[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE IANA TRANSITION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 13, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-41
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-987 WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
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].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILLY LONG, Missouri BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
CHRIS COLLINS, New York officio)
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 4
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 94
Witnesses
Steve Delbianco, Executive Director, Netchoice................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Danielle Kehl, Senior Policy Analyst, New America's Open
Technology Institute........................................... 26
Prepared statement \1\....................................... 28
Audrey Plonk, Director, Global Cyber Security and Internet
Governance Policy, Intel Corporation........................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Matthew Shears, Representative and Director, Global Internet
Policy and Human Rights Project Center for Democracy and
Technology..................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Brett Schaefer, Senior Research Fellow in International
Regulatory Affairs, The Heritage Foundation.................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Submitted Material
Article entitled, ``What's in a (Domain) Name?'', by Peter Roff,
U.S. News & World Report, May 13, 2015, submitted by Mr.
Shimkus........................................................ 95
----------
\1\ The attachment to Ms. Kehl's statement can be found at:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if16/20150513/103448/hhrg-
114-if16-wstate-kehld-20150513.pdf.
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE IANA TRANSITION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:19 p.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Barton,
Shimkus, Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger,
Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Collins, Cramer, Eshoo,
Doyle, Clarke, Loebsack, Matsui, McNerney, Lujan, and Pallone
(ex officio).
Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor for
Communications and Technology; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant;
Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Gene Fullano,
Detailee, Telecom; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Telecom; Grace
Koh, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Charlotte
Savercool, Legislative Clerk; Jessica Wilkerson, Oversight
Associate, O&I; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; David
Goldman, Democratic Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Lori Maarbjerg, Democratic FCC Detailee; Margaret
McCarthy, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; and Ryan
Skukowski, Democratic Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Now that we have killed the lights, we will
call the subcommittee on Communications and Technology to
order, and welcome our witnesses here today, and our
colleagues. Thanks for your patience with our late start. We
had a vote on the floor, as you know, but we appreciate your
being here today, and look forward to your testimony.
From the time the Administration announced their intent to
transition IANA functions from ICANN to the international
multi-stakeholder community, I have had very serious concerns
about the potential risks associated with that move. We have
said time and again that this is far too important to rush, and
that we must carefully consider all of the consequences and
outcomes before we ring a bell that cannot be un-rung.
This subcommittee has been committed to oversight of the
transition process, and ensuring that there are safeguards in
place to improve the odds of a successful transition, and
preserve the Internet we all committed to protecting. Last
Congress we held a hearing on this topic and passed the Dot Com
Act out of the full Committee almost exactly a year ago. The
goals of the Dot Com Act are consistent with our position. It
is the appropriate role of this subcommittee to oversee the
NTIA, and, in this case, ensure that it thoroughly evaluates
any proposal. As part of this oversight, we have already asked
the GAO to begin an inquiry into the process that examines the
existing contract, risks to be considered, and any safeguards
that can be put into place to reduce the threats to the future
operations and functions of the Internet.
Many have come to us to emphasize the importance of the
IANA transition to the continued success of the multi-
stakeholder model of governance, and to urge us to be mindful
of the way the international community perceives our actions.
We recognize these considerations, but we also feel it would be
irresponsible to ignore the very real risks associated with a
relinquishment of the U.S. role in Internet governance, no
matter how symbolic. This is why we have taken the measured
approach that we will discuss today.
NTIA put forward a set of criteria that they say any
acceptable transition proposal must meet, all of which are
essential to ensuring a vibrant Internet, should NTIA
transition IANA to the multi-stakeholder community. NTIA should
be applauded for this, and for its willingness to stick to
these criteria, despite the difficulty in meeting them. Our
goal, through this legislation, and our efforts in the
subcommittee, is to ensure that these conditions are met, and
that the myriad unforeseen complications that could arise in
meeting them are addressed.
I am pleased to report the staff from both sides of the
aisle have been working together to produce an amendment to the
Dot Com Act that meets these goals that we all share without
unduly burdening the agency as it works towards its goal. While
NTIA works within its proper role in the multi-stakeholder
model, we too are working with our proper role as oversight
authority. While we have not reached agreement on final text,
our discussions have been very promising, and there is an
important role for Congress in this transition, and I commend
the staff for their hard work.
I would also like to take a moment to touch on the timeline
of the transition. It seems that everyone, including NTIA
Administrator Larry Strickling, has acknowledged that the
important work needed to facilitate a transition cannot be done
before the existing contract expires on September 30, 2015. I
urge NTIA to exercise the 2-year renewal option on the
contract. Doing so allows the deliberative process to continue
without artificial pressure or time constraints, and this won't
provide any additional hurdle to the transition itself. Should
NTIA and ICANN come to agreement on an acceptable proposal
before the 2-year period is up, the contract can be cancelled
to facilitate that transition.
I am pleased to have our panel of stakeholder witnesses
here today to give us an update on their views of this
transition. In the past year thousands of hours of hard work
have taken place, many by our witnesses at the witness table
today, to move this forward. Our last hearing gave voice to
concerns that have been incorporated into the work of the
multi-stakeholder working groups, and this is an opportunity
for us to once again play our role in the process. I thank the
witnesses for being here, and I look forward to your expertise.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
From the time the administration announced their intent to
transition the IANA functions from ICANN to the international
multi-stakeholder community, I've had very serious concerns
about the potential risks associated with the move. We've said
time and again that this is far too important to rush, and that
we must carefully consider all of the consequences and outcomes
before we ring a bell that cannot be unrung.
This subcommittee has been committed to oversight of the
transition process and ensuring that there are safeguards in
place to improve the odds of a successful transition and
preserve the Internet we are all committed to protecting. Last
Congress, we held hearings on this topic and passed the DOTCOM
Act out of the full Committee almost exactly a year ago. The
goals of the DOTCOM Act are consistent with our position--it is
the appropriate role of this subcommittee to oversee the NTIA,
and in this case ensure that it thoroughly evaluates any
proposal. As part of this oversight, we've already asked the
GAO to begin an inquiry into the process that examines the
existing contract, risks to be considered, and any safeguards
that can be put into place to reduce threats to the future
operations and functions of the Internet.
Many have come to us to emphasize the importance of the
IANA transition to the continued success of the multi-
stakeholder model of governance, and to urge us to be mindful
of the way the international community perceives our actions.
We recognize these considerations, but we also feel it would be
irresponsible to ignore the very real risks associated with a
relinquishment of the U.S. role in Internet governance, no
matter how symbolic. This is why we have taken the measured
approach we will discuss today.
NTIA put forward a set of criteria that they say any
acceptable transition proposal must meet, all of which are
essential to ensuring a vibrant Internet should NTIA transition
IANA to the multi-stakeholder community. NTIA should be
applauded for this, and for its willingness to stick to these
criteria despite the difficulty in meeting them. Our goal
through this legislation and our efforts in the subcommittee is
to ensure that these conditions are met and that the myriad
unforeseen complications that could arise in meeting them are
addressed.
I am pleased to report that staff from both sides of the
aisle have been working together to produce amendment to the
DOTCOM Act that meets these goals that we all share without
unduly burdening the agency as it works toward its goal. While
NTIA works within its proper role in the multi-stakeholder
model, we too are working within our proper role as oversight
authority. While we have not reached agreement on final text,
our discussions have been very promising. There is an important
role for Congress in this transition and I commend the staff
for their hard work.
I'd also like to take a moment to touch on the timeline of
the transition. It seems that everyone, including NTIA
Administrator Larry Strickling, has acknowledged that the
important work needed to facilitate a transition cannot be done
before the existing contract expires on September 30, 2015. I
urge NTIA to exercise the two-year renewal option on the
contract. Doing so allows the deliberative process to continue
without artificial pressure or time constraints. And this won't
provide any additional hurdle to the transition itself. Should
NTIA and ICANN come to agreement on an acceptable proposal
before the 2-year period is up, the contract can be cancelled
to facilitate the transition.
I'm pleased to have our panel of stakeholder witnesses here
today to give us an update on their views of the transition. In
the past year, thousands of hours of hard work have taken
place--many by our witnesses--to move this forward. Our last
hearing gave voice to concerns that have been incorporated into
the work of the multi-stakeholder working groups, and this is
an opportunity for us to once again to play our role in this
process. I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward
to your expertise.
Mr. Walden. With that, I would recognize the gentlelady
from California, my friend, the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to
all the members, and to all of our witnesses. We welcome you
here, and we thank you for your willingness to come and share
your thoughts with us about--this is an important topic.
Earlier this year Singapore's Minister of Communication and
Information, Dr. Yaacob Bin--Ibrahim stated that ``no one
person, organization, or even country has a monopoly on the
expertise and wisdom needed to meet the challenges that we are
facing on the Internet on a day to day basis.''
I agree with that quote, and his thought. It is why
Congress, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, has consistently
stated that the United States should continue to preserve and
advance the multi-stakeholder governance model under which the
Internet has thrived. Our leadership in the IANA transition is
critical, but I think inserting a unilateral role for our
government, as the Dot Com Act does, undermines the legitimacy
of the multi-stakeholder model, and it emboldens those that
don't agree with us. Some call them our enemies, but I think
that emboldens them.
For nearly 20 years it has been U.S. policy to transition
the government's role in administering the domain name system
to the multi-stakeholder global community, and by requiring the
GAO to study the pros and cons of making such a transition, the
Dot Com Act fails to recognize this history. Equally concerning
is the opposition from the stakeholder community, including
NetChoice's Steve DelBianco, who is here, and is going to be
testifying today, that a post-analysis by GAO of the transition
proposal is no longer necessary.
The success of the IANA transition depends on built-in
mechanisms for transparency and accountability, and a
commitment by ICANN to resist--Mr. Chairman, I don't think the
committee is in order. That means stop gabbing, to my left. It
is distracting.
The success of the IANA transition depends on built-in
mechanisms for transparency and accountability, and a
commitment by ICANN to resist any expansion of the role
government or inter-governmental organizations may play in
ICANN's deliberations. Now, if the majority shares these goals,
and I believe that you do, then we should work together on a
bipartisan alternative to the Dot Com Act which provides a
reasonable period of time for Congress, and the general public,
to review the IANA transition proposal. With responsible
oversight, a successful transition of those functions will
preserve the Internet's guiding principles of openness, of
security, of stability, and resiliency, and ensure ICANN cannot
be exposed to government capture.
And, again, I would like to thank the panel of witnesses.
They are really esteemed individuals in each one of their
spheres of influence, and I think that each one of them
understands the Internet's guiding values, and the importance
of the multi-stakeholder model. So, again, I thank you, and,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, unless
someone else would like it. Doris, would you like my time? I
would be glad to yield to you, to the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, my fellow colleague. Got
the wrong thing here. In 2012, with strong bipartisan
congressional backing, the Administration's position was
strengthened in re-affirming the current multi-stakeholder
approach that has allowed the Internet to flourish here in the
United States and around the world. Congress must stay united
moving forward. I am pleased to hear that the Administration
will not support any proposal that undermines the openness of
the Internet. With over two billion users, we all know the
Internet has become a necessity, and not a luxury. It plays a
dominant role in the world economy. We need to continue to
promote innovation and openness of the Internet around the
globe. That has been the hallmark of U.S. policy. I believe the
multi-stakeholder approach must continue to define Internet
governance, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. Gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, the Vice-Chair of
the Subcommittee, Mr. Latta.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank our witnesses for being with us today. The Internet has
quickly integrated into our everyday lives, and has become a
central platform for job creation, education, business
development, health care, and free expression. Therefore, the
preservation of the Internet's openness and freedom should
remain a high priority as NTIA prepares to transition the U.S.
Government's role in the Internet's--numbering functions to a
global multi-stakeholder community.
I thank the gentleman, my friend from Illinois, for
introducing the Dot Com Act to ensure proper oversight of this
transition. This bill will safeguard our national security
interests, and allow citizens to continue to freely navigate
the Internet. I look forward to hearing from our witness. And,
Mr. Chairman, I would, at this time, yield to the gentleman
from Illinois the balance of my time.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. I want to thank Chairman Walden and
Chairman Upton for holding this hearing today. While we all use
the Internet, few Americans, and I am included--few Americans
truly understand the underlying Internet architecture. Perhaps
that is because a system that has been in place has worked so
well that we don't need to think about it. The Internet remains
a free and open place to exchange information and ideas, and
the goal of my legislation has always been to preserve that for
future generations.
What we wanted to do with the Dot Com Act has always been
to exercise vigorous oversight on the transition, and make sure
it is done right, the old trust but verify statement. As a
legislative body, specifically in the Telecom Subcommittee, we
have authority and responsibility to oversee the activities of
NTIA. We get one bite at the apple with this. We would be
negligent in our responsibilities to not sure that NTIA, and
the Administration, is living up to its promises.
NTIA says the proposal must, and this is from them, support
and enhance the multi-stakeholder 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. I
have concerns that these requirements that NTIA has put forth
are vague at best, but allowing Congress a chance to review any
proposal would hold the Administration's feet to the fire
before any transition could occur. If the proposal isn't as
promised, and ICANN hasn't made the necessary changes to
facilitate the transition, then Congress has the chance to
engage in other legislative avenues to ensure that Americans
will continue to access a free and open Internet.
Bipartisan staff discussions are ongoing, and we are
hopeful that an agreement can be reached to hold NTIA
accountable to their own criteria and move it to the floor, and
to the President's desk. We just have to be careful, by
exercising congressional oversight of NTIA, because there is no
turning back once this moves forward. And, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to submit for the record an article that came out
today, ``What Is In A Domain Name?'' by Peter Roff, and it was
in U.S. News & World Report.
Mr. Walden. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. And I yield back my time.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Chair recognizes the Ranking Member from New Jersey, Mr.
Pallone, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The subject of
today's hearing is the transition of the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority, or IANA, and this function is sometimes
called the Internet's phone book of Internet names and numbers,
and, more simply, it is what allows Internet users to easily
navigate the Web. The Internet is an unprecedented platform for
economic opportunity and democratic free expression. It is used
by three billion people around the globe. And because this
phone book has worked so well, very few of us ever have to
think about how it works, we just know it works. And that is a
credit to a successful Internet governance model that uses a
multi-stakeholder approach to decision-making. We all want this
success story to continue, and that is why the U.S. Government
has taken steps over the past two decades to get out of the way
and allow the private sector to assume management of the domain
name system. Put another way, we think the future of the
Internet should be determined by businesses, civil society, and
technical experts.
Both Republican and Democratic Administrations have
supported the idea that the Internet should be governed through
a decentralized bottom-up process that is free from government
control, and Congress too has embraced this vision. In 2013,
the House voted unanimously in support of a bill making it
official U.S. policy to ``preserve and advance the successful
multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet.'' I
personally believe that the transition of the IANA functions to
the global multi-stakeholder community helps achieve that goal.
Since NTIA announced last March its intention to relinquish
control of the IANA contract, they have made significant
progress to plan for this transition. They have also made
impressive strides to enhance accountability for ICANN. NTIA
has clearly and consistently articulated principles for the
transition, in keeping with the U.S. Government's support for
the multi-stakeholder model, and an open global Internet. I
believe Congress has a bipartisan interest in seeing the IANA
transition executed consistent with these principles.
We all have a shared interest in transparency and
accountability, and therefore thank my Republican colleagues,
especially Chairman Walden and Mr. Shimkus, for working with us
to address concerns with the DOTCOM Act, and I look forward to
continuing our shared responsibility, conduct rigorous
oversight of NTIA, and to ensure the agency lives up to its
commitments for the transition. So, again, thank you to the
witnesses today for sharing their perspectives that they are
going to on the proposals that have been put forward, and the
work that remains to be done. And thank you to both the
Chairman and our Ranking Member, Ms. Eshoo, for putting this
together, and the work that we are going to do together on
this.
I think Mr. Doyle and Ms. Matsui--you have already spoken,
right? Does anyone else want any time? He says he doesn't, so,
all right, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Thank you for your kind comments. We look forward to continuing
our work together.
Now we will go to our witnesses, and we will start with
Steve DelBianco, Executive Director of NetChoice. We are
delighted to have you with us today. Turn on that mic, pull it
up close, and we look forward to your testimony, sir. Go ahead.
STATEMENTS OF STEVE DELBIANCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NETCHOICE;
DANIELLE KEHL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, NEW AMERICA'S OPEN
TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE; AUDREY PLONK, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL CYBER
SECURITY AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE POLICY, INTEL CORPORATION;
MATTHEW SHEARS, REPRESENTATIVE AND DIRECTOR, GLOBAL INTERNET
POLICY AND HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND
TECHNOLOGY; AND BRETT SCHAEFER, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW IN
INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF STEVE DELBIANCO
Mr. DelBianco. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo,
members of the Committee, thank you very much for having yet
another important hearing on this transition. I am deeply
involved at ICANN, 30 meetings and five times elected as the
policy chair for the businesses constituency, and partly on the
inspiration of your hearing last year, I got deeply involved in
the transition planning. I represent the commercial
stakeholders globally on the transition planning team.
This was a year ago in April when you held the first
hearing on NTIA's plan to transition oversight, and I think
that what that focused on was the fact that, over 17 years, our
government has protected ICANN's multi-stakeholder model from
government encroachment, and really helped ICANN to mature. The
analogy I suggested to you last year is that the U.S. built
this car called IANA in the 1990s, we handed the car keys to
ICANN in 1998, when we created ICANN, but we kept the ownership
papers, we kept the title close. We monitored their driving and
their care of the vehicle for those last 17 years. But, look,
it is just not sustainable for the U.S. alone to hold that
title forever, especially in a post-Snowden political climate,
which really has nothing to do with the DNS, but politically,
it is connected.
So the NTIA asked the community for proposals to replace
the stewardship role for IANA, and the global multi-stakeholder
community responded to the challenge. We have had hundreds of
meetings in the last several months, tens of thousands of
person hours have gone in, often overnight, since we cycle
through different time zones for our friends in Asia, and all
around the world, and I can tell you I have learned to keep my
mic on mute after 2:00 in the morning.
Our community proposals are an excellent start. I
summarized them in my testimony. Let me give you some
highlights. We are giving the--for the first time we are giving
the community new powers to challenge the Board's decisions and
actions via the independent review panel that can issue binding
decisions. We are allowing the community to veto bylaws changes
proposed by the Board of Directors to veto strategic plans and
budgets proposed by ICANN's Board, the power to remove and
individual director, and better still, to spill the entire
Board if they are not listening to the community.
Now, we assessed whether these new powers give the
community the accountability we need in the face of stress
tests, and, Chairman Walden, you indicated a certain
appreciation for that in the first hearing. Good news, they
answered quite well. We did 26 stress tests, and the new
mechanisms I have just described allow the community to have
the powers we needed to challenge the Board decision and hold
them accountable. But there were some stress tests that needed
even further changes.
Last June this Committee raised some very stressful
questions of our own, drawing on the Dot Com Act to put
together a set of requests for GAO, Government Accountability
Offices, to analyze the risks and implications for national
security in U.S. agencies. Both our stress tests that I talked
to you about, and your third GAO question asked, what happens
if ICANN quits the affirmation of commitments? That is a great
question, because they can quit with 120 days' notice,
particularly if they don't have to stay in it to keep the IANA
contract. So we took ICANN's commitments in the affirmation,
and the periodic reviews of the community, and have baked them
into ICANN's bylaws as part of the proposal we released last
week. And earlier I said that if ICANN tried to take those
commitments out of the bylaws, the community can block that
change.
Another is we channeled your second GAO question, another
one that came from the Dot Com Act. Said, what if the
Government Advisory Committee changed to majority voting for
its advice that they give to ICANN? This would truly expand
government's power. We said, in the working group, that
changing ICANN bylaws was essential so that we only are
obligated to seek a mutually acceptable solution to this
government advice if the government advice came over with
consensus. So let them change their voting method, but only
consensus carries that obligation.
Turning back to the proposals that I had earlier, we need
details that we haven't provided yet. We were still in draft
one, and the entire global stakeholder community has to review
what we have come up with, so it will not happen by September
2015 IANA deadline. The timeline I have got here--and in my
testimony shows that your Committee's good work on requesting
GAO to start its analysis last June is really going to pay off.
They have been at it for several months. I have had two
extensive, exhausting meetings with GAO, they are asking great
questions, and it would be immensely valuable to see the GAO
analysis during the comment period we are having right now, and
a second one this summer, that would be a more valuable form of
the Dot Com Act than having GAO only start their analysis when
we are finished, and after the community has already developed
their proposals. So, even with the extension, we really worry
that ICANN's Board and management will resist the reforms that
we are talking about, because they are tough medicine. Mr.
Schaefer will address that in his testimony later on.
The role of Congress in this transition could be critical.
We think you ought to insist that NTIA require ICANN to accept
and implement the final form of our proposals for new
accountability as a condition of getting the IANA transition,
and that is why my chart has showed them in the upper right
hand corner, to accept and implement, and it will be up to NTIA
to make sure that that is the case. We would like you to
support, and encourage, and insist upon NTIA to do that.
And I will conclude by saying this is, as you have
indicated, our last chance to use the leverage that we are
about to relinquish, because this driver is about to turn 18.
It is time to sign over the title to this car, but not until we
are sure that ICANN is answerable to the community we designed
it to serve.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DelBianco follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. Turn over the titlement.
Who is paying for the insurance? That is what I want to know.
Mr. DelBianco. That is the expensive part, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. That is the expense. Anybody with a teenage
knew that.
We are going to go now to Danielle Kehl, who is the Senior
Policy Analyst at the New America's Open Technology Institute.
Danielle, we welcome you, and thank you for participating in
our hearing today.
STATEMENT OF DANIELLE KEHL
Ms. Kehl. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo,
and members of the Subcommittee. As a researcher and active
participant in global Internet governance issues, I appreciate
the Committee's desire to preserve a free and open Internet,
and believe that a swift and orderly IANA transition is key to
achieving that goal.
While I share the Committee's concern that if the IANA
transition goes badly it could harm Internet freedom, the best
way to prevent that outcome, and to ensure the continued
stability of the Internet's domain name system, is to support
the ongoing process. The U.S. Government's oversight role has
long been a political target, an exaggerated symbol that
overshadows our good intentions in the global Internet
governance space, and it is time to step aside, which will
ultimately help us in our ongoing efforts to prevent government
overreach on other Internet governance issues.
The first point that I would like to emphasize today is
that this is the right time for the IANA transition to happen,
and without unnecessary delay. The transition is long overdue,
both historically and politically. It is the logical conclusion
of the sequence that began in 1998, when the U.S. Government
first announced that it would privatize the DNS, and it is a
formal recognition that the Internet is now a truly global
network.
There is broad consensus that no single country should have
exclusive jurisdiction over the Internet's core infrastructure,
and that the system needs to evolve in ways that benefit users
all around the world. That is why a wide range of Internet
stakeholders support the decision to complete the transition to
a community-based non-governmental institution. As former FCC
Commissioner Robert McDowell put it, it is time to get the
government out of the Internet governance business. And we
can't forget that NTIA made it clear from the very beginning
that this oversight role would be temporary. The justifications
for it in 2015 are considerably weaker than they were in 1998.
There is also significant evidence that if NTIA had not
voluntarily decided to begin the transition, other Internet
stakeholders would have tried to force its hand. For all these
reasons, the decision last year to initiate the transition and
establish a community-drive multi-stakeholder process is the
only way to ensure that the transition happens in such a way
that it addresses both the needs of the global community and
the interests of the U.S. Government.
Second, the process of developing the transition and
accountability proposals, as I think my colleagues on the panel
will also say, is proceeding reasonably well. Last year, NTIA
laid out five clear principles that any transition plan must
meet, and the development of this plan is receiving significant
input from a wide range of stakeholders. Yes, the process is
complex, but there is still reason to believe that when the
dust settles, there will be a real community consensus about
what the transition should look like, and that it will include
appropriate safeguards to ensure the system's ongoing
stability. And NTIA is firmly positioned to reject any
proposals that fail to meet its criteria.
At the heart of all of this is the question of ICANN
accountability. Specifically, after it is freed from U.S.
Government oversight, what will prevent ICANN from taking on a
global governance role far outside of its core commitments?
There are important issues that need to resolve, including how
to make sure that the community has the means to correct any
misuses of ICANN's power. But these questions are best
addressed through the existing accountability process, whose
working group recently released its initial draft proposal, 142
pages, for review.
So, finally, while I share the Committee's concern that the
stakes are high, legislation like the Dot Com Act is not
necessary, and, although surely unintentional, could actually
make it substantially more difficult for the U.S. Government to
make sure that the transition happens smoothly. Imposing a
delay would appear to be an act of bad faith, and it will be
poorly received internationally. It will look like an attempt
to substitute the U.S. Government's judgment for the global
community's. Preventing NTIA from completing the transition is
also inconsistent with the previous statements that were
mentioned in opening remarks about unanimous support for the
multi-stakeholder Internet governance model. And, finally, it
would play into the hands of foreign governments who seek to
undermine the system, and strengthen their opposition to the
U.S. on a broad range of free expression issues.
To conclude, I think we are all in agreement that the IANA
transition is a significant opportunity for the United States
and for Internet users worldwide, and we appreciate the
Committee's engagement on this incredibly important issue. But
the best way to ensure that it goes well, and to achieve our
broader shared goal of protecting a free and open Internet is
to let the community complete its work before deciding what the
next step should be. Thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kehl follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILBLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The attachment to Ms. Kehl's statement has been retained
in committee files and can be found at: http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/if/if16/20150513/103448/hhrg-114-if16-wstate-kehld-
20150513.pdf.]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Ms. Kehl. Appreciated your comments
and your insights.
Go now to Audrey Plonk, who is the Director of Global Cyber
Security and Internet Governance Policy for the Intel
Corporation. Ms. Plonk, we are delighted to have you before the
Committee. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF AUDREY PLONK
Ms. Plonk. Apologies. Good afternoon, Chairman Walden,
Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Audrey Plonk,
Director of Global Cyber Security and Internet Governance
Policy at Intel. I am here to express Intel's unequivocal
support for the successful and timely transition of the
stewardship of the IANA functions contract in support of the
multi-stakeholder community. Intel has actively followed and
participated in the transition process.
Technology advances built on U.S. innovation have driven
unprecedented economic growth in the U.S. and abroad. Intel has
been at the center of this innovation for more than 40 years.
In 2014 Intel did $55.9 billion of business, and employed
170,000 people worldwide, 60,000 in the United States. Though
Intel is incorporated here, our presence, impact, and revenues
span the globe.
I cannot stress enough the importance of trust to our
current and future success. We have observed a trend toward
diminished trust in the U.S. Government and U.S. companies,
both at home and abroad. Any real or perceived failure in the
transition in the form of an externally imposed or mandated
delay will only heighten mistrust in the U.S. Government, and
embolden governments threatened by a free and open Internet, to
the detriment of the many Internet technology companies
headquartered in this country.
Intel is not a provider of domain name services, nor a
registry, or a registrar. We are not a contracted party to
ICANN. Quite simply, we design and manufacture the computing
power of the Internet. Though the IANA functions are extremely
important, they are fundamentally administrative, and involve
updating and maintaining three related, but separate,
registries, names, numbers, and protocols.
The IANA neither makes policy, nor exercises judgment. It
simply follows a mechanical process to maintain and update
these registries according to explicitly defined rules. Without
these functions, connected devices will not fully realize their
potential to improve the lives of everyone on Earth. Today
those rules are developed through multi-stakeholder processes
through which all interested and affected parties participate.
Much of the global debate on Internet governance centers on
this process, and whether it is sufficient to govern the
Internet going forward.
The most widely supported alternative to multi-stakeholder
governance is multi-lateral governance, in which an
intergovernmental body, such as the United Nations, makes
governance decisions. In this scenario, the overall influence
of the United States government is diminished to a single vote,
and the ability for direct participation from industry and
civil society is largely eliminated. Again, any real or
perceived failure in the transition emboldens hostile
governments to push this process toward the United Nations, or
another intergovernmental body.
Recognizing this, the U.S. Congress has consistently and
publicly supported multi-stakeholder Internet governance, as
was previously mentioned in opening statements. In 2012
Congress unanimously passed a resolution to preserve, and
advance, a successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the
Internet today. And just last year, thanks to the foresight and
leadership of this Committee, this policy was reaffirmed in
H.R. 1580, which passed the House unanimously. It is Intel's
view that the transition of the IANA functions is, in fact,
advancing multi-stakeholder governance in line with this stated
policy.
The transition is on an excellent path. As of today, there
are four proposals, two complete from numbers and protocols,
and two in draft format from names and accountability, covering
all aspects of the transition. Most importantly, especially for
this committee, and for congressional oversight, these
proposals have been, and will continue to be, developed in a
completely open and transparent fashion. Anyone with an
interest can review and comment, and access the entire record
of past discussion to understand how decisions were reached.
The Internet doubles in size every 10 \1/2\ months, and has
done so for 30 years. Technology is changing all the time.
Keeping up with that rate of exponential growth requires all
the parts of the Internet to be continuously improved. Not only
the technical functions, but the political and policy functions
as well. We can't leave the politics and policies in the 20th
century while the technology advances into the 21st.
The transition is entering its final stages. We ask that
you support allowing the names community and the accountability
working group the time they need to arrive at a responsible and
well considered outcome, recognizing that the uncomplicated
proposals from numbers and protocols communities are complete.
This approach reinforces the U.S. Government's commitment to
multi-stakeholder outcomes during this critical time for
Internet evolution and Internet governance. Our collective
success depends upon a global, open, interoperable,
trustworthy, and stable Internet as a platform for the
connected devices that Intel builds.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Plonk follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony.
We will go now to Mr. Matthew Shears, the Representative
and Director of Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Project, Center for Democracy and Technology. Mr. Shears,
delighted to have you here with us today. We look forward to
your comments.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SHEARS
Mr. Shears. Thank you. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
Eshoo, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
invitation to testify today. CDT has been deeply involved in
the IANA functions transition process since the announcement by
NTIA over a year ago. We recognized, as did NTIA, and numerous
other stakeholders, that this transition of stewardship over
the domain name system was not only important in its own right,
but would have significant consequences for international
Internet governance and the future of open participatory
stakeholder driven governance processes.
I have had the pleasure of participating in the work of
both the working group on the IANA transition of the domain
names community, as well as the working group on enhancing
ICANN's accountability. The IANA transition and ICANN
accountability working groups are dealing with very complex
challenges. Replacing the oversight role of NTIA is not a
simple matter, nor is changing the governance structure of an
organization, let alone one as unique as ICANN. Yet the global
multi-stakeholder community, comprising businesses,
governments, the technical community, civil society, academia,
individual users, has risen to the challenge.
Through my work in both working groups, it has become clear
to me that these disparate stakeholders are united by shared
goals, the continued stability, security, and resiliency of the
DNS, and an IANA function that continues to operate in a
neutral, fully accountable and transparent manner. It is also
clear that this process could not have proceeded without the
input of this broad cross-section of the global multi-
stakeholder community, and the range of technical, legal, and
policy expertise that it brings. After many months of hard
work, both the IANA transition and ICANN accountability
proposals are now out for public comment.
The two working groups have been working in parallel, but
the issues they address are deeply intertwined. The working
group on enhancing ICANN's accountability is focused on finding
ways to empower the ICANN community, its supporting
organizations and advisory committees through increased
oversight of ICANN processes and governance. These
accountability reforms are also critical to the success of the
IANA transition proposal.
The current proposal for the IANA transition places the
operation of IANA functions within a subsidiary of ICANN,
thereby avoiding needing to create an external entity. In this
proposal, ICANN will serve as the contracting entity for the
IANA functions, and the subsidiary as the operator. It is clear
that, for the proposal to work, ICANN, as the new IANA
functions oversight body, must be held accountable so that it
provides neutral and transparent oversight of the IANA
functions. However, this will only be credibly possible with an
ICANN community that is more empowered than it is today. It is,
therefore, absolutely essential that the proposed
accountability enhancements are embraced and committed to by
ICANN and its Board, both at the time of the transition and
beyond. These community powers will also guard against capture
and mission creep. The new accountability enhancements will
make more explicit the narrow mission and purpose of the
organization, and will make those delineations harder to
change.
New measures, including the ability to question budgets and
strategic plans, will be key to keeping in check what ICANN
does and how it fulfills its role in the Internet ecosystem.
The community will be able to veto changes to bylaws, ensuring
that neither ICANN's relationship to the IANA functions, nor
these important accountability reforms, can be changed at the
whim of the Board, now, or in the future. The community will be
able to recall individual Board members, as well as the entire
Board, making the Board members more directly accountable to
the stakeholders that selected them. These powers will ensure
that the leadership of ICANN remains responsive to the global
community, and does not take its role in the DNS for granted.
The IANA transition is a culmination of a long planned move
to multi-stakeholder management to the DNS. The transition also
supports the U.S. Government's commitment to multi-
stakeholderism and international Internet policy, as my
colleague, Ms. Kehl, described. The NTIA's role in overseeing
the IANA functions has been a major point of contention over
the years. It will be increasingly hard to credibly refute the
calls for a controlling role for government in Internet
governance if we do not complete a successful transition.
To conclude, CDT expects, and indeed is working hard to
ensure, that the global multi-stakeholder community will
develop a transition proposal that satisfies NTIA's principles
and stakeholder expectations, safeguards against capture or
undue influence by stakeholders, and continues to maintain the
stability, security, and resiliency of the DNS. The transition
proposal must be accompanied by governance reforms that ensure
the accountability of ICANN to the global community, and that
keep it closely tethered to its mission and mandate. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shears follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Shears. We appreciate your
coming over here to share those comments with us.
We now go to Brett Schaefer, who is the Senior Research
Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs for The Heritage
Foundation. Mr. Schaefer, delighted to have you before the
Subcommittee. Please go ahead with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BRETT SCHAEFER
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, other distinguished
members of the Committee. Thank you very much for inviting me
to testify here today. The history of the Internet is one of
astounding innovation, growth, and success. A great
contributing factor to the growth and success of the Internet
is that formal governance and regulation has been light, and
relatively non-intrusive. Since 1998, the U.S. Government has
contracted with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, ICANN, to manage most of the technical aspects of
Internet governance, including the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority, or the IANA function. This highly successful
arrangement is about to change.
As mentioned, in March 2014 the U.S. announced that it
intended to end its historical relationship with ICANN.
Although the timing of the announcement took many by surprise,
the intent is consistent with longstanding U.S. policy to make
management of the IANA fully private. This is a very important
decision. When the U.S. Government oversight rule ends, ICANN
will come under considerable pressure from a number of
interested parties to adopt policies that they favor. It is
critical that ICANN is sufficient insulted from these pressures
to make independent decisions, while simultaneously being
responsive and accountable to the broader multi-stakeholder
community. This is a very tough line to walk. Failure could
lead to inefficiencies, instability, partiality, and other
problems that could result in substantial costs, and inhibit a
vital medium for free speech and political discourse. There
will be only one opportunity to do this, and it must be done
right.
I am happy to say that, although much work remains to be
done, I have been immensely pleased and impressed with the
commitment and progress made to date. To coordinate multi-
stakeholder recommendations, ICANN convened community led
working groups on stewardship and accountability to draft
proposals for the transition. The working groups focused on
technical aspects of the IANA have in particular made
significant progress. The two teams focused on numbers and
protocols submitted proposals in January that appear to have
consensus support in the multi-stakeholder community. The third
group, focused on names, has recently submitted a draft
proposal for public comment. This proposal is more complex, and
creates a new government structure within ICANN for the IANA.
All three proposals would allow for separability, the
ability to change to a different IANA functions operator if
ICANN falls short in some way. This is a critical issue. The
possibility that ICANN might lose the IANA contract with the
U.S. Government, however unlikely, has provided an independent
check on ICANN's monopoly position. A key aspect of the
stewardship discussion is focused on how to mirror that check
after the U.S. role ends. According to some well-informed
sources, ICANN is pushing back on separability. Congress needs
to pay attention to this issue and clarify its position.
The accountability working group has also made great
progress, and has submitted a draft proposal for public
comment. In my opinion, the paramount concerns should be to
ensure that, one, ICANN is sufficiently insulated against
capture by governments or other narrow interests, two, ICANN's
purpose is narrowly defined to prevent mission creep, three, an
independent review process is in place to adjudicate and issue
binding judgments over disputes between ICANN and the
community, and four, ICANN is responsive and accountable to the
multi-stakeholder community by establishing a means to
recalling the Board, individual Board members, approving the
budget, and approving a strategic plan. As currently drafted,
the accountability proposal addresses all of these concerns.
However, sound ideas and intent can be thwarted by poor
implementation, and we are far from the end of the process.
The final issue I wanted to highlight is the tight
timeframe. Under the terms of the current contract with ICANN,
the U.S. Government will have to decide in just a few short
months whether to allow the transition to proceed when the
current contract expires on September 30, 2015, or whether to
extend the current contract to allow the transition proposals
to be more fully developed and/or implemented. As a practical
matter, NTIA must have the details of the various proposed
changes, and evidence of their implementation, well in advance
of this date to make an informed decision on whether its
conditions for the transition have been met satisfactorily.
Looking at the hurdles that must be cleared, there is very
little chance that this deadline will be met. NTIA
administrator Lawrence Strickling and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade
have both insisted, and repeatedly stated, that September 30 is
not a goal or a--is not a--is a goal, not a deadline. In fact,
there shouldn't be any deadline. Congress should hold them to
the fact that this transition must be done correctly, not in
any particular time, or in any particular deadline format. Once
NTIA's contract with ICANN expires, so does its ability to
ensure changes considered necessary by the multi-stakeholder
community are approved and implemented. Only after an
acceptable transition proposal is offered, and all the
necessary forms to ICANN are adopted and in effect, should the
U.S. end its current arrangement.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaefer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Schaefer, and I just want to say
how much I agree with what you just said, and that is what my
role certainly has been, and I think of our subcommittee here,
with these hearings, I just want to know what it is that is
going to govern this process once NTIA says, see you later, and
all. And so I think we have an obligation, as stewards of this,
to this point, to make sure we know what the future looks like
before we just say, you go ahead and do it. So that has been
the purpose behind all of our efforts, is just to find out what
are the rules?
And I want to commend those who have put so much time into
this effort, because you have given us more and more
confidence, with each step of the way, that you share our
concerns here, and you are getting things locked into place
where there is appropriate check and balance that otherwise
goes away when that 60-some page contract is torn up.
So my first question to each of you is do you believe the
transition could and/or should occur by September of this year?
And, Mr. Schaefer, I think you have already said no.
Mr. Schaefer. That is correct. I don't think there is any
way, realistically, that----
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Schaefer. The transition can occur, and all these
changes will be implemented.
Mr. Walden. All right. Mr. Shears, yes or no?
Mr. Shears. I don't think it is likely to happen by that
time, unfortunately.
Mr. Walden. All right. Ms. Plonk?
Ms. Plonk. I think that decision, and the plan, lies with
the multi-stakeholder community, and not with me as an
individual.
Mr. Walden. Yes, but you get to tell us just the same.
Do you think this can happen by September, given all the
work you have put into this, that we are ready?
Ms. Plonk. I think it depends on the outcome of the ICANN
Buenos Aires meeting next month. I think we will have more
information then.
Mr. Walden. All right, that is fair. Ms. Kehl?
Ms. Kehl. I think it is unlikely, unfortunately, as well to
happen by September 30, and getting it right is very important.
But I also think the community dwill be the one that knows best
how much time it will take to get it done right.
Mr. Walden. Yes. Mr. DelBianco?
Mr. DelBianco. The answer is no way, and the Administration
has been very realistic about it, has already sent letters to
the naming and the accountability group chairs 2 weeks ago,
saying, how much time do you think you need? And I think that
is appropriate. And the community is going to come back and ask
for more time. As indicated on that chart, it is a concurrent
process, it stretches, and there is a role for Congress
throughout. There's a role for----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. NTIA throughout the process.
Though there isn't this notion that moving that deadline--
moving that goal out is somehow going to empower enemies of
freedom and commerce. They already are enemies of freedom and
commerce, and any unique role for the U.S. I don't think that
we need to worry about providing them an excuse if we end up
asking for, in my estimation--I have April of 2016 is about the
earliest we could get enough implementation done, but there are
others who believe it could take as long as into the summer of
2016.
Mr. Walden. So then wouldn't it make sense for NTIA to
extend the contract for another year? Because, again, as I said
in my testimony, they can cancel it if you get agreement, you
can do that. But wouldn't it make sense to extend it?
Mr. DelBianco. I believe it does, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Does anybody disagree with that? Ms. Kehl? Ms.
Plonk? Is that a yes or a no head shake?
Ms. Plonk. I think I would just continue to say it is not--
I--we haven't gotten a response from NTIA's letters to the
community yet----
Mr. Walden. All right.
Ms. Plonk [continuing]. So it is not clear.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Shears?
Mr. Shears. I think it is important that we understand and
see what comes back from the community, in terms of the
consultations that are out at the moment----
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Mr. Shears [continuing]. On the two proposals.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Shears. That is a key factor.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Schaefer?
Mr. Schaefer. I think it is very important for the NTIA to
maintain its current role, at least as long as this process is
still in play. Once the process is agreed to, and most
importantly all this--all the necessary changes are actually
implemented and verified, then is the time to----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Schaefer [continuing]. End the current relationship.
Mr. Walden. OK. So, Ms. Plonk, while we acknowledge there
are potential benefits to this transition, we also have very
serious concerns about the very real risks. I think everybody
has spoken to that. Beyond simply trusting the international
community to do the right thing, what do you see is the best
way for Congress to get answers to the questions, and are there
ways to address the potential pitfalls?
Ms. Plonk. Thank you for the question. I think it is a
really important one, and I absolutely agree with you that
there are risks, and potential pitfalls. Two main things. I
think first we want to commend this Subcommittee for actively
participating in the process, for attending meetings, for
showing up in Busan at the Plenipotentiary Conference, and for
the amount of time the Committee has invested to understanding
that that continued investment in the process will be a huge
impact for the outcome, so I think that is one. The second is
to continue to conduct oversight through having hearings, like
this one, as we move through the process. And then the final
point is to ensure that what NTIA accepts at the end is multi-
stakeholder, is what----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Plonk [continuing]. Has come out of the multi-
stakeholder process so that Congress is supporting its
longstanding position on multi-stakeholder governance.
Mr. Walden. Mr. DelBianco?
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You asked the
question what is the best way for Congress----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. To get answers? I will give you
two suggestions. The first is to get questions in now, as soon
as possible. The GAO analysis generates questions and risks----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. Unanticipated risks and
implications. And those risks, if we wait until the end of this
process, Mr. Chairman, it will completely mess this process up.
We need to hear about your concerns and risks this summer, over
the next several months, and give us the opportunity to take
care of your risks and concerns.
And the second change is to find a way to give NTIA enough
rope to spend time and resources answering your questions----
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. For them to be the steward of
getting you the answers that you need from the community, as
well as for NTIA to assess whether the criteria are being met.
It doesn't help us if NTIA waits until the very end to say
thumbs up, thumbs down. There needs to be an engagement and an
involvement.
Mr. Walden. See, that is what we have been after, and that
there is after you all do your work, and the multi-stakeholder
process does its work, give us a chance to at least look at it
and understand it before handing the keys, the title, and the
insurance payments off to the 18-year-old driver.
With that, I thank you again for your testimony and your
counsel along the way. Now recognize my colleague from
California, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Am I the 18-year-old that you are----
Mr. Walden. No, but Mr. DelBianco----
Ms. Eshoo. I thought you were flattering me. OK.
Mr. Walden. You are--I was thinking more like----
Ms. Eshoo. All right.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. You know, 17.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, at least it is not a sports analogy, so--
thank you. You are all enlightening, you really are, very, very
helpful. Now, we have got a couple of things on the table here.
You have described all of the work, and it is extensive work.
And, as the Chairman said, and I join him in thanking you for
the time that you have put in on this. I mean, this is an
enormous amount of work that you have done, and it is
productive, and it is bearing fruit, but we are not quite
ready. And none of you think that the work is going to be
accomplished by, what, September of this year, and--all right.
Now, we have got a couple of things on the--I think three
things here. We have the Dot Com--in it. More work has to be
done, but you are very pleased with what is on the table so
far, and that Congress should continue to have--to do its
oversight in this. Now, if we get through this entire process,
and, say, the Dot Com Act is law, then you have to go back to
the GAO and have them study what is completed, and, what, wait
another year? Do you all support that? Does this make sense to
you, or am I--do I have a--the wrong take on the legislation? I
mean, it is my understanding that it will take--it will add
another year to--to what, John? John? Let me just ask you--Mr.
Shimkus? John? My pal----
Mr. Shimkus. Well, I----
Ms. Eshoo. Sit up straight.
Mr. Shimkus. I was listening. I was----
Ms. Eshoo. I will yield to you for a second. When does your
year begin? After they finish their process?
Mr. Shimkus. Right, but, remember, GAO is already doing a
report now too.
Ms. Eshoo. I know. So that is the----
Mr. Shimkus. So I think the timeline would be----
Ms. Eshoo. Right.
Mr. Shimkus. You know----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Almost--parallel.
Ms. Eshoo. But the--reclaiming my time, I mean, I think you
just made my point. That is why I think it negates it, because
if the GAO is doing something--anyway, tell me what you all
think of this. Do you think that this is a good plan, this is
the way to go forward? I mean, just quickly, yes or no. Let us
start with Mr. DelBianco.
Mr. DelBianco. The right plan is----
Ms. Eshoo. You are not going to be hurting anyone's
feelings.
Mr. DelBianco. Understood.
Ms. Eshoo. I just want----
Mr. DelBianco. The right plan----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. A professional opinion.
Mr. DelBianco. Got it. Thank you. The right plan is to take
those risks and implications that you have asked for from GAO,
and surface those into the process.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. DelBianco. If, in fact, those risks are not addressed,
it should not take anywhere close to a year to say, we raised
these risks and concerns for national security----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. And for other agencies, and
they haven't been addressed. That could happen very quickly.
But it is so important to happen while we are convened. If you
wait for us to finish----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, that is my----
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. And generate that document----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Very point----
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. In won't work.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. To get to the end, and then start
all over again I don't think is a good way to go. Do you have
something, Ms. Kehl?
Ms. Kehl. I would agree with that.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Ms. Kehl. I think that the important thing here is
engagement now in the process----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Ms. Kehl [continuing]. As it is ongoing. And that is one of
the great things about the process, is it is a multi-
stakeholder----
Ms. Eshoo. It is.
Ms. Kehl [continuing]. Transparent and open----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Ms. Kehl [continuing]. Process.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Ms. Kehl. So there is the opportunity now to look at and
review what is happening. We know a lot of the risks. The
stress test that exists----
Ms. Eshoo. Go quickly. My time is running out.
Ms. Kehl [continuing]. Is really important.
Ms. Eshoo. So you are agreeing?
Ms. Kehl. I would----
Ms. Eshoo. That is great.
Ms. Kehl. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. Ms. Plonk?
Ms. Plonk. I also agree. I want to just also say that
everything that is happening right now is completely
transparent and open, so the final final that transits from the
ICG to ICANN to----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Ms. Plonk [continuing]. NTIA----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Ms. Plonk [continuing]. Will not be a surprise to anyone
who has been participating or----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Ms. Plonk [continuing]. Anyone who hasn't. They can see
everything that is happening.
Ms. Eshoo. I want to thank Intel for everything you do in
our region, and in my district. You are wonderful. Mr. Shears?
Mr. Shears. Yes. I also agree, but I would like to
emphasize that now is the time for us----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Shears [continuing]. As Steve said, for those----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Shears [continuing]. Results of that report to be
revealed.
Ms. Eshoo. And Mr. Schaefer? Yes?
Mr. Schaefer. I don't think that there are two times. I
think that Congress does have a very strong interest in this
issue, and in the process. I think it should voice its concerns
and its priorities during this process.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Schaefer. But I also think that it should, at the end
of this entire process, take a moment, evaluate what is the
final product, and then make a decision as to what is going on,
and whether it is meeting its own----
Ms. Eshoo. So start all over again? That is what you are
saying?
Mr. Schaefer. I don't think it requires a year, but I think
it does----
Ms. Eshoo. Well----
Mr. Schaefer [continuing]. Need to be assessed at the end
of the----
Ms. Eshoo. I think if we do our job, we don't need that
time. That is the point. If we are thorough, both on our side
of the dais, and you on yours--let me just raise something. We
have another issue here, and that is in the Commerce, Justice,
Appropriations bills which was released today, ``None of the
funds made available by this Act may be used to relinquish the
responsibility of the NTIA with respect to Internet domain name
system functions, including responsibility with respect to the
authoritative root, zone file, and the Internet assigned
numbers authority function.'' So we have appropriators getting
into this as well.
I think that this is the subcommittee that needs to give
guidance to all of this. We have done a deep dive on it, and we
will continue to, because it requires it. And I am all for this
subcommittee to do that work. And I commit myself, and I know
people on our side of the aisle--boy, are you a distraction
today, Pallone, jeez whiz.
Anyway, listen, I forgot my train of thought, but, I think
that the work has to keep going on. It needs to be intensive,
broad, deep, and directed. We know what the mission is. We know
what we need to accomplish, and Congress has to be part of that
every step of the way. And I think if we do that, that the date
that we finish is not the point. It will be that we did an
excellent job on something that requires that kind of work. So
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Thank the gentlelady, and just for point of
clarification, that is why we are having this hearing, and why
our staffs have been meeting.
Ms. Eshoo. I understand.
Mr. Walden. I think the original Dot Com Act, with a year
deadline and all, kind of preceded all of this, and that things
have changed. And that is why they have been talking, and we
have already got the GAO audit underway, well underway----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. And so I don't know that it needs
to be a year at all, and I thought we----
Ms. Eshoo. Right.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Communicated that. So we look
forward to working together with that. I now recognize Vice-
Chair of the Committee, is that right, Mr.--no, wait, down to
the former Chair of the Committee, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of our witnesses
talked about giving the driver the keys, and you talked about
who is paying for the insurance. My question is, who is going
to police the road? Who is going to be there when something
goes wrong? The best of drivers are going to run a stop sign,
or exceed the speed limit, and there are various kinds of
insurance. Sometimes they pay, sometimes they don't, but if you
don't have an enforcement mechanism, you are going to have
chaos. And I have yet to hear this vaunted multi-stakeholder
process come up with an enforcement mechanism. I have tried to
think of international multi-stakeholder institutions. I can't
think of one that I think works better, or as well, as, and I
hate to say this, but the Federal Government. I wouldn't say
the United Nations is a paragon of efficiency. I wouldn't say
the International Olympic Committee. I wouldn't even say the
World Bank.
So somebody on this panel enlighten me, we have got a
system that is not broke. It is the most open, transparent
process out there. One of you has talked about the Internet
doubling every 10 months. I have been all over the world on
various congressional trips. The only place I have had
trouble--my laptop because you said the Chinese government was
going to bug it if I tried to turn it on.
So why try to change something that, to all intents and
purposes, is one of the best multi-stakeholder, transparent,
international processes out there that has the benefit of
having an enforcement mechanism behind it, which is ultimately
the Federal Government? And I will let anybody take a crack at
that.
Mr. DelBianco. Mr. Barton, Steve DelBianco. I think we
misconnected on the earlier part of the testimony, but I would
describe the new powers that we are proposing, because 17 years
ago, when ICANN was set up, in their bylaws they explicitly
took away the ability for the community to actually police
them. In other words, a corporation has to answer to its
shareholders, who can spill their Boards, and pass resolutions.
My members of my trade association hold me accountable, and I
think your voters and citizens probably hold you guys pretty
accountable too. None of that has existed for 17 years in
ICANN.
Instead, the broad community has to run to run to, well,
Congress, or NTIA to try to get a little leverage put on ICANN.
We can sue ICANN, and many often do, and contract parties can
take ICANN to court over what they are doing. I think that when
you look at the testimony of what we have drafted so far, we
are giving the community dramatic new powers that are more like
those that a shareholder does, or that a voter has. And I think
that is how we will police the road.
Mr. Barton. Anybody else?
Mr. Schaefer. Sure. Thank you. I think the first part of
your question, the best analogy I can----
Mr. Barton. I am just using what was given me. I mean----
Mr. Schaefer. No, the----
Mr. Barton. I am better at sports analogies, actually.
Mr. Schaefer. I will actually steal from a colleague who
was on a panel earlier today, and he says the process isn't
broken, and doesn't necessarily need to be fixed. That is true,
it has worked very well, and it has been very successful, but
the toothpaste is out of the tube, and this was said by Phil
Corwin this morning.
And what that means is that we have entered into a process
that can't be reversed, and that if we try to reverse it, as
mentioned by a couple other people on this panel, the very
likely outcome is that--is not that we are going to have the
same situation in place going forward, but that the oversight
of ICANN and the Internet is going to be taken over by the ITU,
or some other international organization, which would be a far,
far less accountable, less efficient, and more susceptible
inimical pressures than the current one.
And so I think we are far better off having ICANN be
accountable to a multi-stakeholder community, which is, in
essence, everybody who uses the Internet governing ICANN
directly. And if--until that happens, however, we need to
maintain the current oversight structure of NTIA and the U.S.
Federal Government to make sure that ICANN does accept, and
abide by, and implement those measures that have been outlined
by Mr. DelBianco----
Mr. Barton. My time is about to--I am not opposed to this--
--
Mr. Schaefer. Yes.
Mr. Barton [continuing]. Multi-stakeholder process, but you
take things for granted. We have created a system that is the
best in the world. It really works.
Mr. Schaefer. Yes.
Mr. Barton. But you do need some enforcement mechanism
somewhere with credibility that can step in, if they have to.
And so far, with all respect, I don't see that, and that is my
concern. But maybe it is out there, and I just don't know it.
Mr. Schaefer. I completely agree, Congressman, and you are
right, it does not currently exist. That is what we are in the
struggle to try and implement.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Plonk, did you want to respond?
Ms. Plonk. I just wanted to add one thing. In addition to
the various accountability measures that have been proposed,
that I think are very good, and my colleague Steve has outlined
in fairly good detail, in terms of an empowered community, how
we overturn the Board, how we overturn decisions, I think all
that gets to your question of enforcement.
But in addition, something that has come out of this
process that we haven't talked about yet, is the preponderance
of evidence that supports U.S. rule of law and incorporation in
the State of California. And the various legal analyses that
have been done by the multi-stakeholder community puts forward
just how favorable the U.S., as a jurisdiction, is for this
process. And I think the----
Mr. Barton [continuing]. Would be helpful--if you are in
the U.S. legal system, that is a plus.
Mr. DelBianco. Your Honor, if I could react to that?
Mr. Walden. Yes, if you do it quickly, because we have got
to move on to Mr. Pallone.
Mr. DelBianco. Yes. The operational commitments required in
8(b), that ICANN shall maintain a headquarters in California,
that is a legal presence and a headquarters presence. That is
in the affirmation of commitments, and, as I said earlier,
ICANN can walk away from that. So we have made it our mission
to move any commitments from the affirmation into the bylaws.
It turns out that one, 8(b), is already in the bylaws.
Article 18, Section 1 already says ICANN shall be principled
offices California, Los Angeles, California. So it is in the
bylaws, and yet the Board could change the bylaws. So another
power we described is if the Board tried to change the bylaws
and leave California, leave any legal presence, we would have--
75 percent of the community votes could block that change.
Now, that may not be strong enough for some of the concerns
that I think the GAO will surface on issues like national
security, so we may have to turn it into a fundamental bylaw,
where 75 percent of the community would have to agree with it,
as opposed to oppose it.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Barton. Make that Houston, Texas and you have got me.
Mr. Walden. Wow. All right, we have got to move on to Mr.
Pallone now, on the Democrat side.
Mr. Pallone. Ms. Eshoo mentioned that this morning the
House Appropriations Committee released the Commerce, Justice,
and Science Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2016, and the
draft bill is designed to prevent NTIA from using appropriated
funds to complete the IANA transition. She actually read that.
So my question is, what is the impact of this language on
the continued success of the multi-stakeholder model of
Internet governance, and do you think this language advances
our interests in accountability and transparency into the
transition process? I would like to ask any of you to respond
to that.
Mr. DelBianco. I could take a stab at it to suggest that
NTIA operated under a rider over the past year, and, while they
are not relinquishing anything, they are heavily engaged at
ICANN, because that is what you charge them to do. NTIA is
supposed to be at ICANN. They are at all the meetings and
engaged. And on March the 19th we were in the middle of a hot
debate with the governments over what to do about Stress Test
18. It was the first stress test that I articulated for you at
last year's hearing, this idea that the government could change
to majority voting and suddenly be able to impose much of its
will on ICANN.
A handful of government objected to that, but our
government stood tall, sent a very powerful letter to say that
if we don't make this change that we are recommending, we won't
meet the conditions of NTIA's transfer. So instead of waiting
to the end and voting no, engaged early. All it took was a
little bit of a phone call and a nudge, and our Commerce
Department stepped right up. So they are engaging. I don't
think it is spending any extra money, Mr. Pallone, because I
think these are people that are on salary, right? But they are
spending money to help us decide now to shape this transition,
which is not the same thing as relinquishing control. So I
guess it all depends on how the rider is written.
Mr. Pallone. Well, did you want me to read it to you again?
It says, ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to relinquish the responsibility of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration with respect
to Internet domain name system functions, including
responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file
and the Internet assigned numbers authority functions.''
Mr. DelBianco. So it sounds as if Commerce could work as
hard as they could to help get your questions answered and test
the conditions, but they couldn't take the final act of letting
go of the contract. Is that an appropriate way to interpret it?
Mr. Pallone. I am asking you. I don't know.
Mr. DelBianco. I am not an expert on----
Mr. Pallone. All right.
Mr. DelBianco. I am not an expert on this.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Anybody else want to respond?
Mr. Shears. If I may, I think it will be a great shame if
things got in the way of the multi-stakeholder process and come
before the proposal. If a proposal is ready, and there are
further delays through other mechanism, I think that will be a
shame, and that would really undermine the multi-stakeholder
model and approach.
Mr. Pallone. Ms. Plonk?
Ms. Plonk. Thank you. Just to further my colleague's
comments, I think we would view that as an externally imposed
or mandated delay, which, as I said in my testimony, we also
believe would undermine the multi-stakeholder process.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Anyone else?
Ms. Kehl. I would just echo that, and say that I think it
is a lose-lose proposition in a lot of ways, because, although
the intent may be to make sure that this transition is handled
well, it will make it harder in some ways, I think, for NTIA.
We want them to be very engaged in this process, and we want to
send a message that we support it. And I think the concern
about the message that this sends is also very important, this
idea that it is some sort of attempt at an external delay in
the process. So I don't think it advances our interests.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Schaefer?
Mr. Schaefer. Actually, I think that is a--my
interpretation is a sense of frustration on the part of
Congress that its voice is not being heard, or perhaps being
respected in the way that they want it to be. The NTIA has
insisted that there is not a role for Congress here, that it
has the authority to do this, and Congress has responded to
that with this legislation.
And I think the proper way to do this would be for NTIA to
say that they are not going to make any decision without
consulting with Congress, and involve it directly in the
process, and for Congress to voice its concerns directly and
clearly to the NTIA, also to the ICANN, and to the multi-
stakeholder process what it considers to be vital and key
priorities to resolve its concerns.
Mr. Pallone. Thanks. Let me just ask quickly, I know not
all of you can respond, but I understand that ICANN will be
meeting next month in Argentina, where many of the issues we
are discussing today will be on the table. What progress are
you hoping to see in Buenos Aires next month? If anybody wants
to take a stab at that?
Mr. Shears. We will have the results of the consultations
on the two proposals, so there will be--have a significant
input from the community, from the multi-stakeholder community
beyond ICANN, and that will shape the two proposals going
forward. So that will be two significant areas of work for us
in Buenos Aires.
Mr. Pallone. Anybody else? Five seconds. No? All right.
Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. You are welcome, of course. And I think this
does speak to why we need to come to terms, as we are working
together on this legislation, because of the frustration some
members have. They will go to the--route if we don't do our
job. I am aware of that. So that is why we are having this
hearing, and why our staffs have been talking about--if we can
find common ground, we might be able to move forward with
legislation that the Administration could support, and we could
show strong support out of this Committee.
With that, we will go to Mr. Latta, the Vice-Chair of the
Committee.
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks very much
for our witnesses, again, for being here today. I tell you,
this is a very, very good hearing today, and I think it is
bringing up a lot of very good information we have to have as
we go forward as a committee, and as a House.
But one of the first questions I would like to ask Mr.
DelBianco, if I could ask of you, and there are three parts to
this question, and the question is this. One proposal from
ICANN accountability working group is a creation of fundamental
bylaws, as a rejection mechanism for the multistakeholder
community. Can you elaborate on how you think this is going to
help improve accountability? And then maybe just following
right up into this is do you think that this will work long
term? And is there enough of a culture of accountability within
the membership of the community to make this effective? So,
really, starting with that question about the fundamental
bylaws.
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Latta. The bylaws that exist
at ICANN today are all subject to change by the Board of
Directors without any input at all from the community. They get
to make the final decision to change bylaws. That has been
unacceptable. That is not accountability at all.
So the two powers that are embedded in the proposal that we
have been discussing, the first power is that the community,
with a 75 percent vote, can block a Board proposed bylaws
change. And a lot of this is to make sure that we lock in the
powers that we have, although we believe that there are certain
bylaws that are more important than others, that are
fundamental and critical. So for those, just flip it on its
head. For those, if the Board wanted to change the bylaw, it is
a fundamental bylaw, the community would have to agree by a 75
percent vote of these members. And we have a laid out structure
on who gets to vote, and how. And if the community doesn't get
75 percent agreement, the bylaw does not change. So one of the
debates is should this California principal office be a
fundamental bylaw, or not? It would be so helpful to get
comments from members, and from this Committee, from the
Congress, on that particular question, because it is before us
over the next several weeks.
You also asked if the community has a sufficient culture of
accountability. The community is people like us, and we all are
used to holding institutions accountable in our daily lives. It
is when we go to ICANN that we sort of give all that up. So I
hope that we can rely upon that cultural accountability that we
have, and start to fire those engines when we start to work at
ICANN, but it will take a few years, probably, for us to learn
how to exercise the muscle of all these new powers we have
designed.
Mr. Latta. Mr. Schaefer, let me ask you. Because this is
interesting, and, as we have seen through time, and across the
world, sometimes things don't actually work sometimes the way
we hope they would, especially when we are talking about the
multi-stakeholders, and the oversight. And the question I am
going to ask is this. Could there be some intimidation by
certain members of other members that would be a problem out
there that you would end up on an intimidation, when we are
talking about trying to change bylaws, or just the functioning
of the Board itself?
Mr. Schaefer. I am sorry, who are you addressing the
question to?
Mr. Latta. If you could answer that?
Mr. Schaefer. Sure. Anything is possible, of course. Other
members can bring pressure on other Board members. But inside
the reforms, as outlined by Mr. DelBianco, and in the
accountability group, individual members of the Board would be
susceptible to recall by their constituencies in there, and
also----
Mr. Latta. But suppose that some of these are more
authoritarian type governments, and that is one of the things
that we have talked about in this Committee----
Mr. Schaefer. Sure.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. That they wouldn't be recalled by
their constituency because there is no constituency.
Mr. Schaefer. Well, the constituencies on the ICANN Board
aren't representative of governments. They are representative
of parts of the community, and various stakeholder groups, and
advisory committees, so I am not exactly sure----
Mr. Latta. The question that I have got, though, is can
there be intimidation of those stakeholders out there? And
there is going to be--it might not just be because of what we
are talking about on the Internet, because of other things that
are going on in the world, and a lot of things that this
Committee touches that we have seen that can happen. But my
fear is that you could have some folks out there that would be
intimidated not by ``a government'', but by the stakeholders
that are representing a government.
Mr. Schaefer. That would require a significant amount of
coordination and pressure among a great deal of people and a
great deal of constituencies that I think would be very
difficult to either conceal, and do so in a secretive fashion.
The nature of the multi-stakeholder community is that it is
very diverse, it encompasses a broad array of individuals, and
organizations, and businesses, and so forth. And I think it
would be very hard to do that, unless you are talking about
criminal activity, and then that would be something that would
be handled by law enforcement, not through the accountability
measures established under ICANN.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has
expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Thank the gentleman. Chair----
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. Testimony you mentioned that for
the proposed governance structure of IANA to work that ICANN
must ensure it is accountable to the broader community of
stakeholders. Have you seen ICANN take steps to empower the
broader community in such a way as to enable this greater
accountability, or what concerns still remain?
Mr. Shears. One of the things that is certainly true is
that this community, this community within ICANN, has been
crying out for greater accountability and transparency for some
time, and this came to a head last summer, and that was one of
the reasons for accountability working group going forward. So
the work that that group is doing at the moment is the work
that we hope we will see implemented at the same time as the
transition takes place.
So, to date, I think it is fair to say, as others have said
on the panel, that the accountability and transparency at ICANN
has not been as good as it could have been, and at some times
inadequate, and that this is our opportunity to make sure that
those changes are put into place. And it is essential that they
are.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, and you mentioned one source of
accountability is for the community to be able to award the
IANA contract to another entity down the road. Do you see this
as an effective check towards improving ICANN's governance and
accountability?
Mr. Shears. It is an absolutely essential check, yes.
Mr. Doyle. Yes. Ms. Kehl, in your testimony you said that,
had NTIA not voluntarily undertaken this transition, that other
stakeholders would have moved forward. Tell us how U.S.
leadership in this transition driven--how U.S. leadership has
driven stakeholders to the table, and what will be the
consequences if we have delays?
Ms. Kehl. Of course, thank you for the question. So I think
from the very beginning, actually from 1998, the U.S. has been
a tremendous leader in bringing these stakeholders to the
table, and empowering the system to work from the beginning. I
think we saw, in October of 2013, which was what I mentioned in
my testimony, the heads of the regional Internet registries,
and ICANN, and the Internet Engineering Task Force put out a
statement calling for the globalization of ICANN, and the
transfer for the IANA function, saying it is time.
And so I think the response the U.S. Government to say,
yes, it is time, and we can initiate this transition was both,
you know, it was appropriate historically, it made sense
politically, and, as a result, we are in a strong position
right now still to set the terms here. So we are a leader. We
are not saying that this is going to be dragged from us kicking
and screaming in any way. We are not saying that we are trying
to delay it. We are saying it is time, we support this system,
and we trust that we can figure out a way, working with the
community, to actually make it happen. I think it is an
incredibly powerful message for the U.S., and I think on the
other side of that, if we don't do that, there is this concern
that this political target, this sort of, like, falsely clouds
our good intentions, and the Internet governance space will
only grow larger, right?
So this idea that this is something that comes up it is--
for the past more than a decade it comes up an Internet
governance meetings, it came up in Korea, at the International
Telecommunication Union Conference, this idea that this was a
problem, and that this somehow privileged the U.S. role, and so
it is the responsible thing to do to say we are going to end
that, and we are going to do this in a manner that works for
both us, and for the global Internet community.
Mr. Doyle. Would either of you like to add anything to
that, Ms. Plonk or Mr. Shears? OK. Mr. Chairman, I will just
close by saying that I want to keep it in Los Angeles,
California, but not Houston, Texas. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus [presiding]. Gentleman yields back his time,
and Chair recognizes myself for 5 minutes. And it is great to
have you, and I think we are making progress from my colleagues
on the other side.
I don't think we would be in this position had the original
bill not been dropped in the last Congress. And, in respect to
the appropriation battle, I would argue that we wouldn't even
have that fight had we done a better job of working together
last Congress to try to raise these issues, because, if you
remember this whole debate, and Mr. Strickland was one of them,
and many of you were there, Congress has no role. That is what
your statements were, Congress has no role. Now today you are
saying what? There is an important role for us to play, and we
need to be involved because our citizens are going to ask
questions. The world is a much different place now than it was
in 2012. So where decisions were made in 2012, the world is--we
are at a different place. I think there is less trust in the
international world and community right now just because of
world events.
So we just represent people, OK, in our districts, we all
have about 750,000, of what we are doing with NTIA. So as much
as we have to respect the work that they are doing, they have
to respect the work that we are doing. And so I want to
appreciate--I do appreciate my colleagues. I think we are going
to move in a process that--I am hopeful that we will have
comfort that there is legislative--I would yield to my
colleague, yes.
Ms. Eshoo. For a few seconds. I appreciate what you said,
and we have--Congressman Shimkus and I have worked on a lot of
issues together very successfully over the years, so I
appreciate what you said. I think where perhaps we weren't
totally on the same side was having confidence in a multi-
stakeholder community, that that model could work. I don't ever
remember myself questioning whether Congress shouldn't lean in,
or anyone from our side, but that is the past. We are moving
on.
But I still think it is worth saying for the record, and we
are going to work with you because we realize how important
this is. And, I mean, for the amount of time that these people
have invested is really glorious, and you should really be very
proud of yourselves because I think you are the ones that have
really moved the ball down the field, and said that to the
Congress, and now the Congress is feeling far more confident.
So thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. I am happy to do so, and let me raise a couple
issues. I did submit this column for the record in the opening
statements, and it just raises one of the issues. And, as we go
through this process, what are the concerns out there? And I
have so many questions, I have been scribbling notes down
through the whole hearing. But I guess the bottom line is, the
NTIA have what their listed objectives are, the question will
then be, what is missing, and your advice and counsel could be
helpful, what should be added to give us certainty?
For example, in the article it says, consider the
importance of .mil, which is sponsored by the United States
Department of Defense, that houses some of the secure systems
and e-mail addresses most vital to U.S. national security.
Using them would place a considerable strain on the nation's
defense. As yet, the Pentagon has no ongoing contractual right
to it. The Department control over .mil is a legacy arising out
of America's invention of the World Wide Web. And they also
mention .gov and .edu as a concern. Does anyone reject the
premise of that statement? Mr. DelBianco?
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. No, it is of vital
importance. Think about what would happen. Think about the
risks if our .mil and .gov were under attack, or redirected
during an emergency. Maybe a coordinated attack that went after
cyber structure and infrastructure. And it is particularly
different for us.
For 100 countries around the world, their .gov lives at the
second level, .gov.ca for Canada, .gov.uk. Since it lives at
that level, it is on a server on their soil completely under
their control and law--is the root server, and it ought to
maintain a U.S. presence for that reason. Now, we can get a
contract with ICANN so that the U.S. DOD and GSA have permanent
custody of those names, but that contract wouldn't be worth the
paper it is printed on if ICANN left the U.S. as a legal
presence, and if the root left our shores.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and I will end on this, my time has
expired. I will just say, I am curious to the contractual
obligations, and NTIA's role, and where would people go? I
mean, I think we weave a story that people will flee. I am not
sure there is any other organized structure which they would go
to. So, with that, I would like to recognize for 5 minutes Mr.
Luja AE1n for questions.
Mr. Luja AE1n. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and
thank you for this important hearing today. And, Mr. Chairman,
I just want to say this at the start, as we make this
transition, we must make every effort to ensure that the
foundational values of the Internet, freedom of expression, and
protection from government interference, are preserved. I think
that is a value that we all share.
And, Ms. Plonk, as I am sure that you are aware, for years
Intel has been an important partner in New Mexico, and we
certainly appreciate your presence, and we are always open to
opportunities to talk about expansion. And so I just wanted to
lay that out with my good friend Mr. Walden, who is also here.
I know that we are always talking about opportunities at Intel
in our various states and our various districts as well, but we
really appreciate you being here.
And as important partner who shares a very important
perspective with what Intel does, not only in this space, but
being the only presence in the United States in what you do,
and we have to acknowledge that. We wanted to make sure that we
are doing our part to protect that industry, and to provide
opportunities for expansion. But can you explain further why
you support this transition, and how it impacts your business?
Ms. Plonk. Thank you for the question, and for the kind
remarks about Intel. We are building a new universe of
connected devices, the Internet of things, wearables, what have
you. All of these devices are not very valuable to people
unless they can connect, and so our business interest is in
seeing the Internet grow. I mentioned in my testimony the rates
at which we have experienced growth for the last 30 years. It
is going to need to continue to grow exponentially to meet the
demands for all of the connectivity, for all of the devices
that we are building silicon to support.
So we are concerned that--well, we support the transition
because we think that is the best path to growth, at the end of
the day. We are concerned about anything that would deviate
from the path toward growth of the Internet, such as
fragmentation, should countries decide to split off from a
global Internet in a way that we couldn't do business as easily
across borders, or the benefit of the platform for expression,
and for interoperability wouldn't exist, at least in the way we
know it today. All of those are huge drivers for not just
Intel, but the IT and Internet community that, as I mentioned
in my testimony, grew up in the United States, and to a large
degree is headquartered here.
So that is our fundamental business interest, so that is
why we support the transition, and we are positive in the
outlook of what we think is to come. All of my colleagues here
have been deeply involved in the process. Mr. DelBianco has
detailed out the accountability reforms. Mr. Shears has as
well. So we are optimistic about the outlook for the future,
and it is very critical to us.
Mr. Luja AE1n. And, Ms. Plonk, your testimony discusses the
challenges the U.S. faces in building international support for
the multi-stakeholder model as well. You note that some
countries advocate for centralized control of the Internet, or
a greater role for international organizations, like the UN.
What would be the impact on companies like Intel if these
voices were to prevail, and we abandoned the successful multi-
stakeholder approach?
Ms. Plonk. If we were to completely abandon the multi-
stakeholder processes that we know today, I don't know that
anybody at this table would be able to participate going
forward. A one country, one vote system, such as at the UN,
doesn't allow for direct participation from the private sector
or civil society. We would be having to work through
governments and national governments. We wouldn't necessarily
have the direct relationship that we have with ICANN to
represent ourselves. So that is, I think, the short answer to
the impact.
Mr. Luja AE1n. And I guess the follow up to that, just
straight to the point, is, when taking into account the
stakeholder international opinion, does United States advocacy
for a multi-stakeholder model free of government control
strengthen or weaken Internet access and freedom for users in
states like New Mexico?
Ms. Plonk. I think the multi-stakeholder system allows the
U.S. Government to engage in representing the country,
representing the people, just the way that you do here in
Congress. And the multi-stakeholder system also allows users to
represent themselves directly, whether that is through
participation in civil society organizations, or in trade
associations through their businesses, however, they have
access directly, as well as through the U.S. Government
representing them.
Mr. Luja AE1n. Thank you, and I thank you and all the
witnesses for making yourself and your expertise available to
us today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to
you all, and it is a pleasure to be with you. Mr. DelBianco,
you have emphasized the need to stress test various proposed
ICANN reforms. I certainly agree with that, and you have not
suggested such tests for the technical operations of the domain
name system. Can we assume that this is because they have not
been tested in a real world setting for quite some time?
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Lance. We have 26 stress
tests. Four of them do address core naming functions, change
failure, re-delegation failure, compromise of DNS set
credentials, as well as dotless domains, and innovations of
that nature. But in each case, the proposed planning that we
have talked about, the powers, give the community and the
direct naming customers the power to do escalation procedures
on failures, as well as the ability for us to challenge
decisions that were made, or inaction of ICANN.
So the proposed community powers enable what we need there,
but beyond that, we had no call to do stress testing of the
underlying technical operation at the core of the Internet,
because tech services at that level, those companies, they have
actually been doing it for decades with--and they are tested
every single day, I think, with stress tests of real world
operation.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Ms. Plonk, you are nodding your head.
I would certainly be interested in your comments.
Ms. Plonk. Accountability over ICANN itself.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. To the panel in general, whoever
would like to respond, in your experience, what is the
international perception of the U.S.'s role in the operations
and oversight of the Internet? Is there a solution that is
acceptable to the international community without risking the
future of the Internet? Mr. Shears?
Mr. Shears. Thank you. This is a wonderful question,
because when we----
Mr. Lance. I didn't write it, the staff wrote it, so----
Mr. Shears. When we talk about the multi-stakeholder model,
that does involve governments, so governments from different
countries around the world are represented in these discussions
that we are having, so they are fully apprised of what is
happening on accountability, and they are fully apprised of
what is happening on the IANA transition. So, yes, there is a
considerable amount of support. There are, of course, the
naysayers, and this is to be expected, but there is a
considerable amount of support for the transition around the
globe.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Others on the panel who might wish to
comment? Yes?
Ms. Kehl. Thank you. I would add, I think, that
historically there has been a lot--think that the key is that,
in recent years, the sort of erosion of the trust in whether we
could continue to be that neutral steward, or whether we needed
to be, has been quite effective. And so I think that is why we
are at the point now where there isn't a way to put the
toothpaste back in the tube. We can't go back on the promises
that we have made. And so the solution that we come up with has
to be one that recognizes that while, without sort of
diminishing the important role that the U.S. Government has
played, that it is time to move on.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Ms. Kehl. Thank you.
Mr. DelBianco. And, Mr. Lance, I might add that the
international perception comes down to how we interact, and I
say we as Americans----
Mr. Lance. Yes.
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. Because on every working group,
at every ICANN meeting, there are, more often than not, more
Americans than any other group.
Mr. Lance. Yes.
Mr. DelBianco. Sometimes Americans might be more than the
rest put together because----
Mr. Lance. Yes.
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. Countries don't have the same
kind of presence of companies like Intel. So there is a
dominant presence of Americans, and we conduct our business at
ICANN primarily in English.
Mr. Lance. Yes.
Mr. DelBianco. The second is there is a precedent here. The
laws of the State of California have served us very well. And
while others from around the world chafe when we talk about
maintaining the fundamental bylaw for California presence, it
is not as if anybody has stepped up with a better idea, and a
better place to take it. So there is a grudging acknowledgement
that we built it, and have an awfully good system in place, but
it kind of bothers them that we are probably more dominant than
we otherwise should be.
Mr. Lance. Well, thank you very much, and California is a
great state. I yield back 17 seconds.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
all of you being here and spending some time with us today, and
I know you will be ready to go when that time comes too. But
there has been some debate in the multi-stakeholder community
over whether ICANN should be permanently granted stewardship of
the IANA functions as a condition of the transfer. It seems
some believe that in order to keep ICANN accountable to the
community, there should be some mechanism to replace them. Mr.
Shears, what are your arguments being made in regards to this
issue?
Mr. Shears. Yes, certainly CDT does not support ICANN
having the IANA operations in perpetuity. We believe that being
able to select another operator is a core accountability
mechanism that keeps the IANA functions neutral, transparent,
and accountable themselves, and that is probably one of the
most important aspects, in terms of the package as a whole, the
overall proposal.
Mr. Kinzinger. Ms. Plonk, in your written testimony you
also address this issue. Would you mind elaborating on it a
little bit?
Ms. Plonk. I support the comments by Mr. Shears that the
ability to choose another operator through termination clauses,
as is standard in contracts, certainly in the U.S. and in
California, is normal, and should be a criteria for moving
forward.
Mr. Kinzinger. Does anybody else on the panel want to
address it at all, or--yes, go ahead.
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Kinzinger. I agree that we
need to be able to reassign those IANA functions of names,
protocols, and numbers. But when it comes to what an ICANN
does, the policymaking part, it is a huge policymaking machine.
It has signed thousands of contracts, and it has to enforce the
contracts. I don't think dumping that makes much sense. But
what does work is if ICANN is not doing that job well, we will
dump the Board. We will get a new Board, rather than a new
entity, to do the policymaking.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Anybody else want to address that at
all? Yes.
Ms. Plonk. Just a follow-up, I appreciate Mr. DelBianco's
clarification that there is this separation between the
policymaking function that ICANN has and the execution of the
IANA functions, which are largely administrative.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK.
Mr. Schaefer. If I may----
Mr. Kinzinger. Yes, please.
Mr. Schaefer. One thing. In my testimony I make reference
to an article, and several statements, by Mr. Woodcock, who is
part of the CRISP group, and also commentary by Milton Mueller,
who is instrumental in the stewardship process as well, and
they give some evidence, or at least stories of ICANN resisting
the separability process, and I think that is something that
is, as mentioned on the panel, very important to the
accountability and the long term interests of this process.
And in that discussion, they indicated that some
individuals at ICANN had said that Congress was opposed to
separability as part of this process. If that is the case, and
we don't know whether it is or not. This is, again, a story,
Congress should, I think, step forward and clarify whether it
is or whether it is not opposed to this as part of the process.
And I think, based on what I have seen and what I have heard in
discussions that Congress is indeed not opposed to this, and in
many cases is supportive of this process, and should state so.
Mr. Kinzinger. And one proposal from ICANN accountability
working group is to significantly change the appeals process
for ICANN review. Can any of you elaborate on whether or how
you think this will help improve accountability, and is there a
better or more effective way of achieving the goal of
accountability?
Mr. DelBianco. Mr. Kinzinger, it is just one of the new
powers we are granting, but I will just focus on it, since you
asked. But the independent review process has been pretty
inaccessible for many aggrieved parties. It is phenomenally
expensive. It is as much as a million dollars to hire counsel,
to pay the panelists that are pulled together for the
independent review panel. There is a limited scope of matters
that can be taken up, and it is very difficult for a broader
community of aggrieved people to have standing as a group.
So we are relying upon some very smart lawyers not working
for ICANN, but working for the community, to dramatically
improve the independent review process. We call that the crown
jewel of our powers. We are going to make it more accessible,
and if it is the community that filed the independent review,
ICANN will pay for the panelists, not the community. We
wouldn't be able to scrape that together.
They have to use the standard of review that is baked into
these newly improved bylaws, so the standard of review will be
known, which includes a tight limitation on ICANN's scope
creep. And then finally, when the decision comes back from the
independent review panel, we are seeking to ensure that it is a
binding decision on ICANN that will force them to do over a
decision that the community has rejected.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I only have 10
seconds left, so I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5
minutes to----
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panel's testimony today as well. One of my greatest concerns
with this transition is the susceptibility of the ICANN to
manipulation by foreign governments. Mr. DelBianco, how will
stakeholders protect the process from foreign governments if
they continue a push for power or unjust control once the
United States withdraws its stewardship role?
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. This was one of
the stress tests we discussed in front of your Committee last
April. And it is a genuine concern that governments together
would exert more influence over ICANN without actually having
reached a consensus. Today the Government Advisory Committee,
or GAC, G-A-C, operates under its own self-imposed rule of
consensus before it offers formal advice to ICANN. And when
they offer formal advice at ICANN, ICANN is strongly presumed
to be following the advice. And when it doesn't follow the
government advice, ICANN has to enter a period of trying to
find a mutually acceptable solution with the Government
Advisory Committee. No other advisor or stakeholder group has
that kind of due deference with ICANN. I think it is a
recognition of the power of governments.
So many governments have said they would prefer to change
to majority voting. It is a little messy to get consensus, and
they would like a majority, and I have to express the concern
about that. Sometimes there are only 60 or 70 countries at a
GAC meeting. If you can scrape together 34 votes for an
oppressive new policy that gets in the way of free expression,
that would be bad. So we made a change to the bylaws as part of
our proposal that we only have to give that due deference to
the government advice if it is actually supported by consensus.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. DelBianco. Got it right that
time. Next question, a number of U.S. companies, including
yours, Ms. Plonk, have expressed support for this transition--
--
Ms. Plonk [continuing]. Process in much the same way that
they do today, through the Government Advisory Council to
ICANN, as well as the various communities within the United
States, business, civil society, and academia will have as
much, if not more, access to provide accountability for the--
both the execution of the IANA functions, but also the overall
policymaking role that ICANN has. So I view it as a very
positive----
Mr. Bilirakis. What about congressional----
Ms. Plonk [continuing]. Thing for the U.S.
Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. Oversight?
Ms. Plonk. So you will continue to have oversight over
NTIA, and their work on this issue. If they continue to
participate in the multi-stakeholder process, I don't see
dramatic changes in that regard.
Mr. Bilirakis. Anyone else want to comment on that?
Mr. Shimkus. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. But we will lose the authority, or the
oversight that we have today. I mean, it is not fair to say, it
is the same thing. There is a definite--Mr. DelBianco? There is
a definite shift.
Mr. DelBianco. You are absolutely correct. A hearing like
this would perhaps still happen post-transition, but the
audience for your hearing is not going to be ICANN. The
audience would be our NTIA, and we are one country's vote among
the hundreds of votes that are on the GAC. There is no special
role anymore for the inventor----
Mr. Shimkus. Right, and that is all the point I was trying
to make. I will yield back to Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Plonk. There is no voting on the GAC, though, just to
make the point.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mister----
Mr. Schaefer. One other thing I would just emphasize, there
is nothing stopping individual members of Congress, or Congress
as a body, from submitting comments to various proposals, or
any other changes through the comment process at ICANN. In
fact, it could do so right now. And that is actually something
I would think that Congress would be interested in engaging in
during this process, while this is all going on. And that would
continue to be an avenue in the future.
Mr. Bilirakis. Right. Thank you very much. Mr. Shears, in
the past some have argued that, through relinquishing or
contractual relationship with ICANN, accountability might
suffer in the transition. In your testimony you mentioned the
current hybrid proposal separating functions and oversight. You
conclude by saying this can work only if ICANN is held
accountable to its own internal governance structures, and
stressed the multi-stakeholder community needs to be more
empowered than it is today for it all to work. Can you
elaborate on this, and if you expect this approach to ensure
accountability will be successful?
Mr. Shears. Yes, thank you. So the current model that is
part of the IANA transition does foresee that ICANN is the
contractor, and a subsidiary of ICANN is the operator of the
IANA functions. So in order for that to work, as I said in my
testimony, it is absolutely essential that the oversight of the
IANA operator is absolutely neutral, and transparent, and
accountable. For that to be the case, it means that the
community needs these additional powers that we are talking
about. Because at the moment, those powers don't exist.
So at the end of the day, to hold ICANN true, and to ensure
that that oversight exists over the IANA operator, we need
these accountability measures that we have been talking about
in this hearing.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time has expired. Chair now
recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DelBianco,
back to you. One proposal from the ICANN accountability working
group is the incorporation of the agreements made between ICANN
and NTIA, and the affirmation of commitments into the governing
documents of ICANN. Can you elaborate for us on whether or how
you think this will help improve accountability?
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. The affirmation of
commitments was really an outstanding piece of work by the USA
in 2009, and it came up with a set of principles that ICANN had
to commit to, as well as reviews it had to commit to allow the
community to perform. But these commitments were between ICANN
and the U.S. Government. It is a bilateral agreement. It is
exactly the kind of thing that the IANA contract was, that
would be the next target for elimination by governments around
the world who don't want us to have a unique role.
And that is why the very first stress test that I presented
to this Committee last April was ICANN, if they were to cancel
the affirmation of commitments, we would lose all of that. So
this working group spent a good deal of time, it occupies about
15 pages in our proposal, of bringing over all of the relevant
commitments from ICANN, and we improved them as we brought them
over. And then we took a look at the reviews that are done, and
gave the community more power to set who is on the review
teams, to sunset old reviews, create new ones, and to more
appropriately hold the Board accountable to the
recommendations. So I hope that your reading of our proposal
will concur that we have done, I think, an adequate job of
bringing all of the key commitments from the affirmation into
the bylaws.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Another question for you, then.
Another proposal from the ICANN accountability working group is
greater power to the constituent communities within ICANN,
particularly in regards to the group's budget, operating plans,
and bylaws. In addition, the community would be able to approve
changes to the fundamental bylaws, and remove members of the
ICANN Board. Can you share your thoughts on whether or how you
think this will improve accountability?
Mr. DelBianco. Those five powers are simply essential, and
they stop short of that fifth one of spilling the Board. That
scene is the nuclear option, not the option that would
operationally be very useful. But each of those interim steps
are, amazingly, lacking today. The community has no ability to
block a budget, a strat plan, no ability to block a Board
approved bylaws change.
And so the idea of building these powers in came very
clearly to the community through a series of public comments
that were conducted last summer, right after NTIA made this
announcement. So it was very easy to gather a consensus of what
powers the community needed, and they are all there, with the
intent of being sure that we keep ICANN's management and Board,
which is really accountable to the fiduciary concerns of the
corporation, to keep them from going off the rails. So I think
we are going to be able to answer your question with a yes.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, good. Final question for you, are
there better or more effective ways of achieving accountability
that I haven't talked to about here? You have got about 2
minutes to tell me some others, if you would like to.
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. So far, and I will
happily yield to other panelists, but so far the proposals are
complementary. They are not competing proposals. There is a
complimentary set of proposals on the naming, and protocols,
and numbers, and there is the accountability proposal. That is
that big second blue bar. And the reason it starts a lot later
than the first blue bar is that ICANN management Board didn't
want to admit that there needed to be a conversation about
accountability. So a lot of this was over the objections of
ICANN, but now we are all on Board, and we are all
participating.
As for other measures--if I were to start over and invent
the next ICANN, and it is like when you ask an Irishman for
directions, and he said, well, I wouldn't start from here, it
is not possible, I think, to accommodate all of the disruption
it would take to tear up and rearrange all of the contracts
that are written with all the registries and registrars, all of
the arrangements, the policymaking, the compliance bureau. So
we really don't think we need to start over with a new model,
with a new ICANN. We want to give new powers to the community
to hold ICANN accountable to its mission.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, great. Mr. Chairman, I yield back a
whole 46 seconds.
Mr. Olson [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And K-e-h-l, how do I
pronounce that?
Ms. Kehl. Like the vegetable, Kehl.
Mr. Long. Kehl, OK. That is what I thought it was. OK. I
thought I heard that earlier, but I don't always hear things
correctly. But, Ms. Kehl, what if the transition doesn't go
through? What is the downside?
Ms. Kehl. I think the downside, if the transition doesn't
go through, is the risk that there is immense pressure on this
to happen in some other way without the U.S. Government's
ability to set the terms, right? So this idea that the wheels
were in motion from other organizations to try to find--from
other parts of the community, sorry, not other organizations,
to try to make this happen. So to say, will we reach consensus,
and try to force the U.S. Government's hand?
There is the risk that there have been governments that
have tried to bring this into the International
Telecommunications Union, which is a body of the United
Nations. When I was a member of the U.S. delegation in South
Korea in October, and when we were there, that was something
that came up I think because of the existence of ICANN, and the
ongoing process. That was not a serious proposal, but those
proposals will be strengthened if the transition doesn't go
through.
And I think the other risk--while I think this is not a
nearly as likely one, is that you end up with the system
fragmenting. You end up with multiple competing sources of
authority because other people start to say, we want to take
this away, and that almost happened in the '90s, when--before
the U.S. Government decided to do this.
So that risk that it fragments, and then this system that
works very efficiently and very well, that most people don't
even know exists, suddenly doesn't work, right? And so that is
a huge concern as well. I think that is a very unlikely
scenario, but it is a possibility, if we sort of continue
down--if we don't resolve this, and we go down this alternative
path.
Mr. Long. Say that again, now, on that last part? It is
unlikely that what happened?
Ms. Kehl. It is unlikely that the system would fragment,
that you would end up with multiple competing sources of
authority. But, if you did, the consequences would be
incredibly significant.
Mr. Long. As they say, there is many a slip between the cup
and the lip, so during this handoff, there is some chances of
some pretty bad things happening also?
Ms. Kehl. I think there are risks. There are risks that--
again, that something fragmented, or that the DNS could be
used, the domain name system, as leverage to impose other
policies, or to expand ICANN's role. And that is why I said the
heart of this is the accountability process, and this idea that
we have checks and balances to deal with ICANN's authority, and
also this concept of enumerating the powers, and so making it
very clear that ICANN's mandate is narrow, it is technical.
Their job is to make sure that the system runs, and that it
works, that it doesn't fragment, and that most Internet users
don't know it exists.
Mr. Long. Anyone want to dispute what she said? I saw a lot
of heads nodding in agreement. Anybody dispute what--yes, sir,
Mr. Shears.
Mr. Shears. Yes, thank you. I think one of the other
things--the reasons why this transition is so important is
because we are living the multi-stakeholder model right now in
these working groups. We are living the multi-stakeholder model
right now. These working groups are multi-stakeholder, and they
are working very well. For the transition not to occur would
undermine that commitment that the U.S. Government has to
multi-stakeholder model, and international Internet policy
issues, and I think that would be a damaging blow to the
legitimacy of the model as a whole. So that is another
consequence of this transition not going ahead.
Mr. Long. Mr. Schaefer?
Mr. Schaefer. I agree with the assessment there. There has
been a concerted effort by a number of countries to try and
shift authority away from the United States and ICANN into the
international model, the multi-lateral model, ITU or other
forms, over years. The U.S. has successfully pushed those back.
The expectation now is so high that it is very unlikely that we
can get away with not proceeding down the path toward the
transition to our private sector overseeing, or withdraw from
the U.S. oversight of ICANN.
But one thing I will say is that we need to be very careful
not to go down and agree to a transition proposal that is
substandard just because we fear something else worse might
come along. I think the United States needs to be very clear
about what is and what is not acceptable, and hold to that
line, because a substandard proposal could be just as bad as
the other----
Mr. Long. Well, shouldn't .mil, .gov, shouldn't those be
exclusive, perpetual, and at no cost? Are we going to be able
to do that?
Mr. Schaefer. Mr. DelBianco talked about that a little bit
earlier. I believe that the United States should make,
condition on the transition, its exclusive ownership of those
two TDLs.
Mr. Long. You believe what now?
Mr. Schaefer. That the United States should make, as a
condition of the transfer, its ownership of those two----
Mr. Long. Yes, I heard what Mr. DelBianco said earlier, but
I just wanted to kind of figure out how to tie it into what you
were saying. So, with that, I don't have any time to yield
back, but if I did, I would.
Mr. Olson. Gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Collins, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been
interesting, as we have kind of deep dived this issue, to jump
in. This would be your chance to take an extra 4 minutes as we
are summing to see if, on the record, you would like to bring
something up that we in Congress should be concerned about,
worried about, or should take action on. So why don't we maybe
start with Mr. DelBianco, and see if you have got something to
add here as we conclude?
Mr. DelBianco. One of the concerns is keeping ICANN to its
limited technical mission. So we have proposed a change to
their fundamental bylaws to say that ``ICANN shall not
undertake any other mission not specifically authorized in
these bylaws.'' So it is a much tighter rein to put on it. And
the importance of that making it through cannot be understated.
We need to be sure that ICANN will accept and implement that
change, and not mince words----
Mr. Collins. But who takes the leadership role to make sure
that happens?
Mr. DelBianco. That is a great question, because that role
is going to end up falling to the community first, to NTIA, who
will basically say whether they support the community
transition plan that is up here. And that is why we said to
this Committee, do your best to support and encourage that NTIA
consistent----
Mr. Collins. So, to some extent, NTIA has a veto today that
is the ultimate arbiter of this? They have got a veto, and
they----
Mr. DelBianco. For the last time.
Mr. Collins. For the last time? So they need to make sure
they exercise that, and the community needs to make sure we in
Congress know if there is something that is about to----
Mr. DelBianco. Secretary Strickley says all the time that
it would be a failure of the entire process if we ended up
having a veto. Just like I said to Representative Shimkus, it
would be a failure if GAO studied it, and came back and said,
this will never work. We have to be engaged now. And NTIA is,
and, thankfully, Congress is as well. By engaging early, there
is no risk that we get to the end of the road and say, this
fails.
Mr. Collins. Right, but it is our failsafe, if you will.
Would anyone else like to comment here, as we are closing out?
Mr. Schaefer. I would like to----
Mr. Collins. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Schaefer [continuing]. Things. One, I just can't
emphasize enough that it is important that these changes be
implemented before the transition. The leverage leaves once
that transition occurs, and NTIA no longer is in the position
that it currently is in. And, second, on the accountability
track, there are two what they are calling work streams. There
is work stream one, which there are--the changes that they deem
are so important they need to be in place before the transition
occurs. That--there is also work stream two, which are deemed
to be important, but not necessarily important enough to be in
place before the transition occurs.
Work stream two still has a lot of important things in
there, and there needs to be a great deal of assurances from
ICANN, and from the multi-stakeholder community, through this
process that those work stream two items will not be forgotten
once this transition----
Mr. Collins. So what is the timing? If you were to say, you
know, there is not a date certain, a time certain, is there? I
mean, so the clock is kind of ticking, but when do you see this
reaching some endpoint?
Mr. DelBianco. You know, first crack, as the chart I put up
there showed, early next spring would be the earliest, and it
might go as long as late next summer into next autumn.
Mr. Collins. But we are talking about within a year?
Mr. DelBianco. Yes, sir. And I should answer, with respect
to work stream one and two, the community believes that, this
is in response to what Brett said, we aim to give the community
sufficient powers in work stream one so that the Board
management cannot block the implementation of our work stream
two items. So if we have the powers we have described to you--
--
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mr. DelBianco [continuing]. And we get to work stream two,
not even 2017, and the Board is not going to concede, that is
when we start invoking powers like spilling the Board,
challenging their decisions.
Mr. Collins. And who sets the Board? Are there going to be
20 people on the Board, and who picks them? I know how
shareholders work in private corporations. This is a little bit
more confusing than that.
Mr. DelBianco. The Board is a--well, it is kind of an
interesting and complex structure. There is a Board member that
is appointed by a technical community. There are two Board
members that are appointed by the generic name supporting
organization. We have the country code organizations, security
stability advisory committee, the root server committee. The
governments have a non-voting Board member. There is the
nominating committee----
Mr. Collins. So are we talking about 30, 40 people, 100
people?
Mr. DelBianco. 20ish.
Mr. Collins. 20ish people, and they could be replaced, I am
assuming, by the nominating group? Does the NTIA get to put two
people on, or nothing? Interesting. Well, I guess I have 3
seconds left or so, so I will yield that back, and thank the
panelists for your dedication to this issue, which is pretty
deep in the weeds, but a very important thing. So, yield back.
Mr. Olson. The gentleman yields back. The Chairman has 5
hours of questioning. Good, you are paying attention. 5
minutes.
I want to sum up. Pretty clear that back home people are
more concerned about what will happen if some foreign
government that is hostile to our nation takes over the role
played by ICANN right now. I am a former Naval aviator, so we
plan the worst case scenario, what bad could really happen. So,
if bad things happen after this transition occurs, what is our
recourse? What can we do to stop this from happening in the
future?
If ICANN goes into effect, all of a sudden some bad actors
take over, can we stop it? Can we recover? Because that is what
they are concerned about back home. We turn it over, and it
goes over forever. I mean, do we have some sort of breaker,
some sort of mechanism to say----
Mr. DelBianco. Right.
We have several stress tests about that, and it can be most
easily summed up by saying that if the community, the people
that actually use the top level domain table, the root table,
believe that it has gone off the rails, that governments are
suppressing free expression, or commerce, it will take the IANA
contract away from ICANN and give it to someone else. And that
can be done in an instant. The root table is small enough to
fit on an index card, and it can be hosted by others, and
replicated around the world.
So the ability of separability, Audrey talked about this
earlier, everyone agreed we needed that. That is our ultimate
trump card against the scenario you described.
Mr. Olson. And, Ms. Plonk, you are nodding your head. Do
you agree with that? Want to add anything, ma'am?
Ms. Plonk. I do. I would only add that the other two
communities, numbers and protocols, also have plans for how
they will internally, you know, transition, if that needs to
happen.
Mr. Olson. Ms. Kehl?
Ms. Kehl. I would also add that I think that this idea, it
is always important to remember that we are a part of the
community, and by that I mean the panelists here, and also the
U.S. Government. So we are stakeholders in this system as it
goes forward, and I think the shared goals of planning against
that worst case scenario and the goals of protecting the free
and open Internet, are ones that are broadly shared by members
of the community in the United States and around the world.
And there is this really active group of civil society, of
companies, of academia, and of governments that are dedicated
to these issues, and they are, I think very vigilant in making
sure that we avoid those kinds of scenarios. And so we are
still a part of that community, and that is really powerful.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Shears, your comments, sir?
Mr. Shears. Thank you. I would say that the measures that
we are trying to put in place on the accountability side are
designed to militate against capture and mission creep, and
that is part of that process, as you say, of--what happens when
things go wrong? We are working in a system now where,
hopefully, we will put in place measures where that will be
very slim chance of that happening.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Schaefer, your comments, sir?
Mr. Schaefer. I would just like to echo a statement made by
Mr. Shears in his opening statement, about how all these issues
and these measures are intertwined, they are inter-reliant on
each other, and I would highly recommend against moving forward
on one without moving forward on all of them together.
Mr. Olson. So you all seem--if I just want to put words in
your mouth, you all seem to think that this is OK, it is safe,
we don't have to worry about it. There is all sorts of checks.
You don't know what will happen, but if bad things happen, we
can stop it, control it. Yes, Mr. DelBianco, Ms. Kehl, Ms.
Plonk? OK.
Well, guys, I have one last comment. I want to follow up on
the comments by former Chairman Barton and Mr. Doyle from
Pennsylvania about moving the headquarters of ICANN to another
country. Do those options include a state that was a former
country? Is that considered another country, like the Republic
of Texas? Does that work for there? Because, again, you have
got me if that is what is going to happen. Is that--
consideration? Laughter, OK.
Members have 5 days to submit questions for the record.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
The Internet is one of the most vibrant and dynamic drivers
of the economy--both here and across the globe--and this
committee has made it a priority to ensure that it will
continue to thrive unfettered well into the future. Today the
subcommittee takes another look at the future of Internet
governance and the proposed transition of IANA oversight from
the U.S. government to the multi-stakeholder model.
Last Congress, we advanced the DOTCOM Act as a measure
intended to press pause before NTIA relinquishes the United
States' role in overseeing the Internet's root zone functions.
The U.S. has held this important responsibility for many years,
and before we take an irreversible leap, we must carefully look
at and understand all of the risks and consequences. Last year,
we requested that the nonpartisan GAO examine the proposed
transition and they will be releasing a report later this year
with their findings. Thorough and honest reviews like GAO's are
critical in helping all parties to make the most informed
decision possible.
Today's hearing will show there has been a great deal of
work within ICANN, NTIA, and the multistakeholder community to
come up with a workable proposal that will preserve Internet
openness and freedom. I appreciate the effort that has gone
into developing a solution, and look forward to hearing more
about the proposal in the months to come. However, I want to
strongly reiterate the need for Congress to play a role in this
transition, and to serve as a watchdog as we move forward.
We are not seeking to prevent this transition, or to delay
it for the sake of delay. We are exercising our oversight role
over NTIA and ensuring that any successor solution will fit the
criteria NTIA has established for a successful transition.
We've said it time and again, and it bears repeating: the
future of the Internet as we know it is at stake if we don't
get this right.
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]