[Senate Hearing 114-135]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-135
PRESERVING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL
OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-129 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 25, 2015................................ 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 30
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 31
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 33
Statement of Senator Gardner..................................... 36
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 39
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 41
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 41
Statement of Senator McCaskill................................... 43
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 45
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 47
Witnesses
Hon. Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce........ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Fadi Chehade, President and Chief Executive Officer, Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), A
California Public Benefit Nonprofit Corporation................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
David A. Gross, Ambassador, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, and former
U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and
Information Policy, U.S. Department of State................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Lawrence E.
Strickling by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 53
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 54
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 56
Response to written questions submitted to Fadi Chehade by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 57
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 57
Hon. Steve Daines............................................ 62
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 62
Response to written question submitted to Ambassador David A.
Gross by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 63
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 63
PRESERVING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Ayotte, Fischer,
Sullivan, Gardner, Daines, Nelson, Cantwell, McCaskill,
Klobuchar, Markey, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee will get underway.
Today we convene the Committee to evaluate the
multistakeholder system of Internet governance. There has been
no shortage of activity in this space in recent years, as I am
sure each of our panelists can attest. The goal of everyone
here is the same. We want one, global Internet that is not
fragmented nor hijacked by authoritarian regimes. The question
is how do we get there.
This is the Commerce Committee's first hearing on Internet
governance in quite some time but this is not the beginning of
our oversight on this issue.
Following last year's announcement by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration of its intent
to transfer the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA,
functions to the global multistakeholder community, Senator
Rubio and I led 33 of our Senate colleagues on an oversight
letter to NTIA about the proposed transition.
We stated our support for the current bottom up,
multistakeholder approach to Internet governance and stressed
the importance of standing firm on the Administration's promise
that it would not accept a proposal that replaces NTIA's role
with a government led or inter-governmental solution.
We encouraged the multistakeholder community to act
deliberately and transparently as it puts together a transition
proposal. That remains as true today as when we first said it.
In July, Senator Rubio and I weighed in on proposals to
reform ICANN via the ``Enhancing ICANN Accountability'' work
stream, to support specific accountability measures that we
believe must be achieved before any transition of the IANA
functions.
We continue to believe the stakeholder community should
demand robust and significant accountability reforms, such as
curtailing governmental involvement in apolitical governance
matters, requiring a higher vote threshold for the ICANN Board
when making major decisions, providing additional oversight
tools to the multistakeholder community, and adopting an
independent dispute resolution process.
Administrator Strickling has encouraged the
multistakeholder community to address how to remove Board
members and how to incorporate current accountability tools
like the Affirmation of Commitments reviews. I completely
agree.
This morning we will hear from a mostly government panel
about how best to ensure the multistakeholder model, but the
private sector and civil society are active on this issue as
well, and as the IANA transition process moves forward, it may
be appropriate for the Committee to dive deeper and to hear
from stakeholders who require an open and secure Internet to
create jobs and to grow our economy.
If an IANA transition plan is presented to NTIA, I will
scrutinize that plan to make sure it both meets the
requirements laid out by NTIA and adopts meaningful
accountability reforms that Senator Rubio and I have called
for.
Administrator Strickling has been very clear that
accountability reforms go hand and glove with a transition
plan. I pledge that I will hold the Administration accountable
for the red lines it has established throughout this process.
In particular, I will be interested to see whether the
stakeholder community can deliver a proposal that allows
Internet users to continue to have faith the IANA functions are
carried out effectively and seamlessly, and I will focus on the
adequacy of the accountability reforms in any proposal.
Some worry that in the absence of U.S. involvement in the
IANA functions ICANN may be subject to capture by authoritarian
regimes, and these are valid concerns. I also worry that in the
absence of a contract with the U.S. Government ICANN could
become an organization like FIFA, the international soccer
organization that is flush with cash, unresponsive to those it
supposedly serves, and I should say unaccountable to no one.
The ICANN Board can demonstrate its own commitment to the
multistakeholder model by accepting the stakeholder community's
proposed reforms even if that means lessening the Board's
powers in some areas.
The multistakeholder community has one opportunity to get
this right because the Internet is too important for democracy,
for world culture, and the interconnected global economy to
allow poor governance to jeopardize its future.
The mantra for all of us should be measure twice, cut once.
We have a distinguished panel here before us today to share
their experiences and views, and I am looking forward to
hearing from each of you.
In the absence of our Ranking Member being here at the
moment, we will skip right to opening statements from our
panel. I want to welcome them here. We will start on the left
with Mr. Strickling.
Lawrence Strickling is the Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information and the Administrator of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
under the Department of Commerce.
He will be followed by Mr. Fadi Chehade, Chief Executive
Officer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, and then we will hear from Ambassador David Gross, and
he is a partner with Wiley Rein and the former U.S. Coordinator
for International Communications and Information Policy at the
U.S. Department of State.
We look forward to hearing your comments this morning, and
we will start on my left and your right with Mr. Strickling.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE E. STRICKLING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Strickling. Thank you, Chairman, and members of the
Committee. I am very pleased to be here today to testify how
the IANA transition will protect and preserve the security and
stability of the global Internet.
In 1998, the Department of Commerce launched the process of
privatization that is the subject of today's hearing, stating
then that the U.S. Government is committed to a transition that
will allow the private sector to take over NTIA's limited
management role.
I would like to underscore that we are not talking about
management of the whole Internet. We are talking about a few
technical functions that are necessary to ensure that the
plumbing of the Internet is working.
ICANN develops policy through bottom up multistakeholder
processes. These efforts are open to all stakeholders whether
they are businesses, civil society organizations, technical
experts, or governments. It is this global multistakeholder
community that makes Internet policy today, whether it be
setting domain name policy or developing Internet technical
standards. I want to emphasize that NTIA does not exercise any
control or oversight over policymaking at ICANN.
The U.S. Government has been a vigorous supporter of the
multistakeholder model. Both Republican and Democratic
Administrations have consistently emphasized that the
multistakeholder process is the best mechanism for making
decisions about how the Internet should be managed.
Congress agrees. Earlier this month, the Senate unanimously
passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the United
States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of
Internet governance in which the private sector works in
collaboration with civil society, governments, and technical
experts in a consensus fashion. We thank you for that show of
support.
In furtherance of this long-standing bipartisan policy of
the United States, on March 14 of last year, NTIA announced the
final phase of the privatization of the domain name system. We
asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a
proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the
coordination of the domain name system.
In making this announcement, we stated that the transition
proposal must have broad community support and must satisfy
four conditions. It must support and enhance the
multistakeholder model. It must maintain the security,
stability, and resiliency of the Internet domain name system.
It must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers
of the IANA services, and it must maintain the openness of the
Internet.
We made crystal clear, as the chairman mentioned, that we
will not accept a proposal that replaces our role with a
government led or inter-governmental solution.
The business community, civil society, and other
stakeholders responded to our announcement with strong
statements of support, and they have responded enthusiastically
to our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the
stability, security, and openness of the Internet.
Today, after several months of planning, I want to
emphasize the following points. Based on my firsthand
observations of the community at work in Singapore earlier this
month, I am confident that the global Internet community will
work diligently to develop a consensus plan that meets the
conditions we have laid out, but until such time, there will be
no change in our current role.
I also want to make clear that we have not set any deadline
for the transition. September 2015 has been a target date
because that is when the base period of our contract with ICANN
expires. However, this should not be seen as a deadline.
We have said from the start that if the community needs
more time, we have the ability to extend the IANA functions'
contract for up to 4 years. It is up to the community to
determine a time line that works best for stakeholders as they
develop a proposal that meets the conditions but also works.
This transition benefits American interests. Our economic
and political interests depend on a growing and innovative
global Internet, especially in the developing world. Despite
the symbolic role the U.S. Government has played over the
years, the fact is that no country controls the Internet today
and no country will control the Internet after the transition.
The Internet's continued growth and innovation depends on
building trust among all users worldwide and strengthening the
engagement of all stakeholders.
Since our announcement, we have seen a growing acceptance
of the multistakeholder model around the world, especially in
the governments of developing countries. Last April, Brazil
hosted the successful NETmundial conference, which brought
together a wide range of stakeholders, all on an equal footing
with each other. At this meeting, not only did participants
agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic
multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a
demonstration of the open participative and consensus driven
governance.
Last November at the International Telecommunication
Union's Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Korea, the United
States worked successfully with countries in both the developed
and developing world to avoid expansion of the ITU's mandate
into Internet issues.
Building support for the multistakeholder model among other
nations is the best strategy to limit the influence of
authoritarian regimes and prevent attempts to expand their
restrictive policies beyond their own borders. It is also the
best strategy for protecting against the possible fragmentation
of the Internet that some countries have threatened.
In conclusion, all of these factors give me confidence that
when the transition is completed, we will have a stronger and
more secure Internet that will continue to grow and thrive
throughout the world.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickling follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary
for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
regarding NTIA's role in the Internet's domain name system and the
transition of NTIA's stewardship over certain technical functions
related to the Internet domain name system to the global
multistakeholder community. I am pleased to appear before you to update
you on the current status of the transition planning process as the
global Internet community works to develop a transition proposal that
will ensure the stability, security, and openness of the Internet.
I. Background
The Domain Name System (DNS) is a critical component of the
Internet infrastructure. It allows users to identify websites, mail
servers, and other Internet destinations using easy-to-understand names
(e.g., www.ntia.doc.gov) rather than the numeric network addresses
(e.g., 170.110.225.163) necessary to retrieve information on the
Internet. In this way, it functions similar to an ``address book'' for
the Internet.
On July 1, 1997, President Clinton issued an Executive Memorandum
directing the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the Internet DNS in a
manner that increases competition and facilitates international
participation in its management.\1\ In June 1998, following a public
comment process, NTIA issued a statement of policy on the privatization
of the Internet DNS, known as the DNS White Paper.\2\ The White Paper
concluded that the core functions relevant to the DNS should be
performed under private sector management to promote the development of
robust competition and facilitate global participation in Internet
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The White House, ``Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies,'' (July 1, 1997), available at: Khttp://
clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/directive.html.
\2\ NTIA, ``Statement of Policy, Management of Internet Names and
Addresses,'' (DNS White Paper), 63 Fed. Reg. 31741 (1998), available
at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/1998/statement-
policy-management-internet-names-and-addresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTIA recognized that the Internet has succeeded in great measure
because it is a decentralized system that encourages innovation and
maximizes individual freedom. Where possible, market mechanisms that
support competition and consumer choice should drive the management of
the Internet because they lower costs, promote innovation, encourage
diversity, and enhance user choice and satisfaction. Moreover, a
private sector coordinating process would be more flexible than a
government process and more likely to move rapidly enough to meet the
changing needs of the Internet and of Internet users.
To accomplish these policy objectives, NTIA stated that it was
prepared to enter into an agreement with a new not-for-profit
corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders to
coordinate and manage policy for the Internet DNS. Private sector
interests formed NewCo for this purpose, which was subsequently re-
named the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
In the fall of 1998, NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with ICANN to transition technical DNS coordination and
management functions to the private sector.
The MOU did not simply turn over management of the DNS to ICANN.
Rather, the MOU outlined a process to design, develop, and test
mechanisms, methods, and procedures to ensure that the private sector
had the capability and resources to assume important responsibilities
related to the technical coordination and management of the DNS. The
MOU evolved through several iterations and revisions as ICANN tested
these principles, learned valuable lessons, and matured as an
organization.
II. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions
In 1998, NTIA announced its intent to ensure the continued secure
and stable performance of the IANA functions until the transition was
complete. In 2000, NTIA entered into a sole-source, no-cost-to-the-
government contract with ICANN, designating it to perform these
functions. NTIA and ICANN have subsequently entered into contracts for
the performance of the IANA functions in 2001, 2003, and 2006. On July
2, 2012, NTIA awarded ICANN the current IANA functions contract after
conducting a full and open competitive procurement process. The base
period of performance for this contract is October 1, 2012, to
September 30, 2015. The contract also provides for two option periods
of two years each; however, the parties have discretion to extend the
contract for a shorter period than two years upon mutual agreement. If
no action is taken, the contract will automatically expire on September
30 of this year.
The IANA functions are a set of interdependent technical functions
that enable the continued efficient operation of the Internet. The IANA
functions include: (1) the coordination of the assignment of technical
Internet protocol parameters; (2) the administration of certain
responsibilities associated with DNS root zone management; (3) the
allocation of Internet numbering resources; and (4) other services
related to the management of the .ARPA and .INT top-level domains
(TLDs).
As the IANA functions operator, ICANN performs administrative
responsibilities associated with the registries related to the three
primary IANA functions. First, ICANN is the registry for the protocol
parameters, as defined by the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF).\3\ Second, ICANN coordinates allocations of IP (Internet
Protocol) and AS (Autonomous System) numbers to the Regional Internet
Registries (RIRs).\4\ Third, ICANN processes root zone file change
requests for TLDs and makes publicly available a Root Zone WHOIS
database with current and verified contact information for all TLD
registry operators. In all three cases, ICANN, as the IANA functions
operator, applies the policies developed by the customers of the IANA
functions. The ICANN Board does not have authority to make policy
decisions or changes on its own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open
international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and
researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture
and the smooth operation of the Internet. See, https://www.ietf.org/.
\4\ Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) manage, distribute, and
register Internet number resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and
Autonomous System Numbers) within their respective regions. See,
https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/regional-internet-registries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTIA's responsibilities under the IANA functions contract are
limited and clerical in nature. For example, NTIA does not have an
operational role in the management of Internet numbering resources,
Internet protocol parameters, the .ARPA TLD, or .INT TLD. In the root
zone management function, NTIA verifies that ICANN has followed the
policies and procedures established by the community when processing
change requests, then authorizes the implementation of those changes.
NTIA's role in root zone management does not involve the exercise of
discretion or judgment with respect to such change requests.\5\ NTIA
does not have a similar role in the management of Internet numbering
resources, Internet protocol parameters, the .ARPA TLD, or .INT TLD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For further information on the NTIA role in root zone
management and the IANA functions, see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-
publication/2014/ntia-s-role-root-zone-management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet
stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. Government's role in the IANA
functions would be temporary. The DNS White Paper stated that
``agreement must be reached between the U.S. Government and the new
corporation (ICANN) relating to the transfer of the functions currently
performed by IANA.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DNS White Paper, supra n. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTIA has fulfilled this temporary role not because of any statutory
or legal responsibility, but as a temporary measure at the request of
the President. Indeed, Congress never designated NTIA or any other
specific agency responsibility for managing the Internet DNS. Thus,
NTIA has no legal or statutory responsibility to manage the DNS. Just
as Federal agencies can enter into contracts they need to fulfill their
missions without specific legislative authority, Federal agencies can
discontinue obtaining such services when they no longer need them. As
NTIA made clear at the time of its Statement of Policy, it intended
only to procure the IANA functions services until such time as the
transition to private sector management of the Internet DNS was
complete.
III. Affirmation of Commitments
Since the formation of ICANN, NTIA has worked diligently with the
global Internet community to improve ICANN's accountability and
transparency to the community of stakeholders it serves. In 2009, NTIA
and ICANN entered into the Affirmation of Commitments (Affirmation).\7\
The Affirmation signified a critical step in the transition to a
multistakeholder, private sector-led model for DNS technical
coordination, while also establishing an accountability framework of
ongoing multistakeholder reviews of ICANN's performance. Key elements
of the Affirmation include: an endorsement of the multistakeholder,
private sector-led model; a commitment by ICANN to act in the interests
of global Internet users (or public interest); and the establishment of
mechanisms and timelines for continuing reviews of ICANN's execution of
core tasks. The four subjects of the ongoing Affirmation Reviews are:
ensuring accountability, transparency, and the interests of global
Internet users; preserving the security, stability, and resiliency of
the Internet DNS; promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer
choice in connection with any implementation of generic Top Level
Domains (gTLDs); and meeting the needs of law enforcement and consumer
protection in connection with WHOIS implementation and recognizing
national laws. The success of the framework established by the
Affirmation depends upon the full participation of stakeholders in
reviewing ICANN's performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of
Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers''
(September 30, 2009), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
publications/affirmation_of_commitments_2009.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICANN has made significant progress in fulfilling the commitments
established by the Affirmation. To date, two iterations of the
Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) have occurred, in
2010 and 2013. The reports of these teams, on which NTIA actively has
participated with a broad array of international stakeholders from
industry, civil society, the Internet technical community, and other
governments, have served as a key accountability tool for ICANN--
evaluating progress and recommending improvements. Over time, ICANN has
improved its performance by implementing key recommendations from the
ATRT.
Throughout the various iterations of NTIA's relationship with
ICANN, NTIA has played no role in the internal governance or day-to-day
operations of ICANN. NTIA has never had the contractual authority to
exercise traditional regulatory oversight over ICANN.
IV. Final Steps in the Privatization of the DNS
The multistakeholder model of Internet governance is the best
mechanism for maintaining an open, resilient, and secure Internet
because, among other things, it is informed by a broad foundation of
interested parties and it is adaptable to innovation and changing
conditions. This model includes all parties--including businesses,
technical experts, civil society, and governments--arriving at
consensus through a bottom-up process regarding policies affecting the
underlying functioning of the Internet domain name system.
ICANN and several other technical organizations embrace this model
and exemplify what is possible when all stakeholders are able to
participate. Specifically, within ICANN's structure, governments work
in partnership with businesses, organizations, and individuals to
provide public policy input on deliberations related to ICANN's mission
of technical coordination, and provide advice directly to the ICANN
Board. ICANN holds meetings approximately three times a year, at which
global stakeholders meet to develop policies that ensure the Internet's
ongoing security and stability. ICANN policy development originates in
the three Supporting Organizations (SOs), which work with Advisory
Committees composed of governments, individual user organizations, and
technical communities in the policy development process. Over one
hundred governments, including the United States, and observers from
more than 30 international organizations directly advise the ICANN
Board of Directors via the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See ICANN, ``Beginner's Guide to Participating in ICANN,''
available at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/
participating-08nov13-en.pdf. See also, ICANN Groups, available at:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/groups-2012-02-06-en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 112th U.S. Congress affirmed its support for the
multistakeholder model in unanimous resolutions to ``preserve and
advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the
Internet.'' \9\ More recently, a bipartisan group of Congressional
leaders reiterated this position in stating that ``[t]he multi-
stakeholder model for Internet governance must prevail for more
countries around the world to realize the transformative benefits of
Internet connectivity.'' \10\ I am also pleased to note the recent
unanimous passage of S. Res. 71, which stated that ``the United States
remains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance'' and that ``the [IANA] transition process demonstrates that
the United States supports and is committed to the multistakeholder
model of Internet governance.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See H.Con.Res. 127 and S.Con.Res. 50.
\10\ Reps. Upton (R-MI), Waxman (D-CA), Royce (R-CA), Engel (D-NY),
Re/code, ``Protecting the Internet From Government Control'' (Dec. 18,
2014), available at: http://recode.net/2014/12/18/protecting-the-
internet-from-government-control/.
\11\ S. Res. 71 (2015)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstrating its commitment to the multistakeholder approach, on
March 14, 2014, NTIA announced its intent to complete the privatization
of the domain name system first outlined in 1998. NTIA called upon
ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop the transition
plan.\12\ While looking to stakeholders and those most directly served
by the IANA functions to work through the technical details, NTIA
established a clear framework to guide the discussion. Specifically,
NTIA communicated to ICANN that the transition proposal must have broad
community support and address four principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name
Functions'' (Mar. 14, 2014), available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-
domain-name-functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the transition proposal must support and enhance the
multistakeholder model. Specifically, the process used to develop the
proposal should be open, transparent, bottom-up, and garner broad,
international stakeholder support. In addition, the proposal should
include measures to ensure that changes made to any of the three IANA
administered databases are consistent with the publicly documented IANA
functions customer and partner accepted procedures, which are developed
through the multistakeholder model.
Second, the transition proposal must maintain the security,
stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS. For example, the
decentralized distributed authority structure of the DNS needs to be
preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation, or
capture. In addition, integrity, transparency, and accountability in
performing the functions must be preserved. The IANA services also need
to be resistant to attacks and data corruption, be able to fully
recover from degradation, if it occurs, and be performed in a stable
legal environment.
Third, the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations
of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. For example,
mechanisms for the adherence to and development of customer service
levels, including timeliness and reliability, should be clear, as
should processes for transparency, accountability, and auditability.
Consistent with the current system, the separation of policy
development and operational activities should continue.
Fourth, the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the
Internet. The neutral and judgment-free administration of the technical
DNS and IANA functions has created an environment in which the
technical architecture has not been used to interfere with the exercise
of free expression or the free flow of information. Any transition of
the NTIA role must maintain this neutral and judgment-free
administration, thereby maintaining the global interoperability of the
Internet.
In addition, NTIA explicitly stated that it would not accept a
proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-
governmental organization solution.
While the current IANA functions contract expires on September 30,
2015, the contract can be extended for up to four years. Before any
transition takes place, the businesses, civil society, and technical
experts of the Internet must present a plan that has broad
multistakeholder support and reflects the four key principles NTIA
outlined in the announcement.
By transitioning its very limited current role in the IANA
functions to the global multistakeholder community, the United States
is fulfilling objectives outlined more than 17 years ago, demonstrating
its commitment to the multistakeholder model, and strengthening the
engagement of all stakeholders. For years, countries such as Russia,
Iran, and China have opposed the multistakeholder model and sought to
increase governmental control over the Internet through bodies such as
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations.
The United States and likeminded countries, however, have firmly
demonstrated our support for the multistakeholder community, and we
continue to advocate for broader worldwide acceptance of and
participation in the multistakeholder model to ensure that the Internet
remains open and interoperable.
The world has witnessed significant progress in its collective
efforts to expand support for multistakeholder Internet governance
since the division that surfaced in December 2012 at the ITU World
Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). We believe this
is due in part to the transition and our support for the
multistakeholder model. In April 2014, Brazil hosted the successful
NetMundial conference at which a wide range of participants supported a
statement reaffirming that Internet governance should be built on
democratic multistakeholder processes.\13\ Following NetMundial, a
High-Level Panel headed by the president of Estonia released a report
once again affirming the power of multistakeholder policy development.
The panel said it ``recognizes, fully supports, and adopts the IG
[Internet governance] Principles produced in the NetMundial Statement.
. . .'' \14\ In the fall of 2014, nations assembled at the ITU
Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, South Korea, rejected all efforts
to expand the ITU's role in DNS issues handled by ICANN.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Michael Daniel, Lawrence E. Strickling, Daniel Sepulveda,
Christopher Painter and Scott Busby, ``A Major Win for the Open
Internet'' (Apr. 30, 2014), available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/
2014/major-win-open-internet.
\14\ See Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance
Mechanisms, ``Towards a Collaborative, Decentralized Internet
Governance Ecosystem'' (May 2014), available at: http://
internetgovernancepanel.org/sites/default/files/ipdf/
XPL_ICAN1403_Internet%20Governance%20iPDF_06.pdf.
\15\ U.S. Department of State, ``Outcomes from the International
Telecommunication Union 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan,
Republic of Korea'' (Nov. 10, 2014), available at: http://
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/11/233914.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Stakeholder Response
Following the March 2014 announcement, a broad array of Internet
stakeholders issued public statements that demonstrate the importance
of the transition:
AT&T: ``This is an important step in the ongoing evolution
of the global Internet. NTIA is to be commended for its
historical stewardship, its current thoughtful and pro-active
approach, and its global leadership throughout. The U.S. is
looking to the future, promoting leadership and ideas from the
global multi-stakeholder community, and establishing clear
criteria to ensure the stability and security of a remarkably
well-functioning system. We expect that other governments and
stakeholders will join with the U.S. in committing to this
vision.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ AT&T Public Policy Blog, ``The Continuing Evolution of the
Global Internet'' (Mar. 14, 2014) (emphasis added), available at:
http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/international/the-continuing-evolution-
of-the-global-internet/.
Microsoft: ``The U.S. Department of Commerce National
Telecommunications and Information Administration's recent
announcement of its intent to transition key Internet domain
name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community is a
significant and welcome development.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ David Tennenhouse, Microsoft on the Issues, ``Microsoft
Applauds U.S. NTIA's Transition of Key Internet Domain Name Functions''
(Mar. 17, 2014) (emphasis added), available at: http://
blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2014/03/17/microsoft-applauds-us-
ntias-transition-of-key-internet-domain-name-functions/.
Human Rights Organizations: ``[W]e write to express our
support for the Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
announcement of its intent to transition key Internet domain
name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community . . .
This move would alleviate international pressure on explicit
terms, deter government overreach on the issue of Internet
governance, and facilitate the exercise of human rights
online.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Access, Center for Democracy & Technology, Freedom House,
Human Rights Watch, The Open Technology Institute at New America
Foundation, Public Knowledge, ``Congress Should Support U.S. Plan to
Alter Administration of Internet'' (Apr. 1, 2014) (emphasis added),
available at: https://freedomhouse.org/article/congress-should-support-
us-plan-alter-administration-internet#.VJmLdl4AFA.
The Internet Association (representing Amazon, Facebook,
Google, Netflix, Yahoo!, Twitter, Airbnb, and other Internet
economy firms): ``. . . we support the recent announcement
regarding the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's (NTIA) oversight authority over important
technical Internet functions. . . . For our companies to
continue to innovate, to foster development and change, and
ultimately to succeed as businesses globally, we need the
continuation of the current bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model
of Internet governance. However, as the Internet continues to
evolve, so too must the models that govern it. . . . [I]t was
always envisaged that this oversight role held by the United
States would eventually transition to the private sector. The
announcement by NTIA is simply the fulfillment of this vision.
. . . For these reasons we encourage you to allow this process
to continue toward a successful conclusion.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Michael Beckerman, The Internet Association, Letter to Rep.
Hal Rogers and Rep. Nita Lowey (May 8, 2014) (emphasis added),
available at: http://internetassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/
05/Internet-Association-Letter-on-Future-of-Internet-Governance-
Approps-.pdf.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: ``NTIA has steadfastly opposed a
transition to any mechanism that would deviate from the current
multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance and should be
allowed to take any needed steps to achieve the cautiousness
and transparency that we agree is essential for a safe and
smooth transition of the technical functions. Any hindering of
NTIA's ability to conduct the proper levels of due diligence
through the use of currently available resources could result
in harm to U.S. businesses and Internet users as a whole.''
\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ R. Bruce Josten, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Letter to U.S.
House of Representatives (May 27, 2014) (emphasis added), available at:
https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/
140527_hr4660_commercejusticescienceappropriationsact2015_house.pdf.
Verizon: ``We applaud NTIA for recognizing the global
relevance of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
functions and the current maturity of multi-stakeholder
frameworks.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Verizon Policy Blog, ``Verizon Supports Global Multi-
stakeholder Process for Domain Names'' (Mar. 14, 2014), available at:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/verizon-supports-global-
multi-stakeholder-process-for-domain-names.
Ambassador David Gross, former United States Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy (George W.
Bush Administration): ``We believe that NTIA's decision to
initiate a process leading to the possible transition of the
IANA functions contract to a multi-stakeholder entity is a
critical step. . . . By allowing for the careful transition of
the IANA to a bottom-up multi-stakeholder entity, the United
States has affirmed its commitment to the multi-stakeholder
model.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ambassador David A. Gross, Testimony Before the U.S. House
Committee on Energy and Commerce (Apr. 2, 2014) (emphasis added),
available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20140402/102044/
HHRG-113-IF16-Wstate-GrossD-20140402.pdf.
Cisco: ``This is a significant milestone in the transition
of Internet governance to a global multi-stakeholder model, and
Cisco welcomes this development. We applaud the NTIA for
seeking to complete the final phase of the privatization of DNS
management, as outlined by the U.S. Government in 1997. Cisco
has long supported an open and innovative multi-stakeholder
Internet governance process and this next step in its
evolution.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Robert Pepper, ``Cisco Supports U.S. Department of Commerce
Decision to Transition Internet Management Functions'' (Mar. 15, 2014)
(emphasis added), available at: http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/cisco-
supports-u-s-department-of-commerce-decision-to-transition-internet-
management-functions/.
USTelecom: ``We applaud NTIA for its responsible stewardship
of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) over the years and
are supportive of its proposal to transition the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global
multi-stakeholder community.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Glenn Reynolds, ``USTelecom Statement on Global Internet
Transition'' (Apr. 2, 2014), available at: http://www.ustelecom.org/
news/press-release/ustelecom-statement-global-internet-transition.
Center for Democracy and Technology: ``CDT believes that
this transition is an important part of the evolution and
strengthening of multi-stakeholder governance of the
Internet.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Emma Llanso, Center for Democracy and Technology, ``Don't Let
Domestic Politics Derail the NTIA Transition'' (Apr. 2, 2014) (emphasis
added), available at: https://cdt.org/blog/dont-let-domestic-politics-
derail-the-ntia-transition/.
Internet Technical Organizations: ``The leaders of the
Internet technical organizations responsible for coordination
of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs,
ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the U.S. Government's
announcement of the suggested changes related to the IANA
functions contract.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Internet Society, ``Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA
Globalization Progress'' (Mar. 14, 2014), available at: http://
www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-
globalization-progress.
Computer and Communications Industry Association: ``The
technology industry welcomes the news that the U.S. Commerce
Department intends to complete the transition of relinquishing
its control over key Internet addressing functions to the
global multi-stakeholder community. This was a necessary next
step in the evolution of the Internet and supports the current
multi-stakeholder model of global Internet governance where all
stakeholders concerned with the well being and functioning of
the Internet help to shape the policies that make a bright
online future for everyone possible.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Computer and Communications Industry Association, ``Tech
Industry Praises Liberation Of Internet Governance Functions From
U.S.G.'' (Mar. 17, 2014), available at: https://www.ccianet.org/2014/
03/tech-industry-praises-liberation-internet-governance-functions-u-s-
g/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Status of Multistakeholder Process to Develop Transition Proposal
Since NTIA's March 2014 announcement, interested stakeholders have
responded with great energy and participation to develop a transition
plan. An IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG),
representing more than a dozen Internet stakeholder communities, was
established as a convener of the process to develop a transition
proposal that will ensure the stability, security, and openness of the
Internet. As set forth in its charter, the ICG is ``conduct[ing] itself
transparently, consult[ing] with a broad range of stakeholders, and
ensur[ing] that its proposals support the security and stability of the
IANA functions.'' \28\ On September 8, 2014, the ICG issued a Request
for Transition Proposals to the multistakeholder community, with a
proposal submission deadline of January 15, 2015.\29\ The ICG requested
one proposal for each of the three primary functions, i.e., the
protocol parameters, numbering, and domain name-related functions, to
be developed by the communities and parties most directly affected by
each of the primary functions. Proposal development has to date been
open and multistakeholder in participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
(Aug. 27, 2014), available at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/
files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf.
\29\ IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group, ``Request for
Proposals'' (Sept. 8, 2014), available at: https://www.icann.org/en/
system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of February 2015, two of the three community groups have
submitted their draft proposals, including the IETF, which is
shepherding the protocol parameter proposal, and the five RIRs, which
worked collaboratively in developing a draft numbering proposal. The
third group, the ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on the
naming related functions, continues to deliberate on how best to assure
effective and accountable oversight of these naming functions in NTIA's
absence. Upon receipt of the community proposals, the ICG will then
work to develop a single consolidated proposal, which will go through
various iterations of community review and comment.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group, ``Process
Timeline,'' (Dec. 2014), available at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/
files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2015, I delivered remarks at the State of the Net
Conference, where I posed several questions for stakeholders to
consider as they continue to develop the naming related proposal, to
ensure that it appropriately addresses the principles NTIA established
for the transition. I indicated that these questions need to be
resolved prior to approval of any transition plan.\31\ At the ICANN
meeting held in Singapore two weeks ago, I reiterated these remarks and
questions. The subsequent community discussions in Singapore give me
confidence that the domain name community (through the CWG) is working
diligently to develop a proposal that not only considers appropriate
accountability, but also what is necessary for the directly affected
parties (registry operators) in terms of service levels and processes
that preserve and maintain stable DNS root zone management that the
community currently enjoys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Remarks by Lawrence E. Strickling, State of the Net
Conference, Washington, DC, (Jan. 27, 2015), available at: http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-
strickling-state-net-conference-1272015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICANN has also launched a parallel process to enhance its
accountability to the global Internet community and to strengthen its
accountability mechanisms in the absence of a contractual relationship
with NTIA.\32\ A Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on
Accountability, composed of appointed representatives from ICANN's
Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) and open
to all interested parties as participants, is examining accountability
mechanisms regarding the entirety of ICANN operations.\33\ The CCWG
charter identifies two work streams: the first is to identify
accountability measures that need to be in place before the IANA
transition; and the second to address accountability measures that
should be adopted and implemented by ICANN in the longer term. The CCWG
identified four distinct work areas: (1) overview of existing
accountability mechanisms; (2) review of public comments filed in
response to ICANN's proposed accountability process to categorize them
as either Work Stream 1 or Work Stream 2 items; (3) review of
accountability issues identified by the CWG; and (4) identification of
contingencies or threat scenarios.\34\ The CCWG adopted an intensive
work plan to address the near-term, IANA-specific measures involving
weekly meetings in order to progress its work.\35\ While it got off to
a slower start than the IANA transition process, the CCWG on
Accountability is now making considerable progress, as evident at the
ICANN Singapore meeting at which the group conducted numerous
productive working sessions and meetings with stakeholders. The CCWG on
Accountability is also cooperating and coordinating with the CWG
working on the domain names transition proposal. This is a good and
constructive development as it allows the CWG to return some of its
focus on the domain name related functions and a little less on ICANN
accountability. NTIA believes that this accountability process needs to
include the ``stress testing'' of solutions to safeguard against future
contingencies such as attempts to influence or take over ICANN
functions that are not currently possible with the IANA functions
contract in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Enhancing ICANN Accountability, ``Opportunity for public
dialogue and community feedback'' (May 6, 2014), available at: https://
www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en;
see also, Enhancing ICANN Accountability: Process and Next Steps
(Revised Oct. 10, 2104), available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/
pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en.
\33\ See ICANN Announcements, ``Proposed Charter for Enhancing
ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Submitted for
Consideration'' (Nov. 5, 2014), available at: https://www.icann.org/
news/announcement-2014-11-05-en.
\34\ Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
Accountability, ``Charter'' (Last Modified Dec. 11, 2014)(Adopted by 5
organizations), available at: https://community.icann.org/display/
acctcrosscomm/Charter.
\35\ See CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, ``Meetings,''
(last modified Jan. 6, 2015), available at: https://
community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two multistakeholder processes--the IANA stewardship
transition and enhancing ICANN accountability--are directly linked, and
NTIA has repeatedly said that both issues must be addressed before any
transition takes place. ICANN has indicated that it expects to receive
both the ICG transition and CCWG accountability proposals at roughly
the same time and that it will forward them promptly and without
modification to NTIA.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ICANN, ``ICANN 52 Board Statement on ICANN Sending IANA
Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Proposals to
NTIA'' (Feb. 12, 2015), available at: https://www.icann.org/news/
announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of timing, NTIA has not set a deadline for the
transition. September 2015 has been a target date because that is when
the base period of our contract with ICANN expires. However, we have
the flexibility to extend the contract if the community needs more time
to develop the best plan possible. It is up to the community to
determine a timeline that works best for stakeholders as they develop a
proposal that meets NTIA's conditions, but also a proposal that works.
The Internet community is undertaking truly historic work. NTIA is
confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out these
important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will
result in ICANN's becoming even more directly accountable to the
customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.
VII. Next Steps
NTIA is committed to continuing to work closely with the
stakeholder community as it develops a proposal that fully achieves the
goals NTIA established, as well as continue our overarching commitment
to strengthening the current multistakeholder model.
In the year ahead, it will be absolutely critical to the interests
of the United States that NTIA continue to monitor the discussions
within the multistakeholder community as it develops a transition plan
and provide feedback where appropriate. Specifically, NTIA will:
participate in meetings and discussions with other
governments, the global stakeholder community, ICANN, and
VeriSign with respect to the transition or planning the
transition;
if appropriate, amend the IANA functions contract to modify
the length of contract renewal option periods; and
continue to represent the United States at the GAC meetings
held at ICANN meetings and intersessionally throughout the
year.
Once the community develops and ICANN submits the consolidated
proposal, we will ensure that the March 2014 criteria are fully
addressed and that the proposal has been adequately ``stress tested''
to ensure the continued stability and security of the DNS. The
community processes used to develop their proposal might also influence
the work NTIA will need to undertake. For example, if the community
conducts ``stress tests'' as well as tests and validates any new
process or structures included in the proposal prior to submission,
well-documented results may facilitate NTIA's review. This will also
give confidence that any process, procedure or structure proposed
actually works. In addition, NTIA will review and assess the changes
made or proposed to enhance ICANN's accountability required in advance
of initiating the transition.
VIII. Conclusion
NTIA is cognizant of and appreciates the directive from Congress to
inform the relevant Committees in advance of any decision related to
the transition. As the proposal continues to take shape, we will update
Congress accordingly. NTIA appreciates interest in this important topic
and thanks Congress for its continued support for the multistakeholder
model of Internet governance.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Strickling. Mr. Chehade?
STATEMENT OF FADI CHEHADE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR
ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN), A CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC BENEFIT NONPROFIT CORPORATION
Mr. Chehade. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the
Committee, I am Fadi Chehade. I am the President and CEO of
ICANN. I am very honored to be in front of you today.
Thirty-five years ago, I started my American journey. I was
peeling onions in the back of a restaurant and going to
community college to learn English. Here I am in front of you.
This is the American dream that actually I lived.
The reason I bring it up today is because at the heart of
what we are discussing is keeping that dream. What is that
dream? It is about values that keep our lives, our system open,
inclusive, and really an opportunity for anyone who is really
ready to work hard to participate in the system.
The Internet is no different than the system. It is the
greatest American invention, and it is an invention that
supports these values, the values of openness, of inclusivity,
of participatory openness to anyone who is willing to come and
make a real difference.
We have taken that Internet to the world and today we look
at it driving a $4.2 trillion global digital economy and
growing. It is the fastest growing part of the global economy.
I with you agree we must maintain the values of that
system. If that system in any way is jeopardized, if its
stability is punctured, we all stand to lose, America and the
world.
It is based on these values that almost two decades ago
this country created the multistakeholder institution called
ICANN. We did it because we believed that a private sector-led
institution that has the checks and balances and governance of
the great institutions of this country can actually govern the
Internet.
For 20 years almost, that is what we have done. ICANN has
grown to become a global institution that is respected, that is
trusted, and it has in its core the values of the American
system that I have witnessed personally and that the Internet
embodies.
Therefore, I want to give you first an unequivocal
assurance that whatever we do here must and will retain the
values with which we started this endeavor.
For example, the letter that the chairman and Senator Rubio
sent us and prepared on how to strengthen the accountability of
ICANN includes six very powerful and very good ideas on how we
can take this forward. Frankly, many of these are already in
motion at ICANN. Those that are not, the community is now
discussing actively.
For example, you mentioned how we can limit the possibility
of governance exercising undue influence at ICANN. Already,
governments cannot be on our Board. Governments can only give
advice. We will strengthen this further, as you suggested in
your letter.
Another concrete idea you gave us in your letter is to make
sure our Affirmation of Commitments to the world are enshrined
in our bylaws. We are very actively looking at doing that right
now, and I believe this is a good idea, and I hope our
stakeholders will agree with me.
These Affirmation of Commitments by the way are very clear
that the jurisdiction of ICANN shall remain in the United
States of America, and we stand by this.
I have been in this town now for 24 hours and I heard the
same question asked again and again, why. Why is this
transition necessary. In a world where cybersecurity and issues
of the Internet are growing and on our minds, why give up
American oversight now at a time when the world and we need it
most.
Some answer this question by saying because if we are true
to our beliefs, if we believe in private sector led
multistakeholder institutions, we cannot be ourselves as the
U.S. Government engaged when we believe in that model.
Therefore, we should be an example to the world and let the
multistakeholder model thrive, as Senator Rubio and Senator
McCaskill's Resolution in 2012 affirms, and we believe in these
concepts.
Others say we should do it because if the U.S. does not
step back, some governments who do not share our values will
step in into inter-governmental bodies and try and force us to
control what we do at ICANN and other aspects of Internet
governance.
Both of these parties may have a point, but I want to
finish by telling you why I believe this is the time to do this
transition. Multiple administrations over the last two decades
have supported the multistakeholder model. This transition is
not a surprise. This is the planned progression we have all
believed in and supported for almost two decades.
It is now time to show the world that when we say we
believe in private sector led multistakeholder institutions, we
do what we say. The world is watching, and I think we will not
let them down.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chehade follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fadi Chehade, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN),
A California Public Benefit Nonprofit Corporation
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, I am
Fadi Chehade, the President and CEO of ICANN, the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers. I am very pleased to be testifying
before you today.
The subject of today's hearing, ``Preserving the Multistakeholder
Model of Internet Governance'' comes at a very timely point in the work
of ICANN's multistakeholder community. Nearly one year ago, on March
14, 2014, the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration announced its intent to continue its ongoing
transition of Internet governance oversight to the multistakeholder
model by calling upon the ICANN community to convene a process to
develop a proposal that meets a clear set of criteria for that
transition and that will ensure that no government-led solution or
intergovernmental organization could gain control of the IANA
functions.
The U.S. Government demonstrated great vision in its initial
decision so many years ago to privatize the management of the domain
name system. Republican and Democratic Administrations have remained
true to the vision, gradually reducing government oversight of the
ICANN multistakeholder community. In this light, the announcement to
complete the privatization and transfer NTIA's stewardship of the IANA
functions to the multistakeholder community is the logical extension of
the U.S. Government's long-standing support for the multistakeholder
model.
How Did We Get Here?: A Brief Background
NTIA's announcement was a long time coming. In 1998, NTIA entered
into the IANA (or Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) Functions
Contract with ICANN. That same year, ICANN was purpose-built to perform
the IANA functions, which consist of the coordination of unique
Internet identifiers (domain names, IP numbers and protocol
parameters). ICANN has performed the IANA functions pursuant to its no-
fee contract with the U.S. Government ever since, while maintaining the
security, stability and resiliency of the Internet. This technical
mandate does not give ICANN control over content on the Internet;
instead it is key to maintaining a single, global, unified and
interoperable Internet.
The relationship between ICANN and NTIA has remained strong over
the past 17 years. For many reasons, I expect that our relationship
with the U.S. Government will remain strong even when the IANA
Functions Contract comes to an end. Apart from its stewardship role,
NTIA represents the U.S. Government within ICANN's Governmental
Advisory Committee. It is also our partner in the Affirmation of
Commitments. Further, ICANN has its global headquarters in the United
States, and there are no plans for that to change.
At the time of ICANN's formation, it was envisioned that the U.S.
Government would transition its stewardship role over the key unique
Internet identifier functions within two years. This temporary
arrangement lasted far longer than anyone anticipated, but ICANN is now
recognized as mature enough to perform its work under a
multistakeholder-based stewardship model as opposed to any single
government control. The successful completion of the transition is
essential to the upholding of the multistakeholder model for Internet
policy and governance. The eyes of the world are watching this process
and ICANN and the U.S.'s commitment to see this transition through.
NTIA's announcement preserves and prolongs the free and open Internet
that has brought so much economic growth and social and cultural
development.
Both ICANN and the U.S. Government have championed the
multistakeholder model, in which standards and policies are developed
by large and small businesses, the technical community, not-for-profit
organizations, civil society, intellectual property experts,
governments, academia, and Internet users from around the globe.
American corporations--such as AT&T, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Neustar,
Verisign and Verizon--and the Internet technical community (the
Internet Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Task Force, the
Internet Society, the Regional Internet Registries and the World Wide
Web Consortium) also participate in and demonstrate support for the
multistakeholder model. These entities have welcomed the U.S.
Government's announcement as the way to bring more countries to support
the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance, moving them away
from a model in which only governments hold sway.
A few weeks after NTIA's announcement, I was called to testify
before the House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
on Communications and Technology on ``Ensuring the Security, Stability,
Resilience, and Freedom of the Internet.'' There, Assistant Secretary
for Communications and Information Lawrence Strickling and I testified
about the work initiated following NTIA's announcement. Much work has
progressed since that time, and I will discuss that below.
There are areas however in which not much has changed. There are
still many who challenge multistakeholder governance of the Internet
when one single government is seen as exercising control over the IANA
functions. There are other governments and intergovernmental
organizations that are eager to challenge the U.S.'s unique stewardship
role. I testified in March 2014 of the threats posed by governments who
seek to use United Nations processes to challenge that singular
stewardship model and assert more diverse participation of other
governments in Internet governance, and the import of the U.S. stepping
out of the stewardship role to diffuse that threat.
If we succeed, we will diffuse arguments that are being strongly
used now by governments that seek to expand their perceived limited and
advisory role in Internet governance while one other single government
enjoys a special role. Success will also lessen support for the
creation of intergovernmental mechanisms for Internet policy
development at the UN General Assembly, or for governments to expand
control over the management of core Internet resources and possibly
fragmenting the Internet.
Congress itself recognized the threat by those who argue for
increased government control over the Internet, and reaffirmed its
commitment to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in its
2012 S.Con.Res.50 and H.Con.Res.127. This announcement by NTIA to end
its stewardship role over the IANA functions further cements this
commitment.
Without a completion of this transition, we risk not only the
continued vitality of the multistakeholder model, but the ability to
maintain a unified, global Internet free from governmental
interference. The global community now sees this transition effort as a
fork in the road for the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance;
we are being watched closely. The timely transition will encourage
governments to participate in the multistakeholder model with the
private sector, with the technical community, civil society and
academia to keep one, global, non-fragmented, stable and resilient
Internet. This will benefit U.S. businesses and end users and will
promote the long-standing U.S. objective of maintaining a single open,
free, innovative global Internet. As Ambassador David Gross testified
at that same March 2014 hearing, the transition will lead to a ``better
Internet'' and ``better Internet Governance situation.''
Multistakeholder Work Towards the Transition
The multistakeholder community has stepped up to the task that NTIA
laid before it. The support for the transition has been broad and deep,
with a demonstrated commitment to transparency in the dialogues. After
community consultation, an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination
Group, or ICG, was formed with 30 members from across a variety of
stakeholders, including not only the customers of the IANA functions,
but also representatives from the business community, civil society,
governments, root server operators, and security and stability advisory
members. The ICG, in turn, submitted a request for proposals from each
of the operational communities that are in direct operational or
service relationships with ICANN as the IANA functions operator. Each
of these three operational communities quickly organized discussions--
many happening outside of ICANN--to respond to the ICG:
The protocol parameters community, through the Internet
Engineering Task Force, conducted an open dialogue in which all
could participate. This community delivered its response to the
ICG in January of this year.
The numbering community, through a team convened by the five
Regional Internet Registries (from North American, Asia-
Pacific, Europe, Africa and the Latin American/Caribbean
regions), held open dialogues throughout the communities they
serve. The team also delivered its proposal in January of this
year.
The naming community formed a Cross-Community Working Group,
made up of business, operators, governments and civil society,
to develop its proposal. The work is ongoing.
The hallmark of the proposal developments at each stage is open,
with global participation across stakeholders.
A tremendous number of hours have been devoted to this work, and I
am humbled by the devotion of the volunteers who are working so hard
toward this effort. Some highlights include:
90 meetings/calls, 5 of which were ICANN-funded face-to-face
meetings
Over 9,700 mailing list exchanges
190 hours of meetings/calls, not including drafting/document
development
7 transition working or engagement sessions at ICANN
Meetings
This does not include community-run sessions where the
transition was discussed, or when members of working groups
presented to other parts of the ICANN community
Over 250 events globally for awareness building and
discussion
In at least 63 different countries spanning North
America, Latin America/Caribbean, Europe, Asia, Africa, the
Middle East, and Australasia/Pacific
When all proposals are in, the ICG is charged with assessing them
and assembling a complete proposal for the transition. The proposal
will be submitted to ICANN, which will in turn submit it (along with
the accountability proposal discussed below) to NTIA for consideration.
NTIA has specified that the proposal must meet certain criteria, which
are:
Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
partners of the IANA services; and,
Maintain the openness of the Internet.
In addition, the NTIA made clear that it will not accept a proposal
that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-
governmental organization solution.
It is important to note that within the transition process, each of
the communities served by the IANA functions have stated their
satisfaction with ICANN's performance of those functions. ICANN has
received repeated high marks on an annual IANA Functions Satisfaction
Survey. Even as ICANN is facilitating this important process, my key
focus remains on maintaining operational excellence and the security,
stability and resiliency of the Internet DNS.
ICANN's Performance Standards for timeliness and accuracy of
processing stakeholder's requests are published on a monthly basis. In
addition, ICANN is subject to an annual audit of the security of the
IANA functions systems. Further, after an independent assessment, the
IANA Functions Department received recognition from an international
organization for its business excellence. We are ready operationally to
maintain this quality of work even without NTIA in its stewardship
role.
Enhancing ICANN Accountability--A Parallel Process
When NTIA made its announcement, many in the ICANN community
questioned whether ICANN could remain accountable without the perceived
backstop of NTIA in the absence of the IANA Functions Contract. As a
result, ICANN initiated the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process,
another cross-community effort, to arrive at recommendations for how
ICANN's accountability mechanisms can be enhanced or newly developed to
address the community concerns. NTIA is supportive of this effort, and
has made clear that the issues of accountability are related to the
transition of the stewardship over the IANA functions; NTIA will only
consider the stewardship transition proposal alongside recommendations
on how ICANN's accountability can be improved.
The group performing the Enhancing ICANN Accountability review has
broad representation across the multistakeholder community, with
members from business, civil society, governments and others. Asst.
Secretary Strickling served as one of the selectors of experts to
advise the accountability working group, including experts on global
accountability and governance. The group has 25 designated members and
over 130 participants from across the globe, and has made substantial
progress towards the development of recommendations in the few months
it has been active. Their work is open,transparent and fully accessible
around the globe.
The work relating to accountability in light of the changing
historical relationship with the U.S. is looking at whether and how to
enhance opportunities for community input into key processes within
ICANN, such as the budget approval and key Bylaws changes. It is also
considering enhancing opportunities for review and redress of ICANN
decisions. Though the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the
Department of Commerce is not impacted by the transition announcement,
and no change in that relationship is anticipated, the accountability
group is considering if there are some items set out within that
Affirmation that are so important that they should be housed within the
ICANN Bylaws. The group is aware of the need to ``stress test'' their
proposed solutions against key potential risks, and has been very
active in defining those risks.
The community work is very much in line with the ideas put forward
by Chairman Thune and Senator Rubio in a July 31, 2014 letter submitted
to ICANN on enhancing ICANN accountability. There, six concrete ideas
were set forth on how ICANN could enhance its accountability. Some of
these protections already exist, and those that do not are already
under discussion within the accountability working group. For example:
The letter discussed the import of limiting possibility of
governments exercising undue influence through mechanisms such
as not allowing government representatives to sit on the ICANN
Board; limiting governments to an advisory role within ICANN
through the Governmental Advisory Committee; and amending
bylaws to require board to consider only consensus advice
issued by the Governmental Advisory Committee.
The ICANN Bylaws already prohibit a government
representative from holding a voting position on the ICANN
Board, and governments hold only an advisory role through
the Governmental Advisory Committee. These are important
items that need to remain in place.
The accountability group is already discussing issues
relating to consensus advice from the Governmental Advisory
Committee and how to address this concern.
There was a call to keep the IANA functions operations as
separate from the policy-development processes that define
those policies that are implemented through the IANA function.
That exists today and there are no recommendations to
modify that separation.
The recommendation that major decisions of the Board,
including changes to Bylaws, should be increased to 4/5 of all
voting members is in line with the community discussions. The
community is also considering mechanisms for enhanced community
participation in these key decisions.
In the letter, there is a call for increased oversight tools
for the community such as a requirement for an annual audit
over the organization and the development of an Inspector
General's office to develop reports on the activities of the
community; the development of a Freedom of Information Act-like
process for document disclosure; and a form of
``parliamentarian'' to guide people through ICANN processes.
Through the Audit Committee of the ICANN Board, ICANN
has an independent financial audit performed each year by
an external audit firm; these financial audits are
available online, and have consistently returned with clean
results. If this process can be enhanced, I would be in
full support.
Similarly, ICANN maintains a document disclosure
process (called the Documentary Information Disclosure
Policy) through which requests for non-public information
are weighed against community-vetted, publicly available
conditions for non-disclosure. I understand that the
accountability process will likely be suggesting
enhancements to this disclosure process.
I am in full support of any tools, such as a
parliamentarian, that make ICANN's processes easier to
follow and more open for participation.
The recommendation for enhanced, independent dispute
resolution processes to provide confidence to community that
redress is possible when board or staff errs or fairness of
process is called into question is one of the main focuses of
the accountability work today, and I expect to see significant
progress on this issue.
Finally, there was a call to amend the ICANN Bylaws to make
the Affirmation of Commitments, including the community
reviews, a permanent part of ICANN, removing the ability for a
120-day termination of the Affirmation.
First, ICANN is deeply committed to the Affirmation of
Commitments and has no plans to terminate our obligations
under that agreement. Notwithstanding that fact, the
accountability group is already working on this exact idea
of incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments into the
Bylaws, including requirements for higher voting thresholds
in the event of future attempts to modify these
obligations.
I, along with my fellow Board members, confirmed to the community,
and confirm to you today, that we are open to considering any possible
recommendations, even if those recommendations result in enhanced
community input in the removal of Board members for cause. We are
committed to this process and to a positive outcome.
ICANN's 52nd Public Meeting Focused on Transition Activities
I have just returned from Singapore, where ICANN convened its 52nd
public meeting, which we call ICANN52. We had over 1,800 people in
attendance at this meeting, including representatives from across
business and civil society, including 21st Century Fox, Apple, the
Center for Democracy and Technology, Facebook, Google, the Heritage
Foundation, the Motion Picture Association of America and others.
Volunteers were in sessions starting at 7:00 a.m., often not concluding
their meeting days until well into the evening. The week was marked
with intense, serious deliberations. Volunteers returned from such an
intense week of ICANN52 without pause to continue with rigorous
schedules of conference calls to maintain the momentum and bring this
work to a close.
Next Steps
Where do we go from here? The base term on the current IANA
Functions Contract is set to expire in September of this year. However,
I have been clear--as has Asst. Secretary Strickling--that the end of
the current contract term is not an artificial deadline. This is the
community's process and I am not imposing any deadline on the
completion of any of the work underway. It is important to get this
done right. Remarkably, the global response to the NTIA announcement
has ICANN currently in a place where it is still feasible to deliver a
proposal to NTIA in time for a transition to occur at the expiration of
the contract. Much work has been completed in a relatively short time.
The areas where work is still ongoing, particularly within the names
community and the accountability working group, have intensive work
schedules over the next few weeks with the hope of having documents
available for consultation shortly. Of course, if more time is needed,
it can be taken; there are opportunities for extensions under the
current IANA Functions Contract, and we are committed to tracking this
issue closely with the NTIA to address any timing concerns.
I am aware of the Congressional interest in this topic, both on the
Senate and House sides. The February 5, 2015 designation of an
``Internet Governance Awareness Week'' to correspond to ICANN52 was
appreciated in helping to call further attention to the important
issues raised through this transition process. As discussed, the
ICANN52 participants met your call for focusing on important issues
such as accountability and maintaining the global, unified Internet
that we have all come to rely on. And we stand with you on this. For
example, there remains clear consensus on the need to maintain the IANA
functions operations as separate from the policy-development processes
that define those policies that are implemented through the IANA
function. That exists today and there are no recommendations to modify
that separation. I stand with you on making sure that the stewardship
role is not now, nor susceptible in the future, to being led by any
government, group of governments, or intergovernmental solution.
Similarly I stand with you that no other stakeholder or group of
stakeholders should be in a position to exercise undue influence over
ICANN.
Finally, I wish to assure you that the transition will not take
place in the dead of night. The community work is conducted in an open
and transparent manner, including calls for public comment on draft
proposals. Once the proposals are finalized, there will be ample time
for Congress and other interested parties to review them. I look
forward to meeting with you again to discuss the final proposals.
Thank you for inviting me to testify. I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chehade. Ambassador Gross?
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. GROSS, AMBASSADOR, PARTNER, WILEY REIN
LLP, AND FORMER U.S. COORDINATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Gross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member, members of the Committee. It is a great honor
and privilege to be back here. Thank you very much for the
invitation to testify.
This hearing is a very timely hearing, not only for the
reasons that my colleagues up here on the panel have
identified, but also for at least two other reasons. One is
Internet freedom is on the decline. Freedom House has said for
the last 4 years Internet freedom has been declining. This is
an issue that concerns everyone and should concern everyone.
Second is we are at a time of a global inflection point
with regard to Internet access. The GSMA, the wireless
association, the global wireless association, has said that in
2013 there had been about 2.2 billion subscribers for Internet
and mobile services, and for most of the world, they get their
Internet through wireless technology. That is about a third of
the global population.
They estimate that in less than 5 years, by 2020, that
there will be an additional 1.6 billion people worldwide who
will become mobile Internet subscribers, a total of about 3.8
billion people, about half the world's population, will have
Internet access because of that technology.
We are at a time when this is critically important because
we are at the cusp not only of ensuring that the world's
population has Internet access but will get Internet access for
the first time.
The members of the Internet Governance Coalition, of which
I have the privilege of leading, has an extraordinary interest
in the issues before us today. They are committed fulsomely to
the five points that Assistant Secretary Strickling laid out in
his announcement in March on behalf of the Administration,
including the announcement that any transition will ensure that
no government or inter-governmental organization can find a way
of controlling these functions.
Our members have been very actively involved in this
process from the beginning. Importantly, I am here to tell you
that we are not only actively involved in this, but we are
watching this process like a hawk to ensure that any proposal
that comes out of this process meets the five-part test set
forth as the standard by the Administration and by Assistant
Secretary Strickling, and we will be amongst the first to say
if we do not think it meets that test.
We are optimistic and I am optimistic that it will come
forward with a proposal that can be adopted that will meet that
test, but time will tell.
Importantly, the Administration has made clear, and we
wholeheartedly agree, that there is no rush to a decision. As
Assistant Secretary Strickling has indicated, the September 30
date is a date when the current contract expires but it can be
automatically renewed.
We believe that it is much more important to get this right
than to rush, and we wholeheartedly agree in making sure that
the process goes fulsomely to a happy and successful
conclusion.
That successful conclusion is affirmance of the role of the
private sector in the multistakeholder approach that many
administrations have endorsed, that have gone to the mat to
defend globally, and importantly, has had the fulsome support
of the Congress, especially led by the Senate.
We are greatly appreciative of that. We believe that
important involvement is critical to a successful outcome in
this process, and we support the process with the hope and
expectation that it will meet not only the needs of our
community but importantly the approximately 3.3 billion people
around the world who will have or soon will have Internet
access.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Gross follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Gross, Ambassador, Partner, Wiley Rein
LLP, and former U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and
Information Policy, U.S. Department of State
Summary
The Internet Governance Coalition welcomed the opportunity to
participate actively in the IANA functions transition process commenced
by NTIA last year, and NTIA's affirmation that any transitional
proposal must support and address the following four principles:
Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and
partners of the IANA services; and,
Maintain the openness of the Internet.
The principles articulated by NTIA and its explicit commitment not
to accept proposals replacing its role with a government-led or an
inter-governmental organization, together with those found in the
Coalition's submission to the 2014 NETmundial conference, are essential
for ensuring that all global citizens are able to take advantage of the
Internet's full transformative capabilities, both now and in the
future.
Coalition members work closely with other stakeholders in the
process initiated by NTIA and coordinated by ICANN. Challenges will
continue to be faced in the days ahead, and debates on the best form of
Internet governance will remain a focus at future meetings, including
the Internet Governance Forum and the UN's World Summit on the
Information Society review. While the expiration of the current IANA
functions contract approaches, it is most important that the transition
process not be rushed, and that NTIA take the necessary time to ensure
that any proposals ensure the continuation of a safe, secure, open,
interoperable, and sustainable Internet, as well as a transparent and
accountable ICANN.
______
Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, good morning
and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is David A. Gross. Formerly, I had the great honor of
serving in the Department of State as the United States Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy from 2001 to 2009.
During this time, I led the United States delegations to the
preparatory meetings and I was the co-head of the United States
delegations to both actual phases of the United Nations' World Summit
on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005),
which, among other things, focused on the role of governments regarding
Internet governance and resulted in the creation of the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF). Today I am appearing on behalf of the Internet
Governance Coalition, an industry coalition with broad representation
from the communications, Internet, and related industries, including
Amazon, AT&T, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Comcast NBCUniversal,
Facebook, Go Daddy, Google Inc., Juniper Networks Inc., Microsoft
Corporation, Telefonica, S.A., The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner
Cable Inc., Twenty-First Century Fox Inc., and Verizon Communications
Inc.
I am pleased to testify on important issues related to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) process of
transitioning key Internet domain name functions to the global
multistakeholder community. The primary focus of my testimony is to
emphasize our firm belief that a thriving Internet depends on a
governance structure that is open, transparent, and representative of
all stakeholders. The current multistakeholder model for Internet
governance has facilitated the historic Internet-driven economic,
social, and political development of the past two decades. The
decentralized structure of the Internet has enabled individuals to
access information and services, to connect and to communicate, and to
share ideas and knowledge globally. By offering new possibilities for
entrepreneurial creativity, the Internet has become a powerful engine
for unparalleled technological innovation, economic growth and the
preservation and promotion of cultural diversity.
We wish to commend the leadership of Assistant Secretary Strickling
and the extraordinary group of professionals at NTIA for their tireless
support of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. The
Internet has been allowed to mature into the global ``network of
networks'' that it is today, in large part because of the stewardship
by NTIA, ably supported by the Department of State and other Federal
agencies. Similarly, ICANN has matured substantially since its
inception in 1998, focusing on implementing accountability and
transparency mechanisms and practices, such that it is now possible for
NTIA to evaluate and possibly approve a transition plan for the further
evolution of ICANN.
Indeed, as described in NTIA's recent ``Report on the Transition of
the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Functions,'' as directed by the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015 Public Law 113-235,\1\ the process to develop
a transition proposal already is well underway. An IANA Stewardship
Transition Coordination Group (``ICG''), representing more than a dozen
Internet stakeholder communities, has been established to guide the
process to develop a transition proposal. On September 8, 2014, the ICG
issued a Request for Transition Proposals to the multistakeholder
community, requesting one proposal for each of the three primary
functions: the protocol parameters, numbering, and domain name-related
functions. The Internet community currently is in various states of
proposal development. The IETF and the five Regional Internet
Registries have submitted final proposals, and a Cross Community
Working Group on the domain name-related functions is finalizing its
draft proposal. The ICG expects to submit, through ICANN, a final
transition proposal to NTIA by the end of July 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
iana_report_013015.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICANN also has launched a parallel process to enhance its
accountability to the global Internet community. This process is
directly linked to the IANA functions transition process, and NTIA
reiterated in its recent Report that both issues must be addressed
before any transition takes place. A Cross Community Working Group on
Accountability, composed of representatives from ICANN's Supporting
Organizations and Advisory Committees, and open to all interested
parties, has been established to identify both the accountability
measures that need to be in place before the IANA transition as well as
measures that should be adopted for the longer term.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/
CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Acco
untability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that these processes--transitioning the IANA functions
and implementing enhanced accountability and transparency--are both
critical steps. United States oversight of the IANA functions has long
been an issue of concern to the global community. By allowing for the
careful transition of the IANA to a bottom-up multistakeholder entity,
the United States has affirmed its commitment to the multistakeholder
model. Further, the accountability review that is under way must
provide ICANN stakeholders additional and robust accountability and
transparency mechanisms to ensure future stability in the absence of
NTIA's current role, and these additional mechanisms must be in place
prior to or simultaneous with the transition. If the principles NTIA
identified for the transition are met--which is a critical condition
for this process to work--the United States will also succeed in
maintaining the freedom, openness, security, and stability of the
network we have all enjoyed since its inception.
For these reasons, the Coalition welcomes NTIA's affirmation that
any transitional proposal must support and address the following four
bedrock principles:
Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
partners of the IANA services; and,
Maintain the openness of the Internet.
These principles, together with NTIA's critically important,
explicit commitment not to accept any proposal that could replace its
role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization, are
consistent with the statement that the Coalition made in its submission
to the April 2014 ``Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of
Internet Governance,'' also known as NETmundial, held in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. A copy of that statement, entitled ``Sustaining Principles for
Internet Policy and Governance'' is attached to this testimony.
To be clear, the principles articulated by NTIA and those found in
the Coalition's NETmundial statement are, we believe, essential for
ensuring that all global citizens--regardless of their location--are
able to take advantage of the Internet's full transformative
capabilities, both now and in the future.
Coalition members have been working closely and look forward to
continuing to work with other stakeholders involved in the process
initiated by NTIA and coordinated by ICANN. But we also wish to
underscore the reality of the current international environment: there
are great challenges associated with ensuring a safe, secure, open,
interoperable, and sustainable Internet that have been faced during
numerous international meetings and treaty conferences in recent years.
Debates on the best form of Internet governance certainly will be a
focus at future meetings, including the 2015 Internet Governance Forum
and the United Nation's World Summit on the Information Society review,
which is scheduled to conclude in December, 2015.
Through these various processes, we must join together to be
vigilant to ensure a safe and open Internet, as well as to ensure that
whatever policies and structures are adopted foster innovation and
investment in Internet networks, services, and other sectors of the
Internet ecosystem, including ensuring the protection of intellectual
property and the protection of human rights. We are also resolute that
policies must support opening and maintaining international markets in
a way that allows for the seamless flow of digital services,
applications, products and information.
Similarly, policies must stimulate sustainable investment in and
deployment of Internet networks and the industries and services that
create demand for those networks. These goals are best advanced through
the rule of law, which governments have the primary responsibility for
advancing, and establishing predictability in decision-making.
Finally, we urge all governments to adopt policies that support
increased transparency and openness in intergovernmental organizations,
to promote inclusiveness in existing multistakeholder mechanisms, and
to ensure that all stakeholders can participate meaningfully in key
Internet policy and governance discussions. The quality of Internet
governance decisions increases when diverse stakeholders choose to
actively and consistently participate.
We are encouraged by NTIA's and ICANN's commitments to working
closely with all stakeholders to ensure that they develop a transition
proposal that fully achieves the goals NTIA established and that
continues strengthening the multistakeholder model. It will be critical
that NTIA continue to engage the multistakeholder community as it
develops its transition plan. While the expiration of the current IANA
functions contract is approaching, it is important that the transition
process not be rushed and that NTIA take the necessary time to ensure
that any transition proposals ensure the continuation of a safe,
secure, open, interoperable, and sustainable Internet. In this regard,
we welcome the commitment of Assistant Secretary Strickling to extend
the current contract if the global community requires additional time.
I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me, on behalf of
the Internet Governance Coalition, to present our views at a time of
great importance for preserving the fundamental principles that have
governed the Internet. This is a particularly important period in the
Internet's evolution, and re-enforces the timeliness of this hearing.
We welcome the initiative undertaken by Assistant Secretary Strickling,
and we are prepared to join with others in ensuring that the process
that has been initiated continues to affirm these guiding principles
that have been at the core of the Internet's extraordinary growth
during the past two decades.
______
Attachment:
Internet Governance Coalition submission to NETmundial, April 2014
Sustaining Principles for Internet Policy and Governance
Area: SET OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES
Entitled by: David A. Gross Region: Americas
Organization: Internet Governance Coalition Sector: Private
Sector
Keywords: Internet governance multistakeholder
Abstract
The Internet Governance Coalition extends our sincere appreciation
to Brazil for hosting the ``Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the
Future of Internet Governance,'' to be held in Sao Paulo. The Meeting
is taking place at a time when the topic of Internet governance is an
issue of great interest around the world. The many major conferences
and work efforts scheduled this year exemplify the accelerated pace of
Internet governance discussions and make 2014 a particularly important
year in the ongoing evolution of the Internet. Indeed, there are a host
of institutions, each with different core functions and strengths, that
address issues related to Internet governance. We believe that
preserving and advancing open and consultative decision-making is
essential to ensuring that global citizens are able to take advantage
of this transformative platform both now and in the future. As such, we
respectfully submit seven principles which we believe are essential to
Internet governance.
Document
The Internet Governance Coalition (the ``Coalition'') extends our
sincere appreciation to Brazil for hosting the ``Global
Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance,'' to be
held in Sao Paulo. The Meeting is taking place at a time when the topic
of Internet governance is an issue of great interest around the world.
The many major conferences and work efforts scheduled this year
exemplify the accelerated pace of Internet governance discussions and
make 2014 a particularly important year in the ongoing evolution of the
Internet. Indeed, there are a host of institutions, each with different
core functions and strengths, that address issues related to Internet
governance.
The Coalition represents leading international Internet and telecom
companies, including: Amazon, AT&T, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Comcast
NBCUniversal, Google Inc., Juniper Networks Inc., Microsoft
Corporation, Telefonica, S.A., The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner
Cable Inc., Twenty-First Century Fox Inc., and Verizon Communications
Inc. We believe a thriving Internet depends on a governance structure
that is open, transparent, and representative of all stakeholders. The
multistakeholder model approach to Internet governance has allowed for
the creation of decentralized structures that have resulted in historic
economic, social, and political development. This decentralized
structure of the Internet has enabled individuals to access information
and services, to connect and to communicate, and to share ideas and
knowledge globally. By offering new possibilities for entrepreneurial
creativity, the Internet has become a powerful engine for technological
innovation, economic growth, and the preservation and promotion of
cultural diversity. We believe this model, strengthened as necessary,
will continue to best serve these shared goals and Internet users far
into the future.
These concepts are rooted in the 2005 Tunis Agenda for the
Information Society that provided the foundational principles for
Internet governance, which affirmed the multistakeholder, transparent,
and democratic governance of the Internet, while at the same time
recognizing the sovereignty of governments and rule of law. It is
precisely because of this multistakeholder governance model that the
Internet has grown into the transformative platform it is today. To say
nothing of the broader social benefits from the Internet, its economic
contributions have been astonishing. According to McKinsey Global
Institute, the Internet accounts for 21 percent of GDP growth in the
last five years in developed countries, and in 30 surveyed developing
countries.
We believe that preserving and advancing open and consultative
decision-making is essential to ensuring that global citizens are able
to take advantage of this transformative platform both now and in the
future. As such, we support the following principles which we believe
are essential to Internet governance:
Policies must ensure a safe, secure, open, interoperable,
and sustainable Internet.
Policies must stimulate sustainable investment in and
deployment of Internet networks and the industries and services
that create demand for those networks.
Policies must support opening and maintaining international
markets in a way that allows for the seamless flow of digital
services, applications, products, and information.
Policies must foster innovation across Internet networks,
services, and other sectors in the Internet ecosystem,
including ensuring the protection of intellectual property.
Policies must support increased transparency and openness in
intergovernmental organizations and multistakeholder
mechanisms, to ensure that all stakeholders can participate
meaningfully in key Internet policy discussions. The quality of
Internet governance decisions increases when diverse
stakeholders choose to actively and consistently participate.
Policies must support capacity building and implementation
of best practices in relation to network security.
Policies must support the rule of law which governments have
primary responsibility for advancing.
The Coalition looks forward to working with all stakeholders to
prepare for a successful Meeting in Brazil, and welcomes this
opportunity for dialogue on these important issues. International
consensus on Internet policies is unlikely to be realized at only one
meeting. These debates will continue at future meetings, including the
2014 Internet Governance Forum, WSIS Review, and ITU Plenipotentiary,
that, together with the ``The Global Multistakeholder Meeting,''
promise to make significant contributions to the ongoing global
dialogue on Internet governance.
The Coalition again extends its appreciation to the host country of
Brazil and to CGI.br and/1net for their extraordinary and constructive
work in organizing the Meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Internet Governance Coalition.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador Gross. I want to yield
now to my partner on this committee, our Ranking Member, the
Senator from Florida, Senator Nelson, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I support the
multistakeholder model of ICANN. As an institution, it
represents one in which the Internet's diverse stakeholders can
come together and make sure the Internet remains free, open,
secure, and a global network.
Mr. Chairman, I will give you a present today. I will cease
my opening comments.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. I will seek permission to enter it into the
record so we can get into the questions.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
Thank you Chairman Thune for holding this hearing today.
The Internet is one of our country's great research and development
success stories. With the support of the Department of Defense and
other U.S. Government agencies, a small community of computer
researchers worked for many years to develop the technology and
standards necessary to allow computer users on different networks to
easily share digital information with each other. Those standards still
lie at the heart of the Internet today.
While the Internet may have had its birth here in the United
States, it has quickly transformed the entire world. That's why the
U.S. Government began nearly two decades ago to take steps to transfer
control of the technical and operational aspects of the Internet to the
private citizens, businesses, and institutions that were rapidly
adopting it across the globe.
It was that effort that led to ICANN. I strongly support the
multistakeholder model that ICANN, as an institution, represents: one
in which the Internet's diverse stakeholders can come together and make
sure that the Internet remains a free, open, and global network.
I also support the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's (NTIA) announcement last year that it would complete
the work of privatizing the technical elements of the Internet begun in
1998. I know that there are legitimate concerns about this transition.
Many of those will be discussed during this hearing, but NTIA has been
handling this transition in the right way. For example, NTIA has made
clear that these functions may not be handed over to another government
or an inter-governmental body.
That is a critical precondition for the transition. In addition,
the transition must preserve and protect the security, the stability
and the openness that everyone has come to expect from the Internet. I
will be watching this issue closely.
NTIA also has embraced parallel efforts to make sure ICANN remains
accountable to the global Internet community. Such efforts will give
stakeholders the confidence they need to develop an effective
transition plan.
Finally, it is important to note that the United States Congress
and the administration have always spoken with a united voice in
support of the multistakeholder model to international Internet
governance.
We may disagree on how best to protect consumers, ensure public
safety, or promote competition in our domestic laws and regulations,
but that disagreement should end at our borders.
We must continue to send a powerful signal to the rest of the world
that the U.S. is committed to the multistakeholder model of
international Internet governance--that we really do believe in a free
and open Internet and want to preserve and advance the current
multistakeholder model of global Internet governance.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee
today and for their thoughtful comments on these issues. I look forward
to hearing your testimony.
The Chairman. I thank the Senator from Florida but would
just assure him we always enjoy listening to your wise
comments, so free feel to proceed if you want to.
Let me start by asking Mr. Chehade: ICANN's own governance
guidelines state that ``The fundamental responsibility of its
directors is to act in the best interest of ICANN and in the
global public interest, taking into account the interests of
the Internet community as a whole, rather than any individual
group or interest.'' That is a quote.
There must be times, however, when what is best for ICANN,
the organization or its Board isn't necessarily what is best
for the Internet community.
The question is what if the stakeholder community proposes
to diminish the power of the Board in some way?
Mr. Chehade. The stakeholder community already proposed
measures to review the decisions of Board members, to make sure
they can recall Board members if necessary, and the Board in
Singapore at our recent meeting a few weeks ago indicated its
openness to all these measures in order to make sure that the
community keeps a very close eye on our Board, its decisions,
and to ensure that its powers are always bound by the words you
read, Mr. Chairman, that our main goal is to ensure the public
interest and to have full public responsibility.
Yes, the Board is considering these, and we are looking
forward to the stakeholders to come back with proposals. I can
assure you we will be taking them very seriously and adopting
them where possible.
The Chairman. Will the ICANN Board send a proposal to NTIA
that lessens the Board's power or authority?
Mr. Chehade. We will if the community and the stakeholders
present us with a proposal. We will give it to NTIA, and we
committed already that we will not change the proposal, that if
we have views on that proposal, we should participate with the
community.
Once that proposal comes from our stakeholders, we will
pass it on to NTIA as is.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ambassador Gross, the United
Nations' ITU has a broad framework of regulations and tariffs
for telecommunication services but not for Internet services.
My understanding is that Democrat and Republican
Administrations alike, including the current one, have argued
the ITU should not impose similar regulations on the Internet.
In your opinion, will the FCC's reclassifying of the
Internet as a telecommunication service for domestic regulation
strengthen or weaken our ability to keep the ITU from
regulating or tariffing the Internet?
Ambassador Gross. Thank you very much for that question. I
will start with a disclaimer and then perhaps give you an
answer.
The disclaimer is, of course, we are all waiting to see
what the FCC does, presumably tomorrow, and the details will be
important in answering your question fully.
It has been a long policy, starting with the Clinton
Administration, and very vigorously pursued by the Bush
Administration, and I will say by the first part of the Obama
Administration, that is the first term of so, to be very clear
that the ITU should have no jurisdiction with regard to
Internet and Internet related issues.
We have made the point repeatedly that the Constitution of
the ITU sets forth in Article I that its scope is on
telecommunications. We have argued consistently that
telecommunications is not the same as the Internet, that the
Internet is fundamentally different, and therefore, the ITU
does not have jurisdiction on Internet related issues.
We will have to see what the FCC does and says tomorrow. If
they were to find that the Internet or Internet services are a
telecommunication service, that will undoubtedly make the job
of my successors much more complicated than it has been in the
past in ensuring that the ITU does not seek to have
jurisdiction over the Internet.
It is certainly an issue because many governments around
the world have sought to have the ITU have such jurisdiction,
and to date, we have been very successful in ensuring that the
ITU does not.
I hope that will be the same going forward. Clearly, we
continue to believe that the multistakeholder approach, which
is fundamentally different than an inter-governmental approach,
is the appropriate way for dealing with Internet related
issues.
The Chairman. Mr. Strickling, it seems like reclassifying
broadband, as the Administration is talking about doing, is
losing a valuable argument, as Ambassador Gross just said.
How do you prevent ITU involvement when you are pushing to
reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications
Act, and is the Administration aware of that inherent
contradiction?
Mr. Strickling. So, I do not think it is quite as stark as
your description suggests it is, Senator. First off, the
jurisdiction or the activities of the ITU are set in their
Constitution, Convention, and in the international
telecommunications regulations.
Just last November, we were in Korea, at which point there
was an international discussion among governments in terms of
whether to modify the Constitution or the Convention to bring
in some of these issues.
It is quite typical that at all of these international
conferences going back to at least 2006, there are countries
that seek to bring Internet related issues into the
Constitution or Convention or ITRs of the ITU. We have opposed
that.
Countries in Europe and Canada have opposed it, and
interestingly, both Europe and Canada view Internet access as a
telecommunication service, and this argument has never come up
that because they view it as telecommunications that somehow
that answers the question at the ITU.
What matters is what is the right place for these issues to
be debated and discussed and resolved, and on that, we have
made great progress in the last year with the developing world,
the governments of the developing world, in building their
support for the multistakeholder model as the right place to
deal with these questions.
That was reflected in the outcomes in Korea, where as a
group of nations, we rejected proposals of countries such as
Russia, as again as they have made in past years to bring these
issues into the ITU.
I fundamentally do not think this is going to change going
forward. The United States is opposed to an inter-governmental
resolution of these Internet issues. We will remain opposed to
that. What is key is having the support of governments around
the rest of the world to share that view with us.
Today, we are in a good position. That could change in the
future, and what is important here, particularly with this
transition, is we carry out this transition in a responsible
way, in a way that meets our conditions, and demonstrate to
countries that might still be somewhat skeptical about this
that the process works and it is the superior way of dealing
with Internet issues.
The Chairman. Thank you. I hope you are right, but I think
we are sending entirely the wrong message with
reclassification. The U.S. obviously is going to be in a very
influential role in this process. I would certainly hope that
you are correct, that this is not going to be a factor.
I will turn to my colleague, Senator Nelson, and then after
that, I have Senator Fischer, Senator Daines, Senator Gardner,
Senator Sullivan, and I believe the Senator from Michigan and
the Senator from Missouri following.
Senator Nelson?
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chehade, you know what is on
everybody's mind. We have these state actors that are trying to
do us in, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. There are a bunch
of non-state actors trying to do us in.
Would you discuss this in light of the proposal, and how is
this transition going not to have an adverse effect upon U.S.
national security?
Mr. Chehade. Thank you, Senator Nelson. There is no
question that there are countries that do not share our values,
and they do not share the values of openness, the values of an
Internet that serves everyone, that all of us here share. There
is no question.
Boy, would they like to be able to change the nature of the
Internet as an open platform. They would like to do that. How
would this transition either empower them or weaken them is the
real question.
I am here to tell you that after a couple of years of
traveling the world and meeting with many global leaders, this
transition when it is finished, affirming our belief in the
multistakeholder model, will actually turn many, many middle
governments on our side. Many governments are looking for a
model that they can sell to their own people and say this is a
good model, and we have equal participation in it.
I am not going to be able to assure you that those on the
edges of this debate are going to walk away and suddenly love
our open platform, but I will assure you that I have met tens
of governments who are looking for a stable solution that they
can tell their people is a good solution.
I believe ICANN, as an open multistakeholder institution,
that is inclusive, that allows anyone to participate, we do not
have a membership model, anyone is welcome, and where
governments have an advisory role but they are all equally at
the table rather than having one government have an unique
role, is a model we can attract many middle governments to.
That is our best security against the edge governments
trying to change this model.
Senator Nelson. Did your consultations include the national
security organizations and the Department of Defense?
Mr. Chehade. Yes, working through NTIA, which has, of
course, an interagency process. Everything we have done working
with NTIA has been discussed and deliberated across agencies,
including those that you bring up.
Senator Nelson. All right. Discuss that internal
administration consultation process.
Mr. Chehade. I think it is best I ask Secretary Strickling
to do that because he and his team lead that process today.
Mr. Strickling. Yes, Senator. Prior to our announcement
last March, this issue had received a tremendous amount of
interagency review, including all of the security agencies. We
obtained their views and discussed any concerns they might have
had prior to proceeding with the announcement we made last
March.
Mr. Chehade. If I may add, Senator Nelson, we have as part
of our coordination work 13 root services. These are very
important services that are in the plumbing of the Internet.
Ten of these are in the United States. The other three are in
Sweden, the Netherlands, and Japan.
Of the 10 in the United States, one is with the Department
of Defense. They are keenly engaged and aware, and in fact,
they participate in the operational aspects of the system ICANN
oversees.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Secretary, would you talk about how
IANA services can be resistant to attacks?
Mr. Strickling. So, what we are talking about are a series
of basically data bases that are managed by ICANN. In the case
of the root zone file, that is actually managed by Verisign,
pursuant to a cooperative arrangement we have with Verisign.
Both ICANN and Verisign engage and employ the most modern
and sophisticated of protections against attacks. To date, we
have not had an issue with the IANA functions being subjected
to a cyber attack of any consequence.
Again, Mr. Chehade may have more details.
Senator Nelson. Let me ask you, I assume that one of your
reasons would be you want to decentralize distributed authority
structure so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation
or capture. Describe that to us.
Mr. Strickling. I am not sure to what extent that bore into
our decision to complete the privatization of ICANN. I think
what you are describing is solid practice, and I think Mr.
Chehade again may want to describe how that is put into
practice at ICANN.
Again, my understanding is Verisign employs the most modern
and up to date principles of how to protect itself against
cyber attacks.
Senator Nelson. OK. Mr. Chehade, stability, security.
Mr. Chehade. That is our mission and that is all we care
about. It is more important than anything else we do. In fact,
the record is clear in ICANN's 16 plus years operating what we
do. We have not had a single nanosecond of down time, and that
is the core mission that we will pursue.
You brought up, Senator Nelson, the concept of distributed
management. I think you are spot on, this is actually both from
a technical standpoint as well as from an organizational
standpoint a very sound approach to stability. If we have a
central point of failure, either technically or operationally,
I think we are much more prone to be brought down.
From the beginning, the wise architecture of the system we
coordinate was to ensure that multiple roots are established,
multiple systems are in place, and therefore, of the 13 root
services, it will have to have all 13 be down before our
services are affected, and that is nearly impossible given that
all 13 are operated by different organizations under different
rules but common principles that are guided and coordinated by
ICANN.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson. Senator Fischer?
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chehade, the
NTIA stated and Mr. Strickling highlighted this point, that it
would not accept a proposal that puts government or
intergovernmental organizations in the lead role NTIA has with
ICANN.
I want to bring your attention to proposed changes to
ICANN's consideration related to the Governmental Advisory
Committee's advice. The GAC's advice to ICANN provides a
government perspective on policies, and I understand there is a
proposal that could increase the likelihood that GAC's advice
is taken unless two-thirds of voting members deny it.
If we really are concerned about government getting
involved and having government intrude into ICANN, why are some
contemplating this move? Why would we give government such
power?
Mr. Chehade. Thank you, Senator, and you are right. This
would be congruent with the stated goals. The Board has looked
at that matter and has pushed it back, so it is off the table.
Senator Fischer. It is off the table?
Mr. Chehade. It is off the table.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Strickling, how would you
respond to allegations that the Administration's process and
the factors that weighed even in looking at that procedure and
that process--have they been fully disclosed? Where did it come
from?
Mr. Strickling. I am sorry. Which process?
Senator Fischer. I am sorry. With the transition.
Mr. Strickling. This transition has been planned since
1998, at the time ICANN was formed. It was the decision of the
Government that the U.S. Government should get out of this
business back in 1998. The original plan was to have it done in
2000. 9/11 intervened, and of course, the transition was not
completed at that point in time.
Over the last few years, we have seen ICANN continue to
grow and mature as an organization to where we felt they had
gotten to a stage at which their level of accountability and
transparency, and quite frankly, their performance of the
functions, justified proceeding to complete this privatization
that had been planned in 1998.
At the same time, we were seeing growing support for the
multistakeholder model internationally, which again gave us
further encouragement that this was a good time to complete
that transition.
Senator Fischer. I believe it was released to Congress or
released on March 14, 2014.
Mr. Strickling. That is correct.
Senator Fischer. Congress was not informed about that. I
would question the transparency and the process that is
involved.
Mr. Strickling. Senator, I was up here briefing many
members of Congress prior to the announcement on the 14th, so
we did endeavor to brief leadership up here on both sides in
terms of what was being planned.
Senator Fischer. Would you be more open to briefing's in
the future where all members could have that information?
Mr. Strickling. Absolutely, Senator. As you know, based on
the rider in our appropriations last December, Congress has
imposed or asked us to report regularly to Congress. We have
already submitted the first written report here at the end of
January. We will be reporting on a regular basis.
In my meetings with leadership, we have offered to come up
here at any time to update staff or members of the progress of
the transition plan, so we would be happy to do that directly
with you.
Senator Fischer. I would appreciate it, sir. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Daines?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Thank you. Back in the 1990s, I spent six
years of my 12 years working for Procter & Gamble in Mainland,
China, launching an American business, selling products into
that market.
One of our great concerns was protecting American IP. As we
consider the transition of IANA from the U.S. Department of
Commerce to ICANN, I want to express my concern and serious
interest in protecting American intellectual property in this
process.
By the way, Mr. Chehade, I was so struck by your testimony
about the American dream, and that resonated with me
personally.
As I look at what is going on with IP, in fact, given the
nature here of the fact that we can have our Iphones up here on
the dais, I did a quick Google search on Pirate Bay. What does
it return? It returns to me Proxy Bay because Pirate Bay has
been trying to take down, you can hit a list of Pirate Bay
proxy sites and mirrors. I tapped that and I can find 35
proxies and mirror redirects right now on Pirate Bay.
The concern is how do we protect American intellectual
property, and this is software, music, games, it is the core of
IP. I spent 13 years in a software company, a cloud computer
company that we took public as well. I have lived in consumer
products as well as cloud computing.
We know when you have a cloud company or technology
company, if you ever close up the doors and move on, all that
is left are cubicles, some computers. Its intellectual property
is what you create there, the people.
How do we protect IP in this transition when I am looking
right here at real time examples, and in fact, if you look at--
it is ``.sx.'' I had to look up where is .sx. Well, it is Sint
Maarten in the Netherlands. If you look up ``.lu,'' it is
Luxembourg. These are the proxy mobile mirror redirects that we
see on Pirate Bay.
Help me out on IP. Please, Mr. Chehade?
Mr. Chehade. Thank you, Senator. As the founder of many
software companies, one of which was acquired by IBM, I am
very, very aware of the importance of protecting our IP. I work
very hard to protect my own IP, and I know it is the greatest
asset that can be challenged through these open networks.
Let me first be clear that ICANN has nothing to do with
content. We do not deal with content. Our work is very limited
to the names, numbers, and protocol parameters, which are way
down in the plumbing of the Internet.
Therefore, ICANN does not have a particular role in
managing or enforcing at a high level IP and content around the
world. Having said that, I think the world needs good policies
around that to help us and to protect IP, not just American IP
but all IP of people who work hard around the world.
I hope these policies will arrive through a
multistakeholder process, which brings me back to ICANN. I will
answer you directly on two levels.
One, everything we can do on our side to protect IP in the
domain name system, we are doing. For example, in partnership
with IBM, ICANN launched the first global trademark
clearinghouse. Nobody had done that before.
When somebody tries to register, you know, IBM.sx,
somewhere, we can actually flag that and make sure we manage
that ahead of time before IBM has to go fight for retrieving
its name from a domain somewhere in Sint Maarten. We are doing
our part as best we can.
The second thing we are doing is we are cooperating with
other efforts to protect IP. That is important. We cannot just
say we have nothing to do with content, we are going to step
back. Where we can, we cooperate, so if law enforcement
agencies, within the law, serve us with requests for help to
protect IP, we are always doing that in a very active way.
Senator Daines. Let me follow up on that. Given ICANN's
agreements with registrars that include requirements to deter
illegal activity on these domains sponsored by the registrar,
do you think it is an appropriate response by registrar's to do
nothing when informed illegal activity is occurring on a domain
they might sponsor?
Mr. Chehade. Frankly, I assure you that if a registrar is
served with legal notice in their country that they are
breaching any laws, they are reacting. We are putting them on
notice.
I am sure you know, Senator, our new agreements, the new
registrar agreement and the new registry agreement, are far
stronger, the ones we just enacted recently, than what we had
before, making sure that these registrars and registries
understand they are part of the system that needs to respect
and protect these rights.
It is a complicated issue, and I just appointed a new, very
experienced American attorney, Allen Grogan, as head of
Compliance, reporting to me. He is also very focused on
consumer advocacy and issues of IP. His background is as an IP
attorney. Ensuring that ICANN does everything in its power to
support these contracts and to enforce them.
Senator Daines. Thank you very much. Helpful. Mr. Gross, I
was struck by a comment you made that I wrote down as
``Internet freedom is in decline.'' How do you measure that?
Ambassador Gross. Thank you very much, Senator. It is
actually not my statistic, it is really from Freedom House.
Freedom House, which of course, enjoys bipartisan support and
has been around for many, many years, does an annual report on
Internet freedom. The statistic I gave you is a basis from
their most recent report.
They also do a report, of course, on freedom in the world
generally, which was just released as well. I have always found
them to be a very useful guide for how those things are
measured.
Senator Daines. What do you think is the greatest threat to
Internet freedom?
Ambassador Gross. I think it is the rise of government
control of various aspects of the Internet, particularly
content within the borders of those countries. We see the rise
of protectionism. We see the rise of control over speech. I
think at the core of those, they are probably the primary
drivers of that change.
Senator Daines. Thank you. I am out of time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator Daines. Senator
Sullivan?
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the panelists. In full disclosure, Mr. Chairman, I will let you
know that I have worked very closely with Ambassador Gross in
previous jobs the two of us have held together, and I can tell
you no finer public servant for the United States than
ambassador David Gross. It is really wonderful to see him and
some of our previous team together.
I would like to put forward these questions really for
everybody. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned kind of the elephant in
the room here, right, you mentioned what is on everybody's
mind.
We have a system, I think, that has been kind of the wonder
of the world in many ways. It is very clear we have countries
that do not share our interests, particularly with regard to
open Internet freedom, Russia, China.
I will be a little bit more frank and a little bit more
blunt, I think we have an Administration that with all due
respect to what has been said, has not been very adept at
global negotiations on some of the key strategic interests to
the country, of which an open Internet to me is one.
We have the Chinese and the Russians and others who seem
very, very determined on this issue. As you know, they just put
forward another proposal last month that looks to be very
focused on gaining more control over the Internet.
Again, I worry that we are just going to continue to back
pedal the way we have in other areas, like the Iran
negotiations going on right now, particularly with a determined
group of countries.
I guess I just want to start with some basic questions. Mr.
Strickling, I think you mentioned one government having an
unique role was not the plan. I am assuming you are referring
to the United States.
Mr. Strickling. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Is there a problem with one government
having an unique role, particularly when that government has
done a fantastic job? It goes to the broader issue. If there is
not a problem, what are we trying to fix here?
I am not sure I am convinced by hey, we were going to
transition in 1998, but 9/11 happened and holy cow, we waited
for 15 years. I think we waited for a long time because we did
not see there was a problem.
I would be very interested in what is the problem, and
finally, there have been a lot of articles in the paper very
concerned about this, I certainly am, but one of those actually
raised a very important issue that I would also like you to
address, your legal authority to do this.
Again, another issue with this Administration I have a
problem with is taking action where you have no legal authority
under the Constitution. The Congress has the power to transfer
Federal Government property. ICANN is Federal Government
property, it is valuable property. I do not think you have been
authorized by Congress to take this action yet.
I know I have thrown a lot of questions out to you but feel
free, all of you, to jump in, please, on these questions. Thank
you.
Mr. Strickling. So, let me start with your second question,
which is there is no Government property that is the subject of
this contract. All the contract does is designate ICANN to
perform the IANA functions. They were given no assets of the
United States with which to perform these functions.
The domain name file----
Senator Sullivan. Is there a Commerce Department legal
opinion on this issue?
Mr. Strickling. Yes, there is, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Can we see that?
Mr. Strickling. I will take that back. I am not in a
position today to say yes or no, but I will take your request
back.
Senator Sullivan. I think a lot of people would dispute
what you are saying right now on that issue.
Mr. Strickling. Well, I think the GAO agrees with us as
well based on a study they did back in 2000 when they looked at
this question. The fact of the matter is all the contract
does--for which we receive no compensation, ICANN pays nothing
to the United States for this--it simply designated them to
perform a role that until 1998 was being performed in the U.S.
Government.
So, the question was how do you take this function and now
have it performed by somebody outside of the Government?
Senator Sullivan. How about the issue of what is the
problem. This has done very, very well under an unique
government role, our Government, our country. A lot of people
do not have a problem with this in this country. What is the
problem we are trying to fix?
Mr. Strickling. Well, there has been a problem, sir. At the
end of 2012, when the world's governments got together in Dubai
for the ITU WCIT, the World Conference on International
Telecommunications, you had around 80 countries who voted to
say the ITU needs to be more involved in Internet governance.
These were largely countries in the developing world who were
siding with the more authoritarian regimes.
Part of the impetus for this was at that time the continued
irritation that many governments feel and which has been
exploited by the authoritarian countries that the United States
with this special role with ICANN is in a position to control
the Internet in these developing countries and to turn it off
in these countries, and to otherwise interfere with the ability
of countries to manage their own affairs with respect to the
Internet.
After this announcement was made, the next two large
international meetings at which governments came together, you
saw a major change in position among developing countries. We
did not see any change in the position of the authoritarian
countries, and you are not. They are not going to change their
views on this.
The key to succeeding in this on the global stage is to
bring the rest of the world along with us, and that is what we
saw at the NETmundial Conference in Brazil last April, where
the only countries that spoke out in opposition to the
multistakeholder model of Internet governance were Russia and
Cuba.
We then fast forward to the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference
in Busan last November, and again, you had Russia with the same
proposals it has been making for 10 years, that these functions
ought to be transferred to the ITU and managed by governments,
and that was beaten back in a coalition of both developed and
developing countries.
So, we have seen immediate results or significant results
by the basis of our being able to take this issue off the table
for these countries, to get them to look at what is really best
for them without this overhang of an U.S. role that was unique
among governments and which was a source of irritation to
governments, and which was being exploited to our detriment by
foreign governments.
The fact of the matter is that the role we play with
respect to the IANA functions is a clerical role. It is clearly
stewardship. As I said before, we do not provide any oversight
of the policy judgments that ICANN and the multistakeholder
community make.
We participate as a government in the Government Advisory
Committee, and we will continue to do that in the future, and
will be vigorous advocates for a free and open Internet.
The specific role we play with respect to the IANA
functions is totally administrative and clerical. Yet, it has
been exploited by other governments, authoritarian governments,
to our detriment.
We have taken that off the table by announcing the
transition, and as we complete it, we will continue to see the
benefits of that through the continued adoption and support for
this model by the developing world.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the questions I
posed, I know we did not get to them, but I would ask they be
submitted for the record so the other witnesses have the
opportunity to answer those as well.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator Gardner?
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Strickling, it is exciting to be here when we are not
talking about Eagle Net or anything like that. It is good to be
here with you.
Mr. Strickling. I have some great statistics for you about
Eagle Net.
Senator Gardner. You are off the hook, at least today, so
thanks for the opportunity to visit with all of you. My first
question is to you, just to ask about the process and the
proposals before us right now and the proposals moving forward.
Who else will examine this proposal?
Mr. Strickling. The proposal when it is completed and
submitted here, we will put it out and have a large public
discussion about it. The Chairman has indicated to me he would
like to have a conversation about it back here at some point in
the future, so we certainly anticipate and will welcome the
opportunity to come up either in briefings or a hearing before
any of the committees with jurisdiction to talk about it up
here as well.
We want to make sure that the proposal meets our
conditions, so we will have a full public explication of what
is in the proposal, a demonstration that it supports, and we
will invite anyone to respond and react to it.
Senator Gardner. What would the process with receiving
feedback from the multistakeholder community look like? How do
you anticipate that part of the process looking?
Mr. Strickling. Well, the goal is that the multistakeholder
community will have already provided that input before the
proposal gets to us.
We have said we want a proposal that has broad community
support. The process that the community is engaging in, in
addition to having these working groups, pulls in public
comment at a number of points in the process. We would expect
again anybody who has ideas in this regard, we encourage them
to participate.
As you heard Fadi Chehade say in his earlier remarks, even
some of the matters that have been raised in correspondence
from Congress to us or to ICANN has been put into the process
to make sure that the community is taking up those issues.
I think all of us have a responsibility between now and the
completion of the process to make sure the issues are getting
into the groups, to make sure they are able to have a full
discussion of them, and we will expect the proposal that comes
to us will have the full support of the community.
Senator Gardner. Ambassador, I believe it was your
testimony where we talked about great challenges associated
with ensuring a safe, secure, open, interoperable, and
sustainable Internet.
From the information that you have gathered, in as simple
terms as you can make it for this committee, what could happen
if the transition process moves forward too quickly without
proper oversight or precaution?
Ambassador Gross. Thank you very much, Senator. The concern
is multiple. One, of course, and I will preface it by saying I
have no expectation this will in fact be a problem. We are
committed or the Coalition with whom I work is committed to
ensuring that if it creates any of the problems I will mention
in a moment, that we would be strongly opposed to it, and I
have full expectation that such a proposal would be rejected by
NTIA and by the Administration.
Having said that, there are key aspects to what it is that
is currently being performed that go to the stability and
reliability of the Internet. If there are challenges to how
that process works, it could undercut the ability to have an
Internet that works smoothly, seamlessly, and as Mr. Chehade
said, flawlessly to date.
This is a huge and important set of issues. Similarly, as
has often been discussed at the hearing, we are keenly
concerned about the ability of governments to directly or
indirectly take control. We are assured by the statement by
NTIA that they will accept no such proposal, and we will be
watching that with great care. That, too, could have an impact
on the various things that you listed.
Senator Gardner. Thank you. Mr. Chehade, I will give you a
chance to answer that question as well, but I want to add
another question to it and perhaps Mr. Strickling could follow
up on this.
In the Thune and Rubio letter in 2014, it talked about
increased oversight tools, annual audits. You have talked a
little bit about that. I think you said you would look at
additional--be supportive of additional oversights.
In talking about additional oversight and audits that are
mentioned in their letter, is there a concern that could be a
problem? Would it be helpful?
Mr. Chehade. Extremely helpful. We have no concern with the
six concrete suggestions that came in Senator Thune and Senator
Rubio's proposed letter. We have already fed these into the
system. This is very welcome.
We hope the Senators will continue to help us in order to
make sure we put every possible belt and suspender on this
institution as we move forward, not just to protect it today
and after the transition, but for the next decades.
Senator Gardner. Are there additional audits or additional
oversight that might be helpful as well, in addition to those?
Mr. Chehade. Yes, absolutely. In fact, our community itself
is looking at tens of possible different mechanisms in addition
to these six concrete ones that came through your letter.
We have experts involved. We have stakeholders of all walks
of life, government, as well as businesses involved.
When Ambassador Gross says we are watching, he is right,
but many of the members of his Coalition, companies like AT&T
and Cisco and others, are all part of the process as well. They
are participating today.
They will make sure that we never come back to you with
anything that does not take care of these five fundamental
principles. These principles are rooted in all the efforts we
are undertaking today.
When you ask Secretary Strickling whether you will check
them and then Ambassador Gross says we will check them, but the
reality is the entire community of stakeholders is checking
them because we know that if we do not, it is dead on arrival,
we do not have a proposal.
Second, because we believe in them. These are our values.
Many of the people at ICANN are the people who created the
Internet. We do not want an Internet that is controlled by
governments anyway.
On your earlier question, Senator Gardner, I can assure you
nothing will happen in the dark here. Everything we are doing
today is transparent, open, and when that proposal is ready, we
will come back to you, even if Senator Thune does not invite
us, we will come back to you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Chehade. We will show you these proposals. We will
discuss them with you. We need to all have consensus. This is
good for America first, and this is good for the Internet, and
this is good for the world. I believe all these are the same.
What is good for America should be good for the world.
Senator Gardner. I am out of time. Mr. Secretary, would you
want to add to that?
Mr. Strickling. In addition to the accountability tools you
have talked about, when you talk to the community, what they
are really worried about is what happens when the Board does
not carry out the views of the community.
What we see in the work to date is discussions of how to
create an escalating series of appeal mechanisms to get the
Board to do what the community wants. The one piece that is
missing in the current structure is the ability to remove Board
members if they still fail to act as the community wants.
I think there was a lot of progress made in Singapore at
the beginning of February where this issue really was brought
out into the open and discussed quite directly with members of
the Board, because today, under the by-laws, the community
cannot remove a Board member, they can only be removed by vote
of other Board members.
There was a direct willingness expressed by members of the
Board to see a provision added to their by-laws under which as
the final option, when all else fails, the actual removal of
Board members in order to make sure ICANN continues to act in
the interest of the global Internet community.
I thought that was a very positive advance to see that
being discussed and being accepted by Board members, and we
will see how that works into the overall community proposal
that we get.
Senator Gardner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner. Senator Peters?
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the
witnesses for being here today and this interesting
conversation, appreciate you taking the time to come and talk
with us.
Mr. Strickling, NTIA's decision to start the process to
transition the IANA functions, certainly, the contract to a
multistakeholder entity is a very clear affirmation of the U.S.
commitment to a multistakeholder model of Internet governance,
and the transition of IANA functions has been certainly a long
time coming, but I believe now is the time to get it done. We
also have to make sure obviously that we are getting it done
correctly and right.
Mr. Strickling. We all agree.
Senator Peters. Right. If you could further expand on what
sort of changes you have seen in the past year since your
announcement with regard to the international debate on
Internet governance, and if you would expand--you have
mentioned some of this--expand on the responses of other
governments. Importantly, how have perceptions generally
changed over this last year?
Mr. Strickling. I think our announcement really
reverberated through the governments of other countries,
particularly those in the developing world. Again, the fact
that the U.S. had this unique relationship with ICANN has been
a source of irritation, as I described earlier in response to
other questions.
What we have seen as a result, and I briefly summarized
some of the actions of last year, in particular, the NETmundial
Conference in Brazil. That conference was hosted by a nation,
Brazil, that until that time had expressed a certain amount of
skepticism about ICANN and the multistakeholder model as
practice in ICANN, even though in Brazil itself domestically,
they were one of the first countries to adopt a
multistakeholder model to deal with Internet issues
domestically.
Really, it was not that they were hostile on
multistakeholder, but I think they could not get past the fact
that the United States had this particular relationship with
ICANN, which they felt was unfair to other governments, and
could be exploited in some fashion to their detriment. In fact,
it could not be, but that did not mean they did not have the
perception of that.
We saw an immediate change in perception in Brazil and in
the countries that attended that conference, as I mentioned
before. At the end of that conference, the only two nations
that stood up and said we do not like the multistakeholder
model were Russia and Cuba. Other governments there,
particularly those in the developing world, all joined in to
the final documents of that conference, which expressed very
direct support for that.
I think the other key milestone was the Plenipotentiary in
Korea. Again, I do not want to repeat all of what I said
earlier. A coalition of the United States working with both
countries in the developed world and developing world were able
to beat back these proposals, largely driven by Russia at that
conference, to bring the ITU more into direct Internet
governance matters.
I think our announcement as well as other diplomatic
efforts over the last year have resulted in very direct
benefits to us in terms of the international community's
response and reaction to supporting this model.
Senator Peters. That sounds very positive and we are
certainly moving well down the road. I guess that leads to the
obvious question. What happens if this transition does not
occur? What are the risks involved if this does not occur?
Mr. Strickling. I really hesitate to speculate on that
because it would really matter why it did not happen. I think
it would be tragic though if the community does deliver a
proposal that meets all the conditions, that there is consensus
it meets the conditions, and we do not proceed with the
transition.
I think that would have a very negative impact on our
interests internationally. I think all of the good work we have
done in the last 2 years with the developing world, we could
lose that overnight if something were to intervene to prevent a
good proposal from being implemented.
Senator Peters. Right. Ambassador Gross, NTIA's
announcement to transition the IANA contract to a
multistakeholder entity has certainly received very broad
support from a wide variety of stakeholders. If you could just
comment on what United States' corporations and entities
participate in this model, and can you describe kind of their
feelings with this transition?
Importantly, what would happen to these businesses if a
multistakeholder model is somehow undermined in this
transition? What would be the response from these businesses?
Ambassador Gross. Thank you very much. Obviously, I cannot
speak on behalf of all corporations, but I will speak on behalf
of our Coalition, which, Senator, as you point out, is an
extraordinary group of companies, a cross section of those
major U.S. and multinational companies that are involved in
Internet related issues in one way or another.
They are very comfortable with the approach that is being
taken because of the assurances, the strong assurances, that
have been made about the five principles we have been talking
about this morning.
As Mr. Chehade has pointed out, many of our members are
actively involved in the formulation of the process that will
come forward at an appropriate time, and that is a very
positive one.
All the companies are very interested, acutely interested,
and are supportive as long as it meets that five part test. As
I have indicated before, and I have no reason to think it will
be anything other than a successful outcome at this stage, but
it is far from assured, nevertheless, if it were not to be, we
would be amongst the first--I realize Mr. Chehade believes he
will be the first--it does not matter, there will be many who
will be speaking out on what the problems are, and in theory,
therefore, how those problems could be solved.
We do think that this would be a productive approach,
assuming it meets that five part test.
Senator Peters. Thank you. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson [presiding]. Thank you. Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, we
are here talking about best practices and how the U.S. can also
influence Internet governance. Tomorrow, we are likely to hear
from the FCC on its net neutrality rulings, and I hope our
strong net neutrality rules can be the basis for an open
Internet practice.
I was trying to get, Mr. Strickling, your comments on do
you think net neutrality is consistent with good government
principles?
Mr. Strickling. Absolutely, Senator. In terms of how it
relates to what we are doing here, both with the IANA
transition and with respect to net neutrality principles, both
have as a goal a free and open Internet. I think in that sense,
they are both very much aligned.
Senator Cantwell. What else can we do to promote this idea
on a global basis? Obviously, the Europeans are regulated in a
different way than we are already. Tomorrow is about us taking
a step probably a little closer to their approach. What else do
we need to do to promote this?
Mr. Strickling. Again, as I said earlier, this transition
is really important in terms of being able to demonstrate the
values that we hold in terms of a free and open Internet, the
multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and proving how
it can work.
We are demonstrating that in a most concrete way to other
governments around the world. I think the best thing we can do
internationally is continue to keep our eye on that target,
continue to encourage the community to develop a strong
proposal for us, and then if we get a good proposal that meets
all the conditions, to proceed with completion of the
transition.
That will be as concrete a demonstration to the rest of the
world as anything else we can do in this area in the next 12
months.
Senator Cantwell. What about the threat that we heard some
discussions today about, the NSA going back toward a clipper
chip proposal?
Mr. Strickling. I cannot comment on that. I am not sure
exactly what the proposal is you are talking about.
Senator Cantwell. OK. Obviously, a government back door to
encryption products could become a challenge to an open
Internet. Maybe we will submit a question for the record. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Senator Ayotte?
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Hi. I appreciate all of you being here. One
thing I am trying to understand, Mr. Strickling, you said you
were encouraged by the meeting and discussion of the
stakeholders about removal of a Board member.
The reason I see this as a critical issue is because I know
the actual ICANN by-laws prohibit a government representative
from holding a voting position on ICANN, but let's have some
straight talk here.
The oligarchs in Russia. They may be technically private
citizens, but with much more government beholdenness than our
average private representative would be, and even in countries
like Argentina, China, Iran. We can go on and on. There are a
lot of countries where it is not quite the same thing as us
putting a private representative on the Board.
I see this removal provision as critical. You said there
was a good discussion, there were a lot of stakeholders saying
this is a good thing. How do we come to a decision so that is
part of the terms, and if it is not part of the terms, is that
a deal breaker?
Mr. Strickling. So, on your last point, I would say not
necessarily. We need to see the complete proposal and be able
to evaluate it in the context of our conditions.
Senator Ayotte. Just so we are clear in this committee,
that is not a deal breaker, from your perspective?
Mr. Strickling. I am saying I would have to evaluate that
in the total context of the proposal.
Senator Ayotte. Yes, I take that as an answer that it is
not a deal breaker.
Mr. Strickling. Right, not necessarily, but we would want
to look at it in the total context of the proposal. For us,
what is key is does the proposal meet the conditions we
described.
On the issue of removal of the Board, the challenge that
the community is facing is that when you get to this point
where the Board is not being responsive or the institution is
not being responsive to the needs, desires, and the goals of
the community, there are two choices, at least two choices.
One is let's take the business somewhere else and create a
new organization to perform all these same roles, or do we
change the people in the organization and maintain the
organization as it is.
Because we are so concerned about maintaining security and
stability of the Internet along the lines of some of the
questions the ranking member asked earlier, I am a little
nervous about a proposal that would come to us to say well, if
we do not like what ICANN is doing, we will just pick up the
business and send it somewhere else, because now potentially
you are creating a whole new set of accountability issues that
have to be overcome.
Senator Ayotte. You understand my issue in terms of the
concern about this removal provision, it is not insignificant
because as you have described it, Mr. Chehade, we have everyone
equally at the table, so the U.S. has this unique role that we
are going to be giving up here, and frankly, what you have said
about the developing countries, to my knowledge, we do not
block access that developing countries have, we have not
engaged in behavior that other countries have, like Russia, and
some of the other bad players that I have mentioned have
engaged in.
We have sort of a track record there. As I look at where we
are with everyone equally at the table, it depends on who is at
the table in terms of the outcomes of where you get on
important issues that could impact the freedom of the Internet.
Without this mechanism to remove people from the table that
truly are not representative, that are really representing a
government type position of countries like China, Russia, who
block their citizens' access to the Internet and do not have a
free and open Internet, and there are a lot of countries in
that category, unfortunately, that worries me as I think about
the concerns we have going forward about this transition.
Mr. Strickling. Senator, it might help if we spend just a
minute to talk about the structure of the ICANN Board. It has
16 members. Eight of them come from specific segments of the
community.
In other words, the organization that supports generic top
level domains, which are large companies. They have two seats
on the Board. The registries, the Number Registries have two
seats on the Board. Mr. Chehade gets a seat on the Board.
Half of the Board is designated based on these
contingencies and supporting organizations of ICANN. The other
eight are put on the Board through an at-large--I am sorry--
through a nominating committee process, and no more than three
a year can be added through that process. Again, the nominating
committee is made up of representatives of the supporting
organizations.
There is a prohibition against anybody from a government
sitting on the Board, but more importantly, when you look at
who is actually putting people on the Board, the likelihood
that any of those groups are going to be putting one, two, or
certainly a majority of people on the Board who represent the
interests of these countries we all are concerned about is
virtually zero.
Senator Ayotte. Then why was it such an important topic of
discussion, if it is that insignificant. As I look at this, we
have the members who are on the Board now, but who makes these
decisions, especially in a decisionmaking process where
everyone equally has a seat at the table? Very significant, as
we look at this.
My time is up. It seems to me that this issue should be a
deal breaker. I think it is something you all should be saying
is something that needs to be in the provisions of what the
stakeholders agree with.
Senator Nelson. Thank you. Senator McCaskill?
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE McCASKILL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Senator Rubio and I, as you
probably are aware, did a resolution that had no opposition
that spoke to the challenges that you all face.
I will tell you the moment of truth came for me, I was in a
position that I had heard from some stakeholders here in this
country about their concerns about this transition, and I was
in an international meeting.
There were representatives of the European Union there that
are in charge of this issue for the European Union, and a
number of other countries. We are not talking about Russia and
China, but our friends.
The negativity toward the United States of America was so
thick you could cut it with a knife. I was sitting there, and I
thought what in the world, this is terrible. They were really
antagonistic and negative. I was the only one there in the room
that was representing the American government, but there were a
lot of businesses in the room, small and large, that were
American businesses, and none of them said a word.
I was shocked, because I thought surely the American
businesses are going to rise up and defend our country. This is
awful. Then I gathered them after it was over, and these small
and large businesses alike said you need to understand, this is
a business issue for us. This is hurting our international
business because there is a sense in the world that this is not
a true multistakeholder process.
I get the other side of this equation and how important it
is for American businesses for us to get this right. I just
wanted to get that on the record because I think there is a
natural inclination of all of us, we do not want to give up our
power, why should we ever give up our power.
Well, in the instance it is going to help American
businesses, it might be wise as long as we do it carefully. I
certainly understand the point that Senator Ayotte was making,
and accountability is incredibly important, and I think you
need to go slowly and make sure we get it right.
I think the process for nominating is appropriate enough
that I do not think anybody could ever control this Board that
was from a country that did not relish the openness of the
Internet like we do.
Let me ask you this about the deadline for completing the
transition, I know we are running up on the first deadline, and
there is a 2-year option to continue the contract.
I am worried that a 2-year option would send the wrong
signal to the international community, so could some of you
speak to the likelihood of us doing an extension, because I do
not want to rush this. I want to make sure we get it right.
What is the possibility of an extension of a matter of
months as opposed to a matter of years?
Mr. Strickling. So, the way the contract is structured, the
U.S. Government can unilaterally extend the contract for 2
years based on an option that is in the contract. Of course,
between the contracting parties, ICANN and the United States,
we can mutually agree to an extension of a shorter period, and
we will certainly take a look at that if and when we need to
look at an extension.
Senator McCaskill. You do not want to speak to whether or
not an extension is going to be necessary because you are
afraid if you do, an extension is going to be necessary?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Strickling. Thank you, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator McCaskill. I think this is hard, but we have done
it in other places where we have a global interest, certainly
in our airways, which this committee is aware of. We have had
international organizations with various stakeholders that have
allowed us to operate in a truly borderless world that air
traffic represents, and so does the Internet.
I wish you well, and we will anxiously await the details of
how this is actually going to work, particularly in the area of
accountability. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thanks, Senator McCaskill. My neighbor from
across the border, Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Chairman Thune, and
thank you for holding this important hearing. As some of you
recall, I actually chaired this hearing at one point a few
years back and know how important this issue is.
I understand there has been a recent meeting in Singapore
to discuss the transition of the handling of the contract for
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority from the NTIA, and I
also thank you for the update you have given us today.
I was going to start with you, Mr. Chehade. I know you were
in our office yesterday. In 2011, I sent a letter with Senator
Ayotte to ICANN expressing some concerns about the expansion of
the top level domain names in the system and asking that ICANN
work with all the stakeholders to mitigate some of the
challenges and risks to consumers, businesses, and law
enforcement that could come in expanding those domain names.
While this is a different issue than today's topic of
general governance, it does touch on the need for
accountability, which some of the Senators have discussed in
coordination.
Can you update me on how ICANN has accounted for some of
the concerns that Senator Ayotte and I raised in 2011, and how
it is working with law enforcement in protecting consumers and
businesses from fraud?
Mr. Chehade. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for your
continued attention to the work of ICANN. I can assure you that
we have come a long way since 2011. The new program is now up
and running and serving the world.
We have new domain name system activities in multiple
scripts, in Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic. People around the world
are benefiting from the diverse system, from a couple dozen top
level domains, we now have hundreds in the root, and it is
working. Everything is working well.
Yes, are there continued matters we need to attend to,
absolutely, but let me give you a couple of examples of things
we have done.
We worked very closely with law enforcement to strengthen
our agreements with all the registrar's and all the registries.
Since your letter, we have now signed new agreements with most
of these players. These agreements incorporate many of the law
enforcement asks to ensure that all these players participate
in a lawful way in the system and give trust to the consumer
that the system works well.
That has been done. We have also increased the size of our
Compliance Department remarkably. It is now one of our largest
departments, led by an attorney who understands IP, understands
the law, and is also focused on consumer advocacy. This is new.
We did not have that before.
A third example of our attention is the new trademark
clearinghouse, which was built in partnership with IBM and
others to ensure that trademarks are protected in the domain
name system.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you. I am also glad you
found an attorney that understands the law. There is not that
many of them.
I understand ICANN has made significant efforts to improve
accountability but in the past it faced some serious problems
with this. I know there is an accountability working group
working on ways to improve accountability, both before the
transition occurs and in the longer term.
Assistant Secretary Strickling, what are the essential
aspects of accountability that NTIA would need to see in place
before the transition occurs, and then I will turn to
Ambassador Gross and ask you what accountability do you and the
companies you represent see as necessary prior to the
transition.
Mr. Strickling. First off, with respect to overall
accountability at ICANN, I would say based on my personal
experience of having served on the first two accountability and
transparency review teams that were convened in 2010 and 2013
under our Affirmation of Commitments with ICANN, that ICANN has
made great progress on accountability.
But it is always a situation where the standard is very
high and where it can always improve, but I would tell you that
based on any similar organization I have ever dealt with, I
would say this organization is as accountable and transparent
as anything else I have seen out there.
Again, we should not just pause there and say that is good
enough, we should not improve, and that is the spirit in which
we have worked on these ATRTs the last two times, and it is the
spirit in which the community has come together to look at
additional accountability measures as part of this transition.
The specific issue that is before the working groups is
what does it mean for the U.S. to step away from this historic
or traditional stewardship role we have had. There has been a
perception that by virtue of this contract, we are kind of the
parent in the room in case ICANN starts to do things people are
worried about.
As I said earlier in my testimony, that has also been a
source of tremendous irritation to a lot of other countries
around the world that do not understand why the U.S. should
have that particular role.
The accountability team which is working on this, which is
made up of people from around the world, is looking at what
does it mean for the U.S. not to be there any longer.
From our point of view, we have not specified a particular
set of practices that we expect to see in any plan that comes
back, but what we do expect is that a plan that comes back will
have the broad support of the community, will have considered
all the various options, and will have to answer the
fundamental question, which is what happens at the end of the
day if the ICANN Board is not doing what the community wants.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Ambassador Gross, if you
could really briefly answer because I am out of time.
Ambassador Gross. Yes, very briefly. I would endorse what
the Assistant Secretary said. The accountability piece is
critically important. It is related obviously to the IANA
transition. It is independent of it as well.
It is critically important because the ability for those
who feel otherwise aggrieved to come to the U.S. Government or
to Congress will no longer be in the same way that it is today.
All companies and all individuals need to know that in fact
ICANN is accountable in a productive and appropriate fashion.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Chehade, I have a
question I will put on the record about stress testing. Even
hearing those words brings up memories from the past for us
with the fiscal crisis, but I will do it on the record, about
the accountability process that you are going to put in place
with that. I am curious about that.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Senator Markey?
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank
you for being here. Obviously, this is a critical long-term
issue. We have to make sure we get it right. We need a
decentralized form of open governance, multistakeholder
governance, protections which are built in to make sure the
system does not get captured, that we still have the capacity
for job growth, for freedom of speech, for innovation that has
characterized the Internet from its very origins when it did
get privatized in 1991.
From 1991 on, we have seen this tremendous change, and of
course, the 1996 Act actually spurred the need to have an ICANN
in order to have an international governance system.
My first question would be to you, Mr. Strickling. There
was a college student from Holliston, Massachusetts who came up
with the idea of Instagram but then sold the idea to a Harvard
dropout at Facebook, and then boom. Once again, revolutionized
the way in which we communicate.
Talk a little bit about how this IANA transition could
impact that and what protections we have built in to make sure
there is no change in the incentives for innovation in the
system.
Mr. Strickling. Well, I think you have put your finger on
it in the sense that the overall goal here is to have a
growing, striving, innovating Internet. Our belief is, and I
think the record demonstrates this to be the case, that it is
the multistakeholder model of governance that has allowed the
Internet to grow and thrive, that under a different model,
where governments, for example, were making these choices, we
would not see the kind of flexibility, not see the kind of
innovation that we have actually been able to see.
Above all, we want to protect that model. I think the IANA
transition by being the most direct and concrete demonstration
of the multistakeholder model at work on a difficult issue that
engages everybody in the community, whether they come from the
United States or any other part of the world, whether they come
from business or civil society or from the technical community,
is the absolute best demonstration we can make that this is a
powerful process, that it delivers outcomes, and that it is a
model that we all should aspire to and protect.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Mr. Chehade, this new system
needs to be stress tested?
Mr. Chehade. Yes.
Senator Markey. In order to make sure that it will work and
it cannot be compromised. If you could lay out for us what are
the stress tests, how long will they take, and what are the
safeguards built in to make sure the reporting back is accurate
in terms of the system and its safeguards.
Mr. Chehade. Absolutely, it must be stress tested, and I
must commend many members of our stakeholders, some of them in
this room, who have been developing a series of stress tests,
without which we are not coming back to you with a complete
proposal.
Today, they include about 25 of them that we plan to go
through. They come in multiple categories, financial crisis or
insolvency, issues of failure to meet operational expectations,
legal action stress tests, failure of accountability, failure
of accountability to external stakeholders.
They have already outlined every possible scenario that we
should be testing for, and ensuring that this institution,
which has been built over the last two decades, is ready and
able, not just today, but in the future to withstand these
stress tests.
We will report on these back to Secretary Strickling as
part of our proposal.
Senator Markey. OK. Mr. Strickling, without question, human
rights and an open Internet are intrinsically linked. Talk, if
you would, about the safeguards we are building in to make sure
that censorship does not reign in this new era, that we are not
opening up a new era where there is a dramatic change in the
personality of the Internet, as we are trying to reform its
governance, we also want to simultaneously make sure that its
essential personality remains the same, and that human rights
and free speech and this openness as part of its baked in
personality remains intact. Could you talk about that?
Mr. Strickling. So, I totally agree with your comment. One
of the reasons that we have insisted on there being no
government solution or inter-governmental solution is the fear
that would bring these extraneous issues into the management of
the domain name system in a way that might affect free
expression.
As you know, Senator, there is nothing about the system
today that prevents individual countries from acting within
their own borders to censor or block content. That will not
change going forward.
What we are insisting upon is that nothing come out of this
process that would allow those countries to be able to extend
those beliefs into the domain name system at large, and again,
based on what we have seen, I am confident that we will get a
proposal that protects against that.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey. Senator Nelson?
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year in the
omnibus appropriations, a rider was placed that prevents NTIA
from spending funds on the transition to an IANA contract
before September 30 of this year, 2015.
Can you explain NTIA's interpretation of that rider, Mr.
Secretary?
Mr. Strickling. Yes, sir. We have interpreted that
resolution or interpreted that language to prevent us from
allowing the transition to occur before September 30.
Senator Nelson. And we know----
Mr. Strickling. If I can continue, in consultation with
members and staffs up here on the Hill, we sought to clarify
whether that would in any way restrict our ability to continue
to monitor the transition planning process which is going on in
the community and is not subject to any restrictions in the
legislation, and in fact, as you know, the rider imposes
reporting requirements on us, so it is clear that Congress
intended us to continue to monitor the process and report back
on what is happening.
Within that, we also indicated our need, and I think the
needs of serving American interests, that we provide feedback
where we thought it was appropriate, and we have engaged in
that.
Again, I am very careful not to steer decisionmaking one
way or the other, but I think through a series of questions
that we have been asking and will continue to ask, we are
trying to make sure that the process considers all the issues
before reaching a final result.
We take very seriously the fact that no transition will
take place before September 30.
Senator Nelson. What happens if that rider is continued?
Mr. Strickling. Again, I would not want to speculate on
that. I am hoping the process within the community will result
in a proposal that will demonstrate to Congress and the valid
concerns people have up here about the process, that in fact it
is being handled in a responsible fashion, that the transition
will meet the conditions and there will be no need to extend
that particular provision past September 30.
Senator Nelson. Is the world going to stop revolving if it
is extended?
Mr. Strickling. I do not like to speculate on what will or
will not happen in the future, but I am pretty confident the
world will not stop revolving; yes, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. Senator Klobuchar, when she left, talked
about stress testing. NTIA favors stress testing any new ICANN
accountability measures in order to judge their effectiveness.
Why do you think that step is essential?
Mr. Strickling. Well, again, we need to have a proposal
that has been well thought through, that has considered all the
options, that can answer any question anybody might have. I
think scenario's, no matter how unlikely they may seem to
people, need to be raised.
The stress testing is really a set of kind of scenario
planning or contingency planning where you posit possible
situations and then evaluate the extent to which the
organization and the instruments of accountability allow one to
protect against bad things from happening.
So, yes, we have been strong supporters of stress testing
from the beginning, and we think a good proposal requires that
level of evaluation and testing to ensure that it will survive
the kinds of challenges that people worry might happen at some
point in the future.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Ambassador, do you want to comment?
Ambassador Gross. I would be happy to comment. I think the
Assistant Secretary stated it very well. Let me just add by
saying as a way of reassuring not only this committee but also
our members and the population as a whole that they have gone
beyond stress testing, or in the process of going beyond stress
testing.
For example, one of the issues that has been raised by the
Assistant Secretary is implementation, no change should be
made, not only in terms of getting it done right, making sure
that as part of getting any proposal done right, it is stress
tested, and that there is sufficient time for full
implementation to ensure that this goes smoothly is taken. Only
then is my understanding would a transition take place.
Mr. Strickling. That is correct.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson. I just have a
couple of quick questions here, and I think we will close this
out.
Mr. Strickling, you recently gave a speech at the State of
the Net Conference in which you raised several questions about
draft proposals for the IANA functions. You suggested there was
risk in making the proposal too complicated and creating new
committees might just lead to new accountability questions.
Were your questions meant to indicate that NTIA is unhappy
with the direction the proposals are going?
Mr. Strickling. No, sir. We just want to make sure that the
community is fully evaluating and understanding the
implications of the various proposals it is looking at.
In no way have we said that any particular proposal that
either has already been put on paper or might be put on paper
would not satisfy the conditions, although as Ambassador Gross
just mentioned, implementation is very much part of this.
So, if one is going to propose--if the community is going
to propose building new organizations to engage in any of these
functions or any of this accountability, there will have to be
time put in place to allow those organizations to be
constructed, tested, and we need to make sure they do not
create new accountability problems of their own.
I viewed my questions as simply trying to make sure the
community understood fully the ramifications of the kinds of
proposals that it might be looking at, and I encourage this
body and everyone else in this process to ask questions, too,
because it will only result in a stronger proposal.
The Chairman. Should your comments there be interpreted by
stakeholders as additional requirements in terms of the
transition beyond those that were included in NTIA's initial
IANA transition announcement?
Mr. Strickling. I do not think anything that I raised in my
questions goes beyond the conditions. For example, if a new
organization were to be proposed, that in my mind directly
implicates the condition that we do nothing to disturb the
security and stability of the existing system, it is working
well. All of the customers of the IANA functions today, all
three of them, say they are getting good service from ICANN.
We want to be very careful that we do not get a proposal
that might upset that security or stability that exists today.
The Chairman. Final question. How will you consult with
Congress in the event ICANN presents NTIA with an IANA
transition plan this year?
Mr. Strickling. As I said earlier in my testimony and as I
said to you when we met, we want to work very closely with both
houses up here on the Hill in terms of making sure there is a
full explication of the proposal and make sure it has the full
airing as any of the committees up here would like to pursue.
The Chairman. I appreciate that. I wanted to get that on
the record one more time.
Senator Nelson, anything else from you?
Senator Nelson. No.
The Chairman. If not, we will wrap this up and keep the
record open for a couple of weeks for additional testimony to
be provided. And thanks to our panelists today for their great
testimony and for their answers to our questions. I am sure
this is an issue that we will continue to pay a great deal of
attention to going forward.
Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Lawrence E. Strickling
Question 1. The IANA contract with ICANN allows for two, two-year
renewals. You have acknowledged that the policy rider in the current
appropriations bill bars you from transitioning the IANA functions
during this Fiscal Year. If that is the case, why have you not already
extended the contract? What are the considerations of NTIA in extending
the contract for a period of less than two years?
Answer. The Act restricts NTIA from using appropriated dollars to
transition key Internet domain name functions during Fiscal Year 2015,
which coincides with the end of the base period of the IANA contract on
September 30, 2015. As a contractual matter, the Department may extend
the term of the contract by written notice to the Contractor (ICANN)
within 15 calendar days before the expiration of the contract, provided
we give the Contractor preliminary written notice of our intent to
extend at least 30 calendar days before the contract expires.
We have set certain conditions before a transition would be
appropriate. The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
(CCWG on Accountability), which represent a broad range of Internet
stakeholders, including industry, governments, civil society, and the
technical community, have been working diligently through a number of
working groups to complete a transition proposal. However, it is
becoming increasingly likely that some extension of the contract may be
necessary. Accordingly, NTIA is conferring with the working groups to
get an update on their progress and the associated timeframes going
forward to make a final decision on an extension.
Question 2. Do you believe the ``stress tests'' developed by the
community are adequate to identify problems that could confront ICANN
if the U.S. Government relinquishes the IANA functions contract?
Specifically, do the stress tests properly assess the risk of
governments or government-affiliated individuals gaining a controlling
role over ICANN?
Answer. The CCWG on Accountability has identified 26 potential
stress tests. The stress tests address a range of potential
contingencies, such as a financial crisis; evidence of major corruption
or fraud; litigation; the unilateral expansion of ICANN's mandate by
its Board; and the failure of the ICANN Board to comply with ICANN's
Bylaws. There are also stress tests related to the possibility that
ICANN is ``captured'' by a single stakeholder segment, including
governments via the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
While the specific issue you raise has been identified, as have
others, it is premature at this time to make judgments about whether
the risks have been properly addressed. Thus far, we have been pleased
by the diligent efforts to identify and develop a set of stress tests
that reflect the broadest range of potential contingencies necessary to
protect the future management of the IANA functions and ensure ICANN
accountability.
Question 3. I understand there has been some consternation from
U.S. stakeholders about Secretary Pritzker's participation in the
NetMundial initiative. Please explain why it is in our national
interest for Secretary Pritzker to use her valuable time on this
endeavor and what her participation will be going forward.
Answer. We take seriously the concerns raised by all stakeholders,
including those voiced by the business community regarding the
NetMundial Initiative (NMI) initiative. Secretary Pritzker agreed to
serve on the NETmundial Initiative (NMI) Coordination Council to
explore whether there is a gap in the Internet governance landscape
that could be filled by this multistakeholder Initiative, as opposed to
having governments take more of a role to solve Internet issues by
themselves. That said, the Department has expressed to the other NMI
Coordination Council members that the continued lack of industry
support and participation needs to be remedied in order to justify
proceeding with NMI. The Department plans to review the comments filed
by stakeholders in response to a draft ``terms of reference'' for NMI
before determining its future engagement in NMI. See, http://
comments.netmun
dial.org/.
Question 4. Proponents of the IANA transition often argue that one
of its benefits is it demonstrates U.S. commitment to the
multistakeholder model. These proponents believe that by moving forward
with the transition the United States deflates attempts to expand the
jurisdiction of the International Telecommunications Union or other
intergovernmental bodies to include Internet governance. Please share
with the Committee any examples of countries or stakeholders having
renewed faith in U.S. support for the multistakeholder model due to the
IANA transition.
Answer. In 2012, at the ITU World Conference on International
Telecommunications (WCIT), despite opposition from the U.S. and a
number of likeminded countries, a majority of ITU Member States (i.e.,
governments) in attendance voted in favor of a stronger role for
governments in Internet governance. Since then, there has been
significant progress in the support shown by other countries for
multistakeholder Internet governance. Specifically, in April 2014,
Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference at which nearly all
countries in attendance supported a statement reaffirming that Internet
governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes. In
the fall of 2014, the Member States assembled at the ITU
Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, South Korea, rejected efforts to
expand the ITU's role in DNS issues handled by ICANN and agreed to take
steps towards including all stakeholders in previously closed
discussions related to Internet issues.
A broad group of stakeholders has also directly expressed its
support for NTIA's March 14, 2014, announcement of its intent to
complete the privatization of the domain name system. These include
Internet technical community leaders, U.S. companies such as AT&T,
Verizon, Microsoft, Google, Cisco, and Comcast, and associations like
the Chamber of Commerce, USTelecom, the Internet Association, the
Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Software and
Information Industry Association. Human rights and Internet freedom
organizations, including Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, the Center
for Democracy and Technology, and Public Knowledge, also released
statements of support.
A number of countries have also taken the opportunity to express
their support of the IANA transition and multistakeholder model, either
directly or indirectly through their participation in the ongoing
transition process. Many governments--including the UK, Germany,
Mexico, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Brazil, Norway, Australia,
Denmark, Switzerland, Egypt, and Qatar--voiced their support for the
announcement and/or the multistakeholder model at the March 2014 ICANN
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) meeting in Singapore and the June
2014 ICANN High Level Governmental Meeting in London. Following the
inaugural meeting of the U.S.-E.U. Cyber Dialogue in December 2014, the
government participants jointly agreed ``that no single entity,
company, organization or government should seek to control the Internet
and expressed their full support for multi-stakeholder governance
structures of the Internet that are inclusive, transparent,
accountable, and technically sound.'' They further welcomed the
multistakeholder community's engagement and efforts regarding the IANA
transition, recognizing the positive progress of the initiative.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Hon. Lawrence E. Strickling
Question 1. Mr. Strickling, on March 14, 2014, NTIA announced its
intent to end the U.S. Government's stewardship role over Internet
governance, and privatize IANA functions. Although you have not set a
deadline, and have mentioned that NTIA can extend the contract, you did
say that September 30, 2015, is ``a date for the community to use.''
Thus, ICANN and the stakeholder community have less than two years to
design a proposal for the privatization of IANA functions, and
transparency and accountability reforms at ICANN. What is NTIA's plan
to extend the contract if, in fact, ICANN fails to produce a transition
proposal in conjunction with accountability reforms?
Answer. NTIA has not set a deadline for the transition. September
2015 has been a target date because that is when the base period of our
contract with ICANN expires. However, we have the flexibility to extend
the contract if necessary. The current IANA functions contract contains
provisions to extend the contract, including the possibility of
exercising two two-year option periods. In order to exercise one of
these options to extend the contract, the Department must provide
written notice to the Contractor (ICANN) within 15 calendar days before
the expiration of the contract, provided that the Government gives the
Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to exercise an
option to extend at least 30 calendar days before the contract expires.
We are committed to providing the time needed to develop the best
plan possible to ensure the security and stability of the Internet. The
IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross
Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG on
Accountability), which represent a broad range of Internet
stakeholders, including industry, governments, civil society, and the
technical community, have been working diligently through a number of
working groups to complete a transition proposal. However, it is
becoming increasingly likely that some extension of the contract may be
necessary. Accordingly, NTIA is conferring with the working groups to
get an update on their progress and the associated timeframes going
forward to make a final decision on an extension.
Question 2. You have stated on numerous occasions that September 30
is not a hard deadline, and that NTIA will renew the IANA contract if
ICANN fails to produce an acceptable transition proposal in conjunction
with transparency and accountability reforms at ICANN. As I understand
it, the transparency and accountability reforms are to be ``stress
tested'' by ICANN and the stakeholder community.
Will NTIA evaluate these ``stress tests'' and factor them into its
decision on the overall transition proposal?
If so, what criteria will NTIA use to evaluate these ``stress
tests?''
How can ``stress tests'' predict changes in context as the Internet
evolves and geopolitics change?
What recourse will NTIA, the global community of stakeholders, or
the American people have if circumstances change in the next 5, 10, or
20 years?
Answer. Once we receive a complete consolidated proposal, we will
ensure that the proposal fully satisfies the March 2014 criteria and
that the proposal has been adequately ``stress tested'' to ensure the
continued stability and security of the DNS.
The CCWG on Accountability has identified 26 potential stress
tests. The stress tests assess a range of potential contingencies, such
as a financial crisis; evidence of major corruption or fraud;
litigation; the unilateral expansion of ICANN's mandate by its Board;
and the failure of the ICANN Board to comply with ICANN's Bylaws. There
are also stress tests related to the possibility that ICANN is
``captured'' by a single stakeholder segment, including governments via
the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Thus far, we have been
pleased by the diligent efforts to identify and develop a set of stress
tests that reflects the broadest range of potential contingencies
necessary to protect the future management of the IANA functions and
ensure ICANN accountability.
The processes used to develop and evaluate the proposal will
influence the work NTIA needs to undertake as part of its review. For
example, NTIA will review any documented ``stress tests'' and consider
whether new processes or structures address the comprehensive set of
contingencies that have been identified. Such stress-testing will also
provide confidence that any process, procedure, or structure proposed
actually works. In addition, NTIA will review and assess the changes
made or proposed to enhance ICANN's accountability in advance of
initiating the transition. This will include an assessment of the
proposed responses to the contingencies identified in the stress tests
and ensuring that they address NTIA's criteria.
NTIA continues to believe that the best mechanism for ensuring an
open, secure, and resilient Internet now and into the future is the
strength of the multistakeholder model. The real strength lies with the
broad group of stakeholders, both within the U.S. and globally, who
today are the ones driving the process and have the ability to course-
correct should circumstances change in the future. NTIA believes that
the successful completion of the privatization of the DNS will only
further strengthen the multistakeholder model against challenges it
will face tomorrow and far into the future.
NTIA will remain an active participant in ICANN going forward to
ensure the continued stability and security of the DNS. In particular,
we will continue our active role as a member of the GAC as well as a
stakeholder with interests in the IANA functions. NTIA--as well as
other U.S. Government agencies--also participates in other
multistakeholder bodies with direct ties to the IANA functions,
including the Internet Engineering Task Force (the organization
directly tied to the protocol parameters function) and the Regional
Internet Registries (the organizations most directly tied to the
Internet numbering resources function).
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Lawrence E. Strickling
Question. In January 2014 the AWS-3 auction was completed. It was
the most successful auction of radio spectrum so far, drawing nearly
$45 billion in bids for 65 megahertz of spectrum. The auction was an
important milestone in the administration's efforts to meet the
President's goal of making available 500 megahertz of spectrum for
wireless broadband by 2020.
Larry Strickling, the Assistant Secretary of NTIA said that the
auction ``represents a paradigm shift in our approach to making
spectrum available for commercial wireless providers.''
He was talking about the growing phenomenon of spectrum sharing and
the fact that NTIA has been working with Federal agencies to identify
Federal bands that could be repurposed for commercial use.
NTIA is to be commended because we know some Federal users are
harder to convince than others.
I am very encouraged that NTIA is continuing to work with
government spectrum users to identify spectrum bands for mobile
broadband.
What can we in Congress do to encourage Federal spectrum users or
Federal agencies to work with NTIA to identify more spectrum for
commercial use in light of the impending spectrum crunch?
Answer. I appreciate your recognition of the work that Federal
agencies and NTIA have performed towards enabling access to additional
spectrum for commercial purposes through a combination of relocation
and sharing opportunities.
Drawing more than $40 billion in bids for 65 megahertz of spectrum,
the AWS-3 auction was clearly a ringing financial success, but it also
is an important milestone in the Obama administration's efforts to meet
the President's goal of making available 500 megahertz of spectrum for
wireless broadband by 2020. The auction proceeds will help fund the
Nation's first nationwide public safety broadband network being
established by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), as
well as pay for deficit reduction, relocation costs Federal agencies
will incur to vacate or share bands for commercial use and other
priorities.
The success of the auction was made possible in part by an
unprecedented level of collaboration between NTIA, affected Federal
agencies, wireless industry representatives, the FCC, and Congress.
Congress played an important role in the successful AWS-3 auction in
several respects. It passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 that enabled the auction of AWS-3 spectrum and
updated the way in which Federal users receive payment for relocation
and sharing costs. Congress also worked closely with NTIA, the FCC, and
Federal agencies to ensure timely and efficient transition planning in
preparation for the auction. This leadership helped all parties work
collaboratively and achieve a successful outcome that expanded
broadband opportunities and reduced the deficit, while maintaining
essential Federal agency missions. As a result, the NTIA is building on
the lessons learned from these AWS-3 efforts to establish a repeatable
and sustainable collaboration framework between NTIA, FCC, Federal
agencies, industry, and Congress to maximize the value and use of this
important resource.
We welcome efforts to look at additional reforms that would further
expedite and expand these collaborative efforts and maximize the
benefits of spectrum access for both government and commercial users.
One area for consideration is enhancing the flexibility to utilize the
Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) for up-front studies and research and
development (R&D) activities that are not specifically tied to an
eligible frequency band. These enhancements would be in addition to the
existing statutory requirements the SRF fulfills. The FY 2016
President's Budget included a proposal that could increase flexibility
in the use of the SRF and highlighted that targeted investments can
return more than they cost in the form of enhanced auction value or
sharing arrangements. We welcome continued dialogue on all innovative
ideas to improve upon the already successful collaboration between
Federal and commercial entities.
In the meantime, NTIA continues to work closely with the FCC and
the Federal agencies towards the Administration's goals of making
available 500 megahertz of spectrum for wireless broadband by 2020. We
are collaborating with the FCC on making 100 megahertz of spectrum
available for small cell mobile broadband use in the 3.5 GHz band on a
shared basis with military radar systems. Meanwhile we also are
evaluating the feasibility of increased sharing for unlicensed devices
in the 5 GHz band while protecting important incumbent systems. NTIA is
also working with Federal agencies to quantify their use of nearly 1000
megahertz of spectrum, spanning several key bands. The results of this
quantification assessment will help to prioritize these bands for more
detailed study, and to ultimately identify additional Federal spectrum
that could potentially be repurposed (with a focus on spectrum sharing)
for commercial broadband services. We are also investigating approaches
to enhance Federal access to non-federal bands (bi-directional sharing)
to the benefit of both. As we move forward, we are cognizant of the
growing spectrum needs of both commercial and governmental entities and
will work to identify strategies that enhance collaboration and sharing
among all parties.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Fadi Chehade
Question 1. It seems a plurality of the Internet community wants
ICANN to stay in the United States, and I am not aware of consensus
support for moving to a particular country. Under what circumstances
would ICANN move its headquarters outside the United States? Do you
need consensus of the community to move to a particular location?
Answer. The Affirmation of Commitments that ICANN holds with the
United States Department of Commerce includes a commitment that ICANN
will remain headquartered in the United States. As I testified during
the hearing before the Committee, ICANN stands by the Affirmation of
Commitments and all of the commitments set out within it.
Similarly, ICANN's Bylaws set forth that its principal office is in
the County of Los Angeles (Article XVIII). Any change to a provision
within ICANN's Bylaws can only occur after public comment, so there
would have to be input from the Internet community on that issue if
such a change was ever contemplated, as well as a
2/3 majority of the Board voting in favor. The Enhancing ICANN
Accountability process that is underway is considering issues such as
whether there are particular Bylaws provisions that are so fundamental
that a higher voting threshold of directors must be achieved before
passage, or that the community may hold a veto power over attempts to
change. It remains to be seen whether the community will recommend that
additional protections be placed around this Bylaws provision relating
to ICANN's headquarters, however, the anticipated enhancements to
ICANN's accountability that will be achieved through the Accountability
work will only serve to make ICANN more accountable to the Internet
community for decisions of this import.
Question 2. I understand ICANN recently commissioned a legal
opinion to examine whether California law permits certain
accountability reforms. I am concerned this legal opinion may be used
to discourage community recommendations on accountability. Will you
commit to facilitating the community in getting its own, independent
legal opinion?
Answer. Upon request of the Chairs of the Cross-Community Working
Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, ICANN requested one of its
primary law firms, Jones Day, to answer a series of questions relating
to proposals to reform ICANN's accountability practices. Responses to
the Cross-Community Working Group's questions were delivered during
ICANN's 52nd Public Meeting in Singapore in February 2015. Since the
Jones Day responses were provided, as was anticipated, the Cross-
Community Working Group has now identified not one, but two law firms
that ICANN has retained for the provision of open, transparent legal
advice to inform the accountability process.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Fadi Chehade
Question 1. Many in the United States fear that once the current
relationship with the U.S. Government ends that ICANN will seek to move
its headquarters to another jurisdiction under pressure from foreign
governments--one not subject to 1st Amendment Rights. Such a move would
be exceptionally destabilizing to Internet governance, and would pose a
serious threat to free speech. Can you pledge that ICANN will remain
incorporated in the United States?
Answer. As noted in my response to Chairman Thune's first question
for the record, the Affirmation of Commitments that ICANN holds with
the United States Department of Commerce includes a commitment that
ICANN will remain headquartered in the United States. As I testified
during the hearing before the Committee, ICANN stands by the
Affirmation of Commitments and all of the commitments set out within
it.
Question 2. Over the past few months, ICANN has been criticized for
how it's evaluating community-based applications. Just one example
involves the accounting industry's interest in applying for the .CPA
domain. It appears ICANN is denying information on how applications are
being reviewed, and has rejected most of the reconsideration requests
submitted by applicants.
This one example raises questions of whether ICANN is committed to
transparency and accountability. The ideas exist on paper, but they
aren't functional or accessible to actual applicants.
Can you explain how you are working with applicants generally, and
accountants specifically, to understand the process and how you deal
with them as you change your internal criteria?
Answer. While I am not able to discuss the ongoing processing of
any specific application for a new generic Top-Level Domain, ICANN has
been evaluating applications in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook
and the criteria developed through years of public consultation. There
is extensive public documentation regarding the Community Priority
Evaluation component that is referenced within the question, at http://
newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe.
While the New gTLD Program--after public consultation--was designed
to not include the ability to appeal from panel determinations (such as
the Community Priority Evaluation), what is being seen now is that the
community may deem such an appeals right to be important in future
rounds. ICANN has already committed to a group of reviews necessary
over the first application round of the New gTLD Program, and any
changes that are put in place for subsequent rounds will be part of
public consultations. Information about the programmatic reviews,
including assessing stakeholder experience in launching and operating
the New gTLD Program and applying lessons learned as the Program moves
forward, is available at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews. This is
how potential changes to criteria for the evaluation of applications
will be developed.
The Enhancing ICANN Accountability process may also impact some of
the concerns noted within your question. The Cross-Community Working
Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability has highlighted ICANN's
Reconsideration Process as an area where improvements may be needed,
and efforts are currently underway to identify reforms to the
Reconsideration Process (in addition to other accountability
mechanisms).
Question 3. In January, at an inter-sessional ICANN meeting, you
stated that a contract is an ``enforceable instrument,'' and that ICANN
must do more to enforce various contractual provisions with registrars
and registries. I agree that ICANN must do more to prohibit illegality
online, whether it take the form of illegal drug sales, illegal
counterfeit activity, or illegal distributions of copyrighted
materials. What is ICANN doing to ensure registrars and registries take
action to deter illegal activity over domains they sponsor?
Answer. First, ICANN performs proactive monitoring activities to
ensure that its accredited registrars act in compliance with Sections
3.18.1, 3.18.2 and 3.18.3 of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation
Agreement, particularly as those sections relate to publishing the
registrar's abuse contacts and procedures for handling complaints.
These are key provisions through which suspected illegal activity can
be raised to registrars. These provisions were incorporated into the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement based on recommendations from law
enforcement and as a result of negotiations with registrars. The
Registrar Accreditation Agreement is available at https://
www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en.
As part of the obligations that a registrar undertakes under
Section 3.18 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, a registrar must
have a dedicated abuse point of contact to receive complaints from law
enforcement, consumer protection, quasi-governmental or similar
authorities and must review complaints from those sources within 24
hours of receipt. What constitutes an appropriate response to a
complaint varies based on the facts and circumstances. Registrars are
required to comply with court orders from courts of competent
jurisdiction, and further, registrars may choose to take action without
being compelled to do so by a court order. A number of registrars have
suspended or disabled websites because of allegations of illegal
activity, including infringement, child pornography, illegal drug sales
and other activities. Registrars are not required to respond in a way
that would be a contravention of applicable law and are not required to
be the arbiter of what constitutes illegal activity in every
jurisdiction, which is a function that is typically performed by
courts.
When ICANN's Contractual Compliance Department receives a report of
potential illegal activity, ICANN forwards the report to the registrar
(after confirming that the complainant itself sent the abuse report to
the registrar abuse contact). Registrars must take reasonable and
prompt steps to investigate and respond appropriately to the abuse
report. Generally this requires that the registrar forward the
complaint to the registered name holder or explain why the registrar
believes that forwarding the compliant should not be required.
Based on the abuse report and to ensure that the registrars are
abiding by their contractual requirements, ICANN requests that the
registrar provide: (1) the steps taken to investigate and respond to
the abuse report; (2) the time taken to respond to the abuse report;
(3) the correspondence with the complainant and the registered name
holder; and/or (4) (if applicable) other data or evidence identified
based on the registrar's response.
If a registrar fails to fulfill its obligations under Section 3.18,
ICANN generally attempts to work constructively with the registrar to
bring it into compliance with its contractual obligations. If a
registrar continues to fail to fulfill its obligations, ICANN's
Contractual Compliance Department can and does impose remedies up to
and including suspension or termination of the registrar's
accreditation agreement with ICANN. ICANN has no direct relationship
with registered name holders and no ability--either technical or
legal--to disable or edit the content of a registered name holder's
website.
Question 4. Your new gTLD agreements obligate registries to ensure
that registrars have a provision in their agreements that prohibits
domain name operators from engaging in ``piracy, trademark or copyright
infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or
otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law,'' and
providing (consistent with applicable law) that registrars include
``consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain
name.'' Has ICANN seen procedures from registries or registrars to
ensure such illegal activity does not occur, and what consequences do
they have in place should such activity occur?
Answer. Yes, some registrars have taken actions to suspend or
disable a registered name holder's website as a result of allegations
of unlawful activity, including infringement, child pornography,
illegal drug sales and other activities. Allegations of illegal
activity can raise complex questions of law and fact, and in some cases
a registrar may conclude that it is not competent to determine whether
illegal activity is occurring. In those cases, a registrar may defer to
law enforcement or private parties to seek adjudication from a court of
competent jurisdiction as to whether the conduct in question is
unlawful.
Question 5. The community group that's designing enhanced
accountability measures for ICANN is looking for independent legal
advice on how to empower the community to override board decisions and
budget proposals.
Is it true that ICANN's legal counsel wrote a memo saying the
community could not override board decisions?
Would it be appropriate for the community to seek a second opinion?
Answer. As discussed within my answer to Chairman Thune's Question
2, ICANN provided--at the request of the Cross-Community Working Group
on Enhancing ICANN Accountability--responses from Jones Day to a series
of accountability-related questions. Since that time, the Cross-
Community Working Group has identified two law firms that ICANN has
retained, and those law firms are providing legal advice to the Working
Group in furtherance of the accountability work. Across Jones Day's
advice, as well as the advice that has been provided to date by the two
firms reporting to the Cross-Community Working Group (Sidley Austin LLP
and Adler & Colvin), each firm has identified that pursuant to the laws
under which ICANN is incorporated, it is the Board that bears the
ultimate responsibility for corporate decisions. However, each of the
firms, including Jones Day, also provided ideas of how the ICANN
community could be better empowered to have input into and/or challenge
decisions of the Board, as well as how the community can better hold
the Board accountable for decisions with which the community does not
agree. Counsel have suggested a range of solutions that would be
acceptable under law, including providing the community with rights to
remove Board members and identifying ways that the community could hold
a ``veto'' right over specific decisions, such as the approval of the
annual budget.
The Enhancing ICANN Accountability work is ongoing, and ICANN
remains committed to supporting the efforts of the Cross-Community
Working Group as it develops recommendations.
Question 6. Earlier this month, the Senate unanimously passed a
resolution Senator Hatch and I spearheaded to draw public attention to
the very reason you're here today--the transition of key Internet
functions away from U.S. oversight. The resolution set forth a series
of reforms that should be made before any transfer.
I want to ask you a series of yes or no questions about those
reforms--and please limit your answer to yes or no.
Do you agree that ICANN's authority is and should be limited to the
coordination of Internet unique identifiers in order to avoid ``mission
creep?''
Do you agree that there should be a separation of the functions of
policy-making, implementation and an independent adjudication or
arbitration for dispute resolution?
Do you agree that policy making must remain with the broad
multistakeholder community?
Do you agree that ICANN actions must reflect true, if rough,
consensus?
Do you agree that the Board of Directors is responsible for policy
implementation?
Do you agree that the dispute resolution function must necessarily
involve the power to order remedial action?
Do you agree that today there is no truly independent adjudication
or arbitration authority with this power?
Do you agree that it is essential ICANN undertake structural
reforms to ensure that it is protected against undue influence or
capture by one or more governments, multilateral organizations, or a
single set of commercial or noncommercial stakeholders?
Do you agree that in the absence of the Affirmation agreement with
the U.S. Government that structural changes to reinforce and expand
ICANN's transparency and accountability are necessary?
Do you agree that before the transfer occurs all necessary reforms
are embedded in ICANN's articles of incorporation and bylaws and
subject to independent adjudication or arbitration for dispute
resolution?
Answer. Thank you for your continued support of ICANN's multi-
stakeholder model, and for keeping these issues front-and-center.
Recognizing how busy Congress is (inherent in your request for extreme
brevity), I offer these concise answers, constrained only by the need
to respond with maximum accuracy.
Do you agree that ICANN's authority is and should be limited
to the coordination of Internet unique identifiers in order to
avoid ``mission creep?''
Answer. I support the mission of ICANN as set out in the ICANN
Bylaws:
The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (``ICANN'') is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global
Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure
the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier
systems. In particular, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of
unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as ``DNS'');
b. Internet protocol (``IP'') addresses and autonomous system
(``AS'') numbers; and
c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name
server system.
3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately
related to these technical functions.
Adherence to this mission is key to ICANN's continued success.
Do you agree that there should be a separation of the
functions of policy-making, implementation and an independent
adjudication or arbitration for dispute resolution?
Answer. Within the IANA Functions Department of ICANN, there
already exists today a commitment by ICANN that the IANA functions
staff responsible for performing the implementation of community-
developed policies are not permitted to participated in the policy
development work. This commitment today is embodied in the IANA
Functions Contract, is an important part of each the proposals that
have been developed to date in the IANA Functions Stewardship
Transition process, and is expected to remain in place.
There are, of course, many other policies developed across the
ICANN community that don't impact the performance of the IANA
functions. Policies related to generic domain names occur within the
Generic Names Supporting Organization, or GNSO; those relating to
country-code domain names occur within the Country-Code Names
Supporting Organization, or ccNSO. These different communities each
have expectations on how they then are involved in the implementation
of the policies that they develop and are approved by ICANN (as
applicable). Often there is a need for coordination with those who
develop the policy when it comes time for implementation.
If and when matters are referred to independent adjudication or
arbitration, independence from policy development, implementation, or
any of the parties within the adjudication or arbitration is an
essential factor of assessing those overseeing that adjudication or
arbitration.
Do you agree that policy making must remain with the broad
multistakeholder community?
Answer. Yes. Each of the policy bodies I discussed above relies on
the multistakeholder model, and I support policy development's
remaining within those multistakeholder groups. These policy bodies and
how they develop policy are incorporated in the ICANN Bylaws.
Do you agree that ICANN actions must reflect true, if rough,
consensus?
Answer. The Supporting Organizations that are charged with
developing policy do so through the submission of consensus-based
recommendations to the ICANN Board. The ICANN Board then considers
those recommendations, and has specific processes surrounding its
approval or rejection of those recommendations, often tied to the level
of consensus present within the underlying policy development process.
The ICANN Board is not where policies are developed. As President and
CEO of ICANN, it is not up to me to define the thresholds or consensus
requirements of the policy development groups or advisory committees
that have inputs into ICANN's processes.
Do you agree that the Board of Directors is responsible for
policy implementation?
Answer. The ICANN Board of Directors is responsible for the
assessment of and approval of policy recommendations that come to it
through defined processes. Once approved, the Board retains a general
responsibility for the oversight of the affairs of the organization,
and that includes oversight of how I, as President and CEO, work with
the ICANN staff to implement those approved policies.
Do you agree that the dispute resolution function must
necessarily involve the power to order remedial action?
Answer. The Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
Accountability is working on creating refinements to ICANN's
accountability mechanisms. They are working closely with their retained
legal advisors to identify the full scope of recommended changes to
ICANN's accountability measures such as the Reconsideration Process and
the Independent Review Process, including what the outcomes of those
processes should be. The ICANN Board has expressed support for the
Enhancing ICANN Accountability work, and I stand with my colleagues on
the Board.
Do you agree that today there is no truly independent
adjudication or arbitration authority with this power?
Answer. There are a variety of dispute mechanisms available
throughout ICANN today, as well as the accountability mechanisms such
as the Reconsideration Process and the Independent Review Process.
Depending on the nature of the issue at hand, remedial powers could be
exercised, such as arbitration as required in ICANN's registry and
registrar agreements. Existing accountability mechanisms, such as the
Reconsideration Process, which can require a ``do over'' of a decision
or action, could also result in remedial action being achieved. Of
course, the sufficiency of the Reconsideration and Independent Review
Processes and the outcomes of those processes are key items under
consideration within the Enhancing ICANN Accountability work and we are
awaiting the Cross-Community Working Group's recommendations.
Do you agree that it is essential ICANN undertake structural
reforms to ensure that it is protected against undue influence
or capture by one or more governments, multilateral
organizations, or a single set of commercial or noncommercial
stakeholders?
Answer. I agree that a key question facing ICANN today, as well as
a key stress test of any reforms that are being developed through the
Enhancing ICANN Accountability process, is how well are we protecting
against undue capture or influence by one or more governments,
multilateral organizations, or a single set of commercial or
noncommercial stakeholders, across the organization. This also includes
that the community itself must meet high standards of accountability in
any proposed community mechanism, including the development of proper
checks and balances to mitigate against the possibility of capture. The
Cross-Community Working Group has identified that ``the community,
however it is constituted, must itself meet high standards of
accountability'' within the enhancements that are being developed.
As stated in NTIA's original announcement, and as reinforced by the
ICANN community and Congress, protections against capture must be a
central component of any structural change of the organization.
Do you agree that in the absence of the Affirmation
agreement with the U.S. Government that structural changes to
reinforce and expand ICANN's transparency and accountability
are necessary?
Answer. ICANN has no plans to withdraw from the Affirmation of
Commitments.
While there is no suggestion that the Affirmation of Commitments
should or will be terminated, ICANN supports the recommendations of
Chairman Thune and Senator Rubio to incorporate the provisions of the
Affirmation of Commitments into the ICANN Bylaws to help provide
assurances of ICANN's intent to maintain its commitments thereunder.
This is also a central focus of work within the Enhancing ICANN
Accountability process. Further, as indicated above, ICANN supports the
work of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
Accountability and is awaiting its recommendations on how ICANN's
accountability and transparency can be enhanced and reinforced.
Do you agree that before the transfer occurs all necessary
reforms are embedded in ICANN's articles of incorporation and
bylaws and subject to independent adjudication or arbitration
for dispute resolution?
Answer. The final proposals on the stewardship transition and
enhancing ICANN accountability will delineate the key enhancements that
must be in place or committed before the transition can take place.
ICANN is committed to working with the multistakeholder community to
achieve this goal prior to a transition.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Fadi Chehade
Question. As you mentioned in your testimony, ICANN has contracts
with registrars that prohibit illegal activity. Specifically, under
section 3.18 of the 2013 registrar accreditation agreement, section
registrars must take ``reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and
respond appropriately to any reports of illegal activity.'' Please
explain what ICANN is doing to ensure registrars abide by this
provision, and explain what processes and analysis ICANN performs when
it receives a complaint that a registrar has not complied with this
obligation.
Answer. Please refer to my answer to Senator Blunt's Question 3,
which also was focused on Section 3.18 of the 2013 Registrar
Accreditation Agreement and ICANN's enforcement of those requirements.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Fadi Chehade
Question. Mr. Chehade, you mentioned stress testing as a way to
ensure that accountability processes are structured properly in advance
of the transition. Can you expand on how these stress tests would be
conducted and analyzed?
Answer. Within the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
Accountability, a sub-group of members has identified 25 different
stress tests to date against which the recommended solutions of the
CCWG will be tested.\1\ These stress tests are grouped into five areas,
including Insolvency, Failure to Meet Operational Obligations, Legal/
Legislative Action, Failure of Accountability to others within ICANN
community (including ``capture'' by a specific entity or interest
group), and Failure of Accountability to External Stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The work of the sub-group addressing the stress tests can be
followed at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--
+Stress+Tests+Work+Party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each stress test, the sub-group has identified the specific
scenario as an example against which they propose to test, the
anticipated consequence (or impact to the community) if the scenario
were to occur, structures that are currently in place within ICANN to
help mitigate against either the occurrence of the scenario or the
severity of the impact, and then a mapping to the proposed
accountability enhancements that are currently under discussion within
the full Cross-Community Working Group.
Many of the stress tests are related to satisfying the criteria
that NTIA set out for the transition:
Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
partners of the IANA services;
Maintain the openness of the Internet; and
Not replace NTIA's role with a government-led or an inter-
governmental organization solution.
These criteria, against which the transition proposal will be
judged, shape the scenarios that are being tested.
An example of where the stress tests align with these criteria are
in the series of scenarios focused on the balance of power among the
ICANN stakeholder participants. Prior to implementation, proposed
accountability enhancements will be tested against the following
questions:
Do they make ICANN more susceptible to ``capture'' (or the
assertion of undue influence) by one stakeholder or group of
stakeholders?
Can any individual or group make use the redress and review
processes in a way that paralyzes the work of ICANN?
Does any group of stakeholders have the ability to modify
its internal procedures in a way that shifts how it interacts
among the rest of the stakeholders within ICANN?
Thank you for your interest in ICANN. We would be happy to answer
any additional questions you may have on this or any other ICANN-
related issue.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Ambassador David A. Gross
Question. At the recent plenipotentiary in Busan, how did the U.S.
Government use the IANA transition to push back on proposals to enhance
the role of the International Telecommunications Union over Internet
governance?
Answer. I appreciate receiving this question ``[a]t the recent
plenipotentiary in Busan, how did the U.S. Government use the IANA
transition to push back on proposals to enhance the role of the
International Telecommunication Union over Internet governance.''
Because of the significant number of government to government private
bilateral meetings during PP-14 that did not include me or any other
Internet Governance Coalition member, this question can only be
answered by a representative of the United States Government.
Thank you very much.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Ambassador David A. Gross
Question. In January 2014 the AWS-3 auction was completed. It was
the most successful auction of radio spectrum so far, drawing nearly
$45 billion in bids for 65 megahertz of spectrum. The auction was an
important milestone in the administration's efforts to meet the
President's goal of making available 500 megahertz of spectrum for
wireless broadband by 2020.
Larry Strickling, the Assistant Secretary of NTIA said that the
auction ``represents a paradigm shift in our approach to making
spectrum available for commercial wireless providers.''
He was talking about the growing phenomenon of spectrum sharing and
the fact that NTIA has been working with Federal agencies to identify
Federal bands that could be repurposed for commercial use.
NTIA is to be commended because we know some Federal users are
harder to convince than others.
I am very encouraged that NTIA is continuing to work with
government spectrum users to identify spectrum bands for mobile
broadband.
What can we in Congress do to encourage Federal spectrum users or
Federal agencies to work with NTIA to identify more spectrum for
commercial use in light of the impending spectrum crunch?
Answer. I appreciate receiving the question about what Congress can
``do to encourage Federal spectrum users or Federal agencies to work
with NTIA to identify more spectrum for commercial use in light of the
impending spectrum crunch.'' The Internet Governance Coalition, which I
represent, recognizes the critical importance of spectrum to the
current and future communications infrastructure of the United States;
however, the Coalition does not have a specific policy position on this
matter.
The Coalition does believe that it is vital that additional
spectrum be made available to support the continued growth of America's
digital economy.
Thank you very much.
[all]