This is actually the main and most important difference between gTLDs and ccTLDs: in marketing terms, it’s the essential added value of ccTLD registry operators. It turns out that community accountability is all the rage these days!
But what are the risks to this positive approach to Internet community involvement? The content liability debate is an essential one and it is of paramount importance for registries to defend their position by defining their (very limited) role in online content. However, from a communication perspective, it is clearly damaging for a registry’s reputation to keep a very hands-off, “not our responsibility” approach to the issue, no matter how right they are about the legal implications. The best way to maintain a firm position on content liability might be to seek out the explicit support from the local Internet community.
It goes without saying that in some contexts, the social licence to operate has its limits. The most efficient approach is to strive for transparency and honesty about most issues and challenges, including liability and security risks. A good example of an aggressive transparency strategy is Vodafone’s Law Enforcement Disclosure Report, which explains the nature and extent of government powers to order Vodafone’s assistance around the world. Applied to registries, this type of approach might help strengthen links with the local Internet community and increase user trust in ccTLDs.
Regular, end-users will start asking questions and require registries to be held accountable, not necessarily understanding the supply chain involved (ISPs, hosting, registrars, law enforcement agencies, etc.). It’s not because registries are clearly not legally responsible in most cases that they can’t take responsibility by explaining the process and shifting the focus on how they are actually helping and supporting the community, in collaboration with stakeholders involved in the industry. We have seen several excellent examples of CENTR members going in that direction in the last few years. In an evolving domain name market, it will be up to us, the ccTLD community, to understand and leverage this key social licence to operate.
