[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENSURING THE SECURITY, STABILITY, RESILIENCE, AND FREEDOM OF THE GLOBAL
INTERNET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 2, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-134
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
90-781 WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon ANNA G. ESHOO, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 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
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Islands
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
CORY GARDNER, Colorado PETER WELCH, Vermont
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PAUL TONKO, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
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
LEE TERRY, Nebraska DORIS O. MATSUI, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JIM MATHESON, Utah
BILLY LONG, Missouri G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio
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............................... 5
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement....................................
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 8
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 106
Witnesses
Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information, and Administrator, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration..................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Fadi Chehade, President and CEO, Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers..................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Ambassador David Gross, Partner, Wiley Rein, LLP................. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Steve Delbianco, Executive Director, Netchoice................... 68
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Carolina Rossini, Project Director, New America Foundation Open
Technology Institute........................................... 83
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Submitted Material
Statement of The Internet Association, submitted by Mr. Walden... 108
Article entitled, ``U.S. Plans to Give Up Oversight of Web Domain
Manager,'' The Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2014, submitted
by Ms. Eshoo................................................... 110
Statement of Robert M. McDowell, submitted by Ms. Eshoo.......... 113
Letter of April 1, 2014, from NGOs to subcommittee, submitted by
Ms. Eshoo...................................................... 116
Article entitled, ``U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the
Internet,'' The Washington Post, March 14, 2014, submitted by
Ms. Eshoo...................................................... 118
ENSURING THE SECURITY, STABILITY,
RESILIENCE, AND FREEDOM OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:36 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus,
Terry, Blackburn, Scalise, Lance, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Long,
Ellmers, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Eshoo, Doyle, Matsui,
Braley, Lujan and Waxman (ex officio).
Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Ray Baum,
Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Sean Bonyun,
Communications Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member;
Gene Fullano, Detailee, Telecom; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel,
Telecom; Grace Koh, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl, Counsel,
Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, Legislative Coordinator; Tim
Torres, Deputy IT Director; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor;
Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Shawn Chang,
Democratic Chief Counsel for Communications and Technology
Subcommittee; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic Professional Staff
Member; Ryan Skukowski, Democratic Staff Assistant; and Patrick
Donovan, Democratic FCC Detailee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. OK, we'll call to order the subcommittee on
Communications and Technology.
Good morning. I want to thank all of our witnesses today
for clearing their schedules to come before our subcommittee on
Communications and Technology to discuss the Obama
Administration's proposal to transfer to another entity
oversight of the domain name system.
I have read all of your testimony. I appreciate your
counsel, and especially appreciate the thoughtful scenarios and
stress tests noted in Mr. DelBianco's testimony. Those are
precisely the kinds of issues that certainly get our attention.
I cannot overstate the importance of freedom of the Internet
from government control, nor can I overstate the threat from
foreign governments who seek to control, tax, sensor and
otherwise impose their own agendas on the Internet. That is why
the House has unanimously passed both a resolution and
legislation that affirm our policy that the United States
should promote a global Internet free from government control,
and I do hope the United States Senate will take up our latest
measure with all due haste.
Obviously, the Administration's proposal has sparked
furious debate, and brought together in opposition some
interesting former combatants, ranging from Karl Rove to Bill
Clinton and Newt Gingrich.
I called today's hearing to get answers to exactly what the
Obama Administration is proposing and what it is not. Are the
goals of security, stability, resilience and freedom of the
Internet compatible with a multi-stakeholder-managed domain
name system. The multi-stakeholder model is a key part of the
success of the Internet with engineers, academics, public
interest groups and users collaborating in a bottom-up, not
government down approach. The decentralized management
structure provides the flexibility to evolve, and disperses the
risks posed by bad actors. However, once NTIA gives up its
current role, who will fill the void. What assurance do
Internet users have that such a change will not lead to foreign
government mischief. If things do go astray, is there a path
back for NTIA. The role that NTIA performs, though somewhat
ministerial, has served as an important backstop. While I am
heartened to see the criteria that NTIA set forth for any
acceptable proposal included a prohibition on government-led or
governmental organization taking control, I do remain concerned
about how to prevent such a takeover in the future. What
safeguards would be in place? We cannot allow institutions such
as the United Nations or the International Telecommunications
Union to insert themselves into the functioning of the domain
name system now or as part of any successor solution.
Make no mistake, threats to the openness and freedom of the
Internet are real. Some authoritarian leaders such as Vladimir
Putin have explicitly announced their desire to gain control of
the Internet. In fact, just a year and a half ago, at the World
Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, a
group of nations attempted to use a treaty on telephone
networks and services as a backdoor to imposed policies that
could have thwarted the robust and open nature of the Internet.
I am sure the Administration understands why we are so
concerned about any proposed changes now the Internet is
governed. We need details on how the process will work, and the
criteria for evaluating the proposals. Mr. Shimkus and Mrs.
Blackburn have a bill they recently introduced, H.R. 4342,
which I believe has been distributed to everyone here, that
would have the GAO study the proposals and present a
nonpartisan evaluation. This is a prudent idea and one we will
move forward on very soon.
[H.R. 4342 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Any plan must protect all participants in the
Internet ecosystem, and demonstrate the successor's technical
ability to manage the IANA functions. If there are not
sufficient safeguards in place to prevent foreign government
intrusion, then this concept should go no further.
Even with these guarantees, I remain concerned about the
opportunities for abuse. When it comes to the core principles
that NTIA and the State Department have put forward, I urge
them to follow the admonition of Margaret Thatcher, and ``Don't
go wobbly.'' There is no putting this genie back in the bottle
once the transition begins.
So we are holding this hearing because far too much is at
stake for any uncertainty or ambiguity as to our path forward.
A little less than a year ago, the world was watching as we
deliberated H.R. 1580, our unanimously-passed Bill supporting
the multi-stakeholder process. The world, including those
deeply concerned about government control of the Internet, is
watching again today. This is the Administration's opportunity
to make its case and answer our questions, prove to us that you
will conduct this proposed process in a way that leaves no room
for error, and it will protect the free and open Internet we
have all come to expect and rely upon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
I want to thank all of our witnesses today for clearing
their schedules to come before our Communications and
Technology Subcommittee to discuss the Obama administration's
proposal to transfer to another entity oversight of the Domain
Name System. I've read all of your testimony and appreciate
your counsel. I especially appreciated the thoughtful scenarios
and stress tests noted in Mr. DelBianco's testimony. Those are
precisely the kinds of issues that get our attention.
I cannot overstate the importance of freedom of the
Internet from government control. Nor can I overstate the
threat from foreign governments who seek to control, tax,
censor, and otherwise impose their own agendas on the Internet.
That's why the House has unanimously passed both a resolution
and legislation that affirm our policy that the United States
should promote a global Internet, free from government control.
I do hope the Senate takes up our latest measure with all due
haste.
Obviously, the administration's proposal has sparked
furious debate and brought together in opposition some
interesting former combatants ranging from Karl Rove to Bill
Clinton and Newt Gingrich.
I called today's hearing to get answers to exactly what the
Obama administration is proposing and what it is not. Are the
goals of security, stability, resilience and freedom of the
Internet compatible with a multistakeholder managed Domain Name
System?
The multi-stakeholder model is a key part of the success of
the Internet, with engineers, academics, public interest
groups, and users collaborating in a bottom-up, non-
governmental approach. The decentralized management structure
provides the flexibility to evolve and disperses the risks
posed by bad actors. However, once NTIA gives up its current
role, who will fill the void? What assurance do Internet users
have that such a change will not lead to foreign government
mischief? If things go astray, is there a path back for NTIA?
The role that NTIA performs, though somewhat ministerial,
has served as an important backstop. While I am heartened to
see the criteria that NTIA set forth for any acceptable
proposal included a prohibition on a government-led or
intergovernmental organization taking control, I remain
concerned about how to prevent such a takeover in the future.
What safeguards are in place?
We cannot allow institutions such as the United Nations or
the International Telecommunication Union to insert themselves
into the functioning of the Domain Name System now, or as part
of any successor solution.
Make no mistake; threats to the openness and freedom of the
Internet are real. Leaders such as Vladimir Putin have
explicitly announced their desire to gain control of the
Internet. Just a year and a half ago, at the World Conference
on International Telecommunications in Dubai, a group of
nations attempted to use a treaty on telephone networks and
services as a backdoor to impose policies that could have
thwarted the robust and open nature of the Internet.
I'm sure the administration understands why I am so
concerned about any proposed changes to how the Internet is
governed. We need details on how the process will work and the
criteria for evaluating proposals. Mr. Shimkus and Mrs.
Blackburn have a bill they recently introduced--H.R. 4342--that
would have the GAO study the proposals and present a non-
partisan evaluation. This is a prudent idea. Any plan must
protect all participants in the Internet ecosystem and
demonstrate the successor's technical ability to manage the
IANA functions. If there are not sufficient safeguards in place
to prevent foreign government intrusion, then this concept
should go no further. Even with these guarantees, I remain
concerned about the opportunities for abuse.
When it comes to the core principles that NTIA and the
State Department have put forward I urge them to follow the
admonition of Margaret Thatcher and ``Don't Go Wobbly''. There
is no putting this genie back in the bottle once the transition
begins. We are holding this hearing because far too much is at
stake for any uncertainty or ambiguity as to our path forward.
A little less than a year ago, the world was watching as we
deliberated H.R. 1580, our unanimously passed bill supporting
the multi-stakeholder model. The world, including those deeply
concerned about government control of the Internet, is watching
again today. This is the administration's opportunity to make
its case and answer our questions. Prove to us that you will
conduct this proposed process in a way that leaves no room for
error and that will protect the free and open Internet we have
all come to expect and rely upon.
Mr. Walden. With that, I will yield to the vice chair of
the committee, Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you very much to our witnesses for testifying today.
As the Chairman said, the Internet has developed into a
robust and competitive frontier for free enterprise,
innovation, job creation, and economic growth and prosperity.
In our own democratic government, it serves as a tool for
citizens to exercise their fundamental freedoms, and for those
around the world, the Internet enables the exercise of basic
human rights, as well as political advancement and reform. The
preservation of the Internet's openness and freedom is, and
must continue to be, non-negotiable.
As the NTIA prepares to relinquish its contractual
oversight of the IANA functions of ICANN, any new oversight
proposals that threaten to diminish the existing multi-
stakeholder model of Internet governance must be rejected. Not
doing so will jeopardize the economic prosperity we have
achieved throughout the United States and the world, and may
curtail the basic freedoms and human rights of millions, if not
billions.
I support calls to engage in rigorous and careful
congressional oversight of NTIA's proposed transition of its
contract to ensure that no government or intergovernmental body
takes control of domain name system responsibilities, and that
the Internet remains as free and open as it is today.
And again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and I yield
back.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back. And before I recognize
the gentlelady and the ranking member from California, I would
like to ask unanimous consent to put a statement of support
from the Internet Association, representing many of America's
great Internet successful companies including Amazon, Facebook,
Twitter, Yahoo, Netflix, and Google, and statements from AT&T,
Verizon, Cisco, and the United States Chamber of Commerce,
expressing support for a process to investigate a transition
that precludes other governments from assuming the role the
U.S. currently plays.
I have all of those, and without objection, they will be
entered into the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. And with that, I will now turn to my friend and
colleague from California, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, both for having this
hearing and for our important witnesses that are here today.
This is a very important discussion that we are going to have,
and we look forward to your testimony.
For more than 2 decades, there is no question that the
Internet has flourished as a platform that enables the exchange
of commerce, trade and information. Last year, the House passed
legislation on a 413 to 0 vote, stating ``It is the policy of
the United States to preserve and advance the successful multi-
stakeholder model that governs the Internet.'' Now we are
hearing the criticisms and even rejection of this model which
has provided the underpinnings for innovation, openness, and
economic prosperity around the world.
I think history can be instructive to us here. In 1998, the
U.S. Department of Commerce outlined a plan that would phase
out its policy oversight role within 2 years. While this
transition obviously took longer than it should, they operated
more on government time than on real time, it is now time for
the United States to finally walk the walk, and demonstrate to
the world that while the Internet was a product of America's
genius, no government or intergovernmental organization should
control its future. To ensure that the next 2 decades, and even
beyond that, are just as successful, we need to think big about
how we preserve the global Internet principles of openness,
security, stability, and resiliency.
In this context, NTIA's announcement last month to
transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
multi-stakeholder community is an important step in the
evolution of the Internet. It is what people voted for, 413 to
zip. That is what was embedded in that resolution, and that
resolution was more than noticed by countries around the world,
because the United States of America was absolutely 1,000
percent united. The Executive Branch, the Senate, the House,
all our representatives. There was no daylight between us. So I
think it might be instructive to go back and see what members
voted for.
During the 2012 World Conference on International
Telecommunications, WCIT, in Dubai, we saw firsthand that there
are nations around the globe who do not share our vision for
maintaining the free flow of information across the Internet.
In practice, this has manifested itself in the blocking of
popular social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube,
which are used daily by millions around the world to share
their ideas, their news, and their beliefs. I just headed up a
resolution condemning Turkey for what it did in shutting all of
these platforms down. And so I don't think that there is an
argument about that. I think there is some confusion about the
understanding of what this represents.
Independent of whether NTIA successfully transitions the
domain name system, the DNS, to the multi-stakeholder
community, these acts of censorship will continue unless we
unite across the globe in support of a free and open Internet.
I think that that is what we have to keep front and center
here.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have significant work ahead of
us. I hope this is the first of many conversations we have to
not only examine ICANN's role, but more broadly, how to expand
the availability of broadband, enhance consumer privacy, ensure
the security of communication networks, and protect
intellectual property around the world.
My thanks again to the witnesses. And I want to especially
recognize Assistant Secretary Strickling for his leadership and
vision to ensure that throughout this transition, the Internet
remains open to ALL, in capital letters, to ALL, and that it
remain a success story for generations to come.
I would like to--I don't know where the time clock is on
this.
Mr. Walden. Fourteen seconds.
Ms. Eshoo. Fourteen seconds? Do you want to take 14
seconds, Doris, or--OK. Well, then I will yield back. Thank
you.
Mr. Walden. Gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
The Chair recognizes the big Chair, Mr. Upton, from Michigan.
Please go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Thank you, my friend.
Today, our important work continues to protect the future
of the Internet, a subject of great consequence for sure. This
committee has been at the forefront of the effort to preserve
the Internet openness and freedom. A non-regulatory, multi-
stakeholder government model is essential to the continued
success of the Internet, and has been critical to the
development of this engine of economic, political and social
engagement.
We have affirmed our commitment to this principle more than
once. First, with the passage of Congress Resolution 2012, and
then, of course, with H.R. 1580, which all of us have talked
about, which passed by a unanimous vote.
We must do all that we can to keep the Internet free from
the control of those who wish to use it for less than noble
means. Keeping it out of the hands of nations like China, Iran,
and Russia, who have demonstrated hostility towards the free
market, the flowing, unfettered exchange of information is
important. NTIA's recent announcement of its intent to
transition Internet oversight functions to a new structure
should be met with a critical eye, especially when you take
into account the Administration's track record of saying one
thing and doing yet another.
This issue has united one-time opponents Bill Clinton and
Newt Gingrich, who are fighting to protect the Internet as we
know it.
Something as important as the future of the Internet
demands a thoughtful and deliberative process, and I join my
colleagues in supporting the DOTCOM Act, and I would commend
Mr. Shimkus and Mrs. Blackburn for coauthoring that measure, as
well as Mr. Latta, Ellmers and Barton for their early support,
and we plan to announce a markup schedule very soon. This Act
will stop--will step on the brakes until the GAO is able to
analyze all the aspects and implications of the proposed shift
in Internet oversight, including potential national security
concerns.
While I do not oppose a vigorous discussion of whether and
how we could transition the domain name system out of the
Commerce Department's purview, we are a long way from seeing a
proposal that I could support. As the world moves forward with
this discussion, we will conduct vigorous oversight of the
process, and hold NTIA to its word that it will not allow the
Internet to fall victim to international government power
grabs. Our work continues.
I yield one minute each to Mr. Shimkus and Mrs. Blackburn.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Today our important work continues to protect the future of
the Internet--a subject of great consequence. This committee
has been at the forefront of the effort to preserve Internet
openness and freedom. A nonregulatory, multi-stakeholder
governance model is essential to the continued success of the
Internet and has been critical to the development of this
engine of economic, political, and social engagement. We have
affirmed our commitment to this principle more than once--first
with the passage of a sense of the Congress resolution in 2012,
and then with the unanimous House approval of H.R. 1580 in
2013.
We must do all we can to keep the Internet free from the
control of those who wish to use it for less than noble means,
keeping it out of the hands of nations like China, Iran, or
Russia who have demonstrated hostility toward the free flowing,
unfettered exchange of information.
NTIA's recent announcement of its intent to transition
Internet oversight functions away from the U.S. government
should be met with a critical eye, especially when you take
into account the administration's track record of saying one
thing and doing another.
When deadlines have no meaning, red lines disappear, and
projects like the Keystone XL pipeline are sidelined despite
obvious economic benefit, skepticism that ``this time we mean
it'' is natural. Freedom of the Internet and the global
implications of this transition are far too important to let
slip away because of another broken promise. There is no going
back one we relinquish our oversight. This issue has united
one-time opponents Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich who are
fighting to protect the Internet as we know it.
Something as important as the future of the Internet
demands a thoughtful and deliberate process, and I join my
colleagues in supporting the DOTCOM Act. I commend
Representative John Shimkus and full committee Vice Chairman
Marsha Blackburn for co-authoring the measure, as well as Vice
Chairman Latta, and Representatives Renee Ellmers and Joe
Barton for their early support, and we plan to announce a
markup schedule soon.
The DOTCOM Act will step on the brakes until the Government
Accountability Office is able to analyze all aspects and
implications of the relinquishing of U.S. oversight, including
potential national security concerns.
While I do not oppose a vigorous discussion of whether and
how we could transition the Domain Name System out of the
Commerce Department's purview, we are a long way from seeing a
proposal that I could support. As the world moves forward with
this discussion, we will conduct vigorous oversight of the
process and hold NTIA to their word that it will not allow the
Internet to fall victim to international government power
grabs. Our work continues.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start
with a clip of President Clinton and the founder of Wikipedia,
Jimmy Wales, as part of my opening statement.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, I echo their concerns. As you
know, I drew up the DOTCOM Act with Marsha last week. The main
critics of that Bill seem to be saying that Congress being
informed about the proposals presented to NTIA, and the process
of how this transition would occur would somehow embolden our
enemies. I find it hard to believe that the most transparent
Administration in the history of the universe would not want
the Congress to be informed on how this process would work.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses, and
hopefully we will get some clarity on how an open and
transparent NTIA process--transfer process is beneficial to a
free and open Internet.
And I yield to Marsha.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for his
work on the DOTCOM Act.
Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you, I thought when you were
quoting Margaret Thatcher, and I am sure Ms. Eshoo and Matsui
join me in this, I thought you were going to say, since we are
talking communications, if you want something said, ask a man;
if you want something done, ask a woman, which was also one of
Thatcher's very famous quotes.
We all know that the Internet has had a revolutionary
impact. Part of this is due to its bottom-up government, and
its open-ecosystem. And like many of my colleagues, I support a
free market, multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. In
a perfect world, ICANN and IANA would be fully privatized and
free from any government influence or control, however,
realistically, we know that China, Russia, maybe other bad
actors, have a different viewpoint. Their end goal is to have
ICANN and IANA functions migrate to the U.N.'s ITU. That
solution is one that I will never stand for or allow to occur.
If the Commerce Department is going to relinquish control of
its contractual authority over the IANA contract, and move
control of DNS into a global multi-stakeholder community, the
timing and architecture must be perfect. If this Administration
wants to prove to Congress and the international community that
they are serious about this process, they must immediately
begin to end Net neutrality proceedings.
Telling Congress and the international community that they
are serious about relinquishing control, while working to
promote Net neutrality, is disingenuous.
I thank the Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. Walden. Thank the gentlelady's comments. Now turn to
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Chairman Walden, for holding this
timely hearing on the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration's recent announcement to begin the
process of transitioning key Internet domain name functions to
the global multi-stakeholder community.
I want to welcome back Assistant Secretary Larry
Strickling, and Ambassador David Gross. Your past testimony has
greatly enhanced the committee's deliberations on issues
related to Internet governance, and I want to thank Mr. Chehade
for traveling half way around the world to take the time to
testify before our subcommittee.
This distinguished panel of witnesses highlights just how
important this upcoming transition will be. This is a critical
opportunity to reaffirm the United States' commitment to a
multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance and policy-
making. Since the late 1990s, the U.S. Government, under both
Democratic and Republican Administrations, has consistently
embraced the vision that a global Internet should be governed
through a decentralized, bottom-up approach, with no single
government or intergovernmental entity exercising control over
its decision-making process.
That commitment remains true today. The United States
continues to stand up for the multi-stakeholder model time and
again in international forums, while pushing back against
countries that have sought an expansion of governmental
control. Congress has also spoken unanimously in support of
this multi-stakeholder vision, first to a bipartisan, bicameral
resolution last Congress, then through legislation that passed
the House last year that would make it the official policy of
the United States to ``preserve and advance the successful
multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet.''
I agree it is now time for the U.S. Government to take
additional steps to fulfill this vision. For over 15 years,
NTIA has played a limited procedural role in the administration
of the domain name system. This responsibility, while
ministerial, is associated with the perception that the United
States serves as a steward of the Internet. I share NTIA's
belief that this temporary stewardship should come to an end in
the near future. The multi-stakeholder system has matured and
gained legitimacy over the past decade. I am confident that the
non-governmental Internet community will act as capable and
responsible stewards of the Internet and fill the role left by
NTIA, but the upcoming transition in no way suggests that the
United States plans to relinquish control of the Internet to
authoritarian states. President Clinton. To the contrary, our
efforts should be seen as a vote of confidence that the
successful bottom-up decentralized model will continue to
preserve and protect the Internet as a free and open platform
for commerce, innovation, and self-expression. NTIA has
outlined key principles to guide the transition process,
including a commitment not to accept any proposal that replaces
the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental
organization like the ITU.
Going forward, I hope the NTIA and ICANN will institute an
open, transparent process for the consideration of transition
proposals submitted by stakeholders. A period of notice and
comment should be provided so that the decisionmakers have a
comprehensive record to consider the merits of the proposals.
This committee should monitor NTIA's and ICANN's effort
closely, but we must resist the calls for reactionary
legislation that would needlessly tie the hands of the Agency.
Not only are these efforts inconsistent with Congress'
longstanding and bipartisan support for the multi-stakeholder
model, they also send a dangerous signal to the rest of the
world that we lack faith in the existing multi-stakeholder
system. That is why I hope it will work closely with our
witnesses today throughout this transition process.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
I think that covers all the opening statements we are allowed
to do, so with this, we will go to our distinguished panel.
And we will start with Mr. Larry Strickling, the Assistant
Secretary for Communications and Information Administration,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
That has to be one of the longer titles in the communication
world, Larry. Thank you for being with us. We look forward to
your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF LAWRENCE STRICKLING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION; FADI
CHEHADE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED
NAMES AND NUMBERS; AND AMBASSADOR DAVID GROSS, PARTNER, WILEY
REIN, LLP
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE STRICKLING
Mr. Strickling. Thank you, Chairman Walden, and Ranking
Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee.
I am pleased to be here to testify about NTIA's role
working with ICANN and the domain name system, as well as our
March 14 release announcing our intent to transition key
Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder
community.
I am pleased to be joined today by Fadi Chehade, the CEO of
ICANN, and Ambassador David Gross, who was involved in these
issues when he served as the State Department coordinator for
international communications and information policy during the
Bush Administration.
For 16 years, it has been the clear and unquestioned policy
of the United States Government that the private sector should
lead the management of the domain name system. In its 1998
policy statement, the Department of Commerce stated that the
U.S. Government is committed to a transition that will allow
the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.
Since then, the Department, through NTIA, has entered into
a series of agreements with ICANN under which it performs what
are known as the IANA functions. These include assigning
Internet protocol numbers to regional registries, who then
assign them to Internet service providers. Another function is
the maintenance and updating of the root zone file of top level
domain names, the so-called address book for the Internet that
is necessary for the routing of Internet communications. ICANN
performs these tasks at no cost to the U.S. Government.
Our role in this process is simply to verify changes and
updates proposed by ICANN to the root zone file before passing
these changes on to Verisign, which actually maintains and
updates the root zone file.
ICANN, along with other Internet technical organizations
such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, developed their
policies through bottom-up, multi-stakeholder processes. These
efforts are open to all stakeholders, whether they are
businesses, civil society organizations, technical experts or
governments who work in concert to reach consensus agreements
on Internet policies. And I want to emphasize because I heard a
number of references to U.S. control of policy-making at ICANN,
and that is not the case. We do not exercise any control or
oversight over policy-making. That is performed today by the
global multi-stakeholder community, working at ICANN or at the
IETF.
Now, the U.S. Government has been a vigorous supporter of
the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance from the
start, however, we are not the only ones. As Congresswoman
Eshoo pointed out, in 2012, both Houses of Congress unanimously
passed resolutions stating that it was the consistent and
unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global
Internet free from government control, and preserve and advance
the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the
Internet today.
In furtherance of this clear congressional statement, on
March 14, NTIA announced the final phase of the privatization
of the domain name system by asking ICANN to convene global
stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current
role played by NTIA and the coordination of the domain name
system. In making this announcement, we stated that the
transition proposal must have broad community support, and must
address 4 principles. It must support and enhance the multi-
stakeholder model, it must maintain the security, stability and
resiliency of the Internet domain name system, it must meet the
needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of
the IANA services, and it must maintain the openness of the
Internet. And we also made crystal clear that we will not
accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a
government-led or intergovernmental solution.
We asked ICANN, as the current IANA functions contractor,
to convene the multi-stakeholder process to develop the
transition plan. We informed ICANN that we expected it to work
collaboratively with the other Internet technical
organizations, including the Internet Society, the IETF, the
Internet Architecture Board, and the Regional Internet
Registries. Last week, at its meeting in Singapore, ICANN,
working with these organizations, convened two public sessions
to obtain stakeholder input on how to design the process to
develop the transition plan, collecting several hours of public
comment which will help craft a proposal for the process going
forward.
Stakeholders have responded to our announcement with strong
statements of support. Among the business community, Microsoft
hailed the announcement as a significant and welcome
development. Cisco stated that it has long supported an open
and innovative multi-stakeholder Internet governance process in
this next step in its evolution. From civil society, just
yesterday, a group of Internet freedom and human rights
organizations, including Freedom House, Public Knowledge, Human
Rights Watch, and the New America Foundation, welcomed NTIA's
announcement stating that it would facilitate the exercise of
human rights online.
Our announcement in the process that is now underway to
develop a transition plan benefits American interests. We
depend on a growing and innovative Internet, and despite the
symbolic role the U.S. Government has played over the years,
the fact is that no country controls the Internet. Its
continued growth and innovation depends on building trust among
all users worldwide, and strengthening the engagement of all
stakeholders. Taking this measure--taking this action is the
best measure to prevent authoritarian regimes from expanding
their restrictive policies beyond their own borders.
I am confident that the global Internet community will work
diligently to develop a plan that has the support of the
community, and meets the four conditions. I want to assure all
Members that before any transition takes place, the businesses
civil society organizations and technical experts of the
Internet must present a plan that ensures the uninterrupted,
stable functioning of the Internet, and preserves its openness.
Until such time, there will be no change in our current role.
I also want to assure all members that even as the United
States looks to transition out of this clerical role we play,
we will remain strong and vigorous advocates for Internet
freedom, growth and innovation. We will continue to play a
major role on ICANN's governmental advisory committee, where
governments develop consensus advice to ICANN on public policy
matters, and we will continue in our role to enhance the
accountability and transparency of ICANN through our
participation in the accountability and transparency review
teams established by the Affirmation of Commitments we signed
with ICANN in 2009.
I pledge to keep this subcommittee informed of the progress
of the community's efforts to develop the transition plan, and
to that end, I look forward to answering your questions this
morning. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickling follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Strickling, thank you very much for your
testimony and for always working closely with this
subcommittee. We do appreciate that.
Now, next up is the president and CEO of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Mr. Fadi Chehade.
Mr. Chehade, thank you very much for rearranging your
schedule to be here before this subcommittee. I think you can
tell there is a lot of interest in what is being proposed.
So the microphone is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF FADI CHEHADE
Mr. Chehade. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
Members of the subcommittee. It is truly a pleasure for me to
be standing before you today to testify.
I was 18 when I came to this country alone, escaping an
oppressive regime, and I came with one thing in my hand,
because I had no money and I didn't speak English. I came with
the belief in this open system, in this system that includes
everyone, in a system that is truly bottom-up. My first boss at
AT&T, I, of course, was addressing him as Mr. Green, and he
kept saying, no, just call me Bob.
I wrote a long letter to my parents about this. This only
happens here, and it is these same values of openness, of
inclusivity, of belief in the bottom-up, that it is from there
that the best ideas come. It is that belief that makes me stand
in front of you today. I am here because of that.
And it is these same values that--multi-stakeholder of
openness, inclusivity, bottom-up participation. It is a
phenomenal invention of America. It is even as phenomenal as
the Internet itself, that we bring everyone together to the
table to decide how we govern things together. It is remarkable
and it has also worked very well. That is what we should
remember. We have now a $4 trillion digital economy in the G-20
countries. This is all because of people, some of them in this
room that I want to recognize, my own Chairman, Dr. Crocker,
who, as kids in Van Nuys High School, decided to give it to the
world, to build something that was distributed, powerful and
enabled everyone to participate equally. We governed the
Internet in the same way it works, and that should not change.
That inclusivity and that openness guarantees that no one
captures the system, in the same way the Internet is
architected, and I am an engineer, I can tell you that the
architecture works this way, and the governance should work
this way. No one should capture it. And I agree with President
Clinton that people will try to capture it, but they haven't.
For 15 years, ICANN has operated without government--one
government, or any government, capturing the decision-making.
Private sector users, civil society, engineers, academia, all
sit together and participate in the process of governing the
Internet. It has worked remarkably well. Let us keep it this
way.
And I want today to thank you personally because I was at
the WCIT when this body's resolution came to us as a strong
lightning rod, showing America's commitment to the multi-
stakeholder model. We trusted it then, we should continue
trusting it. It works. And we thank you for that. We thank you
for that support. The world thanks you for that support and I
do too.
NTIA's announcement on March 14 is truly the culmination of
15 years of progressive efforts by this Administration, by
prior Administrations, to hand the stewardship of the Internet
to the people who built it. We are not going to squander this
responsibility. This is an important one. We, along with so
many companies, welcomed that announcement. I think Assistant
Secretary Strickling mentioned the many companies that have
come out publicly, the many organizations from all walks of
life, businesses, civil society supporting that announcement.
They have looked at it and they have supported it, and we
support it as well.
This announcement shows the world America's values again.
Who else would do that? What nation would have the vision, the
magnanimity, the consistency to do what we are doing here. We
are handing the world back what we promised them we would.
Bottom-up, multi-stakeholder management of this great human
resource, this great economic resource.
I stand in front of you today with a firm commitment that
we will run and open transparent process. We will keep it calm
and wise. We have no rush. There is absolutely no rush. It is
more important to get it right than to rush it. That is my
commitment to you.
We started the process in Singapore, thousands of people
there, and at the heart of this proposal is the commitment for
security, stability of the Internet. That is our number one
job. We will not relent on that. We haven't for 15 years, we
are not about to start that. That is our commitment.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chehade follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your testimony.
Now for our final witness on this panel, we have Ambassador
David Gross, partner at Wiley Rein. Ambassador Gross, good to
have you back before our subcommittee. Thanks for your counsel.
Please go ahead with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GROSS
Mr. Gross. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Eshoo, members of the subcommittee. It is a great
pleasure to be back before you again today.
Mr. Chairman, if I may ask, I have a written testimony that
I would like to have made a part of the record, if that is----
Mr. Walden. Without objection.
Mr. Gross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am testifying today on behalf of the Internet Governance
Coalition, which is a group of global companies and
stakeholders that, as all of us are, are important players and
stakeholders in the future of the Internet.
Our primary focus, as you will see in our prepared
testimony and my statement today, is our firm belief that a
thriving Internet depends upon a governance structure that is
open, transparent and representative of all stakeholders.
I just returned yesterday from Dubai where I was a member
of the U.S. Delegation to the ITU's World Telecommunications
and Development Conference, part of the ITU's every-4-year
conference. I come with a message that you will find similar to
the messages that I have brought before you in the past, which
is that the world is watching, the world is watching what NTIA
announced back on March 14, the world is watching the U.S.
reaction to that announcement, and the world is watching what
here Congress does.
It is important that the world understand the bipartisan
and unanimous and uniform views of the American people, as
expressed by this Congress. As you know, your role at the World
Summit of the Information Society back in 2003, and most
importantly in 2005, the role you played in the run-up to the
WCIT just in 2012 was decisionally significant, the world
watches. The world watches carefully, and the world understands
when America acts in a united fashion.
We believe very strongly that the process that was begun by
NTIA back on March 14 is a good and important process. As has
been discussed by all of you, as well as my co-panelists, that
process is the beginning of a process, it is not an answer. The
answer will come from the Internet community as requested by
NTIA. It seems to me, based on my experience, that no one can
predict what the specifics of that will be today, but I take
great comfort, we take great comfort, in the four principles
that were announced by Assistant Secretary Strickling, and
importantly, as has been noted repeatedly, that NTIA, on behalf
of the U.S. Government, will not accept a proposal that
replaces NTIA's role with a government-led or intergovernmental
organization solution.
I had a boss when I was in the private sector who used to
say and remind all of us of a very important saying, promises
made, promises kept. That is what is expected of all of us.
That is what we will be working hard to ensure, that the
promises made by NTIA are promises kept by all of us, to ensure
that that standard, that test, that high bar that was
established in the March 14 statement is one that is met by
all, and, as my co-panelists have indicated, if for some
reason, to our great surprise, it cannot be met, we should
start over. It should not be rushed. It needs to meet that high
test. We are all in agreement on that.
The key going forward is to ensure the extraordinary
benefits of the Internet not only for the American people, but
for people around the world. It is truly one of the great
historic achievements of our generation. It is something to be
maintained, it is something to be encouraged, and our view is
that the process that has been begun is designed to do that.
The time will come in the future to discuss in detail what
substantive proposals are brought forward, and their nature and
whether or not they are in the public interest or not, but at
this stage, we are very comfortable, very, very comfortable,
that the process that has begun is an important one, it is a
real one, it is one that all of us who are optimistic believe
it will result in a better Internet, a better Internet
governance situation, and one that would include the fact that
promises made by the American people back beginning in 1998 are
promises kept by all of us.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gross follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Ambassador, and thanks to all of our
witnesses on this first panel. I appreciate your counsel and
your testimony.
So, Mr. Strickling, thank you again for being here. Thanks
for briefing us ahead of time before the announcement.
How will NTIA ultimately decide whether a proposed
transition plan for IANA developed by global stakeholders is
acceptable, and what factors will you use to determine if such
a proposal supports and enhances the multi-stakeholder process,
maintain security, stability, resilience, in the Internet
domain name system, and meets the needs and expectations of
global customers and partners of the IANA services, and
maintains the openness? So what--describe for us, what is that
process, and once you--what authority do you have to hand this
off and back away?
Mr. Strickling. Well, you have asked a number of questions
there. Let me take up the last one initially, which is that our
role in this historically derives from the decision made in the
late 1990s to privatize this, and at that time, NTIA was
directed to find an organization to perform those roles. So we
don't do this under any statutory mandate to perform this role.
It was done as part of the efforts of the government back in
the late 1990s to privatize. So other----
Mr. Walden. But you do have a contract with----
Mr. Strickling. Yes.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. ICANN----
Mr. Strickling. Yes.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. That is renewable for two, 2-year
additions, right?
Mr. Strickling. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. So the last
contract that we did with them in 2012 has an expiration date
of September 30, 2015, but we have within that contract the
ability to extend it for up to 2----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. Two-year terms beyond that. So
as Ambassador Gross said, we have plenty of time to work
through these issues. We have certainly teed-up the September
2015 as a date that the community might want to use as a
target. That is 18 months. Should give the community ample time
to work on this, but there is no cliff. If--at--when we reach
that time, we don't have a proposal presented to us.
Mr. Walden. But if you have that proposal presented to you,
and I want you to get to what the criteria would be, you would
go through, and I think you have highlighted some of that in
your statement, but is it in effect saying I am done with the
contract with ICANN?
Mr. Strickling. Yes. I think if we get to a point, and when
we get to the point where there has been an appropriate
transition plan presented that satisfies all the criteria, the
idea would be that that -- whatever is in that plan would then
be put into effect, and we would then be able to just allow our
contract with ICANN to expire.
Mr. Walden. And then is there ever any getting that
contractual relationship back to NTIA, or is that it for the
U.S. in terms of any contractual role with ICANN? Are they on
their own then?
Mr. Strickling. It depends, I think, on what comes back to
us in the transition plan, but we do not envision that we would
then come back and ever contract for the IANA functions at any
point in the future.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Strickling. Again, the whole point of this in the late
'90s was to identify someone who could take this over and----
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. Manage it. Again, it is----
Mr. Walden. No, I understand that.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. At that point in time, it was
viewed that this transition would have been complete by the
year 2000, as Congresswoman Eshoo pointed out. So some might
ask what has taken us so long----
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. But----
Mr. Walden. Now, in Mr. DelBianco's stress test scenarios
in his testimony, I assume you have had a chance to read
through them.
Mr. Strickling. I have.
Mr. Walden. He raises some questions that I think are valid
to raise. What happens if ICANN decides to reconstitute itself
overseas rather than California, out from under the laws, what
happens if they go their separate way and things--start doing
things that Mr. Chehade would never agree to, but he might be
gone someday. So----
Mr. Strickling. So we have a separate document that we
signed with ICANN called the Affirmation of Commitment.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Strickling. And I think we have been up here and have
testified on that in the past. We have not in any way
implicated that agreement in any of what we are proposing now.
It is under that document that ICANN has committed to keep its
headquarters in the State of California, or in--within the
United States.
Mr. Walden. But that can be canceled by either party,
correct?
Mr. Strickling. Yes, there is a----
Mr. Walden. With 120 days notice.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. Provision under which it can
be canceled, and you can certainly inquire of the CEO, his
intentions with that--in regard to that. Our understanding is
that they are quite comfortable maintaining a California
office, and intend to do so for the foreseeable future, but he
can answer----
Mr. Walden. Yes, and I am looking like beyond all of us,
you know, what happens----
Mr. Strickling. Right.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Twenty years from now.
Mr. Strickling. Let me come back to the----
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. Point you started with, which
were the questions that are raised by Mr. DelBianco we think
are important ones, and they really deal, I think, with the
symbolic nature of our relationship with the ICANN. I think
reflected in many of the comments we heard this morning, that
people, I think, assume we have much more control over this
than, in fact, we do, and it is largely symbolic, and I do
think it is important as we work through this transition to
focus not just on the technical issue of who is going to check
the accuracy of root zone file updates, but to also look at the
question of how does ICANN continue to perform in an
accountable and transparent way, the belief being that we
always were there, in effect, to backstop that----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. In some fashion. I think that
is a very important set of questions that need to be answered
in this process. We intend to participate vigorously in that
because we and other American business and civil society
interests have a stake in that as well----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. And that is part of the
process.
Mr. Walden. And I have overshot my time. Thank you very
much.
Now turn to the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Eshoo. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go to my
colleagues, and I can go last. So I don't know who was here
first. Mr. Doyle?
Mr. Doyle. We were both here together.
Ms. Eshoo. OK. Well, whomever--Mr. Doyle and then----
Mr. Walden. Are you asking them----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. And then----
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Or yielding?
Ms. Eshoo. Yes--no, I will yield my time.
Mr. Walden. You are passing. You are yielding or----
Ms. Eshoo. No, I will pass--whatever is the best, how is
that? I----
Mr. Walden. I would assume you want to just defer to Mr.
Doyle and not give up your time.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes, I will----
I will question last, how is that?
Mr. Walden. That is fine.
Ms. Eshoo. OK.
Mr. Walden. The Chair would now recognize Mr. Doyle for 5
minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And--wow, are we
getting that same--thank you for your testimony today. I think
just your testimony has gone a long way in clearing up, I
think, some of the misconceptions that have come from this
announcement.
Mr. Strickling, I--you know, when you talk about
stakeholders, tell us, who are the stakeholders? I mean name--
give us some of the names of the people in this multi-
stakeholder process we are talking about. Who are we really
talking about?
Mr. Strickling. So at the broadest level, it is anyone
interested in these issues, and, in fact, that is large
American companies as well as small and medium-sized----
Mr. Doyle. Like AT&T, Verizon----
Mr. Strickling. Yes.
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. Comcast----
Mr. Strickling. Yes, all of those.
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. Google, Facebook, Yahoo?
Mr. Strickling. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. Right? This is what--these are--this is what we
are talking about.
Mr. Strickling. Right.
Mr. Doyle. And who else is in this stakeholder process?
Mr. Strickling. The civil society organizations who are so
focused on Internet freedom and free flow of information are
part of this process. Again, you will hear from a
representative of them in the second panel, and they have
issued statements of support in that regard. Technical experts
have been at the core of this from the beginning. Folks like
Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, Steve Crocker, who is in the audience
today.
Mr. Doyle. Right. So what we are talking about really is an
evolution of transitioning this to the private sector, right? I
mean this is like a--I don't believe NTIA controls ICANN. I
think that is pretty clear, that you have an administerial
role, you don't control the process, but I would think my
colleagues over here would love the notion that the government
is transferring something over to the private sector----
Mr. Walden. Would the gentleman yield for just----
Mr. Doyle. Sure, I will yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. For clarification, because I think
also part of ICANN, there is a government influence as well,
right, on your board?
Mr. Strickling. Yes, there is a government----
Mr. Walden. But nobody controls ICANN.
Mr. Doyle. Right.
Mr. Walden. So, to the point, yes.
Mr. Doyle. So we don't--it is not like we are giving up
control of something. We don't control it. So I--that is the
point I wanted to make. And the stakeholders we are talking
about are private companies, and civil society and civil--
right? I mean that--I just think that needs to be said publicly
because you used that word stakeholders, and a lot of people
don't seem to understand what we are talking about.
Let me ask you something else, Mr. Strickling. When you
were proceeding with this announcement, did you consult with
other branches of the Federal Government, like the State
Department, the Department of Defense, intelligence agencies
and other agencies with a stake in U.S. national security and
foreign policy?
Mr. Strickling. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. And when you did that, did any of these branches
of government object to your announcement on the basis that it
would have a negative impact on U.S. foreign policy or national
security?
Mr. Strickling. No.
Mr. Doyle. So, Ambassador Gross, let me ask you. After the
United States transitions the IANA contract, what will be the
means for our government to participate in the multi-
stakeholder process?
Mr. Gross. Well, I think there are two pieces to answer to
that important question. One is, as has been indicated, the
U.S. Government has participated in the GAC, which is the
Government Advisory Committee, which is a committee of ICANN,
and based on the testimony and, of course, our understanding
that will continue as it has in the past. The second part
though I think has yet to be determined, that is, the question
is on the IANA functions themselves, and the relationship
between the U.S. Government and those functions, it has been
asked by NTIA of the Internet community, asking ICANN to be the
convener, for the specifics of what a proposal would look like.
I think it is premature for any of us to know the true answer
to your important question until we see what that proposal
actually looks like.
Mr. Doyle. And just one last question. How can Internet
governance bodies like ICANN and IGF and others preserve a free
and open expression on the Internet, and push back against some
of these governments that are restricting speech online by
blocking citizens' access to services like Wikipedia and
YouTube and Twitter and others? What can we do to push back
against that?
Mr. Gross. Well, first and foremost, we need to ensure that
ICANN continues as it has in the past to be committed, as Mr.
Chehade has indicated today, its commitment to making sure that
the Internet continues to be open? NTIA importantly said that
that is one of the primary criteria that it will be looking at
as it evaluates whatever proposal comes forward from the
Internet community. And also if I may suggest that the United
States Government, writ large, all branches of the Government,
need to continue to do what they have been doing for years now,
which is to speak loudly, speak clearly, and speak to this
issue on an ongoing basis, both with friends and with foes. It
is important to be consistent. I am pleased at how consistent
the U.S. Government has been. It should continue to be so.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is almost over.
Maybe, Mr. Strickling, do you want to react to that question
too in the last 10 seconds?
Mr. Strickling. I think the ultimate end of this has to be
to continue to build and support stakeholders throughout the
world, because what--the strongest push against these kinds of
restrictive policies in these countries is to have a citizenry
and a community in those countries that push back from within,
and ultimately that is what it is going to take to end these
policies.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Thank the gentleman.
We now turn to the vice chair of the subcommittee, , Mr.
Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
again, thanks very much to our witnesses for being here today.
It is very, very important to the folks in this room and across
the country.
Mr. Strickling, if I could just ask you a couple of
questions right off the bat. You know, Ohio is very fortunate
to have the Cleveland Clinic in our state, and it is, you know,
it is not only nationally known but worldwide renowned for what
it does. And Cleveland Clinics applied to operate a .med top
level domain name. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Strickling. I am.
Mr. Latta. OK. For the record, Cleveland Clinic's
application was rejected, and has since been filed--has filed a
request for reconsideration.
Mr. Strickling. That is correct.
Mr. Latta. OK, and we are concerned, you know, across the
state about the transparency and predictability of ICANN's
current process regarding the request for reconsideration, and
how this transition of NTIA's oversight responsibilities might
further impede the process. Are there any assurances that NTIA
can provide that the transition of ICANN's IANA functions will
not negatively impact the status of the current applicants'
filings being reviewed by ICANN?
Mr. Strickling. Right. It will have no impact on that.
Mr. Latta. So right now, so the folks that have got
applications out there, you can say there is no impact at all
then, is that correct?
Mr. Strickling. Not on the basis of this announcement, no.
Mr. Latta. OK, and then without the NTIA oversight, will
NTIA ensure that any multi-stakeholder proposal accepts include
rigorous transparency and openness standards for ICANN
processes going forward?
Mr. Strickling. Absolutely, and not just that, but we
expect to see that same level of transparency throughout the
process to develop a plan.
Mr. Latta. OK, thank you.
Mr. Chehade, if I could--and I hope I said that correctly,
are there current policies in place at ICANN to promote that
transparency and openness in its processes, and again, as you
have heard from the testimony this morning and also from your
attendance at the WCIT, you know, we had hearings last year
when we heard about different countries that wanted to go
beyond what was supposed to be proposed at that meeting, and so
you are looking at some of the countries looking at trying to
use the guise of cyber security and things like that to really
get at the Internet and the censorship of the Internet. You
know, how can we really make sure that we can tell our
constituents and people across the country that, you know, as
we go forward, that there is going to be that transparency and
openness in the process?
Mr. Chehade. I think the commitment of ICANN to
transparency is enshrined in our affirmations. We should live
by these, and I can assure you that since I have arrived, I
have put additional resources and effort to ensure that we
adhere to our transparency mechanisms, we continue to keep
every process we make open, we make sure it is inclusive, that
anyone can participate. We now translate everything we do in
all the U.N. languages, plus Portuguese. Ensure that people can
participate in all of our meetings remotely, even when they
can't be there. Transparency is at the center and the heart of
what we do.
Mr. Latta. If we can just follow up. You said that there
would be additional resources that you would be committing.
What are those additional resources?
Mr. Chehade. So these are people that are engaged in making
sure that all of these processes are recorded, are made
available openly, that people can participate when they need
to, and ensure that no one can say that we did some process
quietly, quickly or without full availability of participation
for everyone.
Mr. Latta. OK, thank you. And then also is there more that
ICANN can be doing to improve upon those policies and ensure
that the applicants for domain names are fully informed and
aware of the organization and structure of the ICANN processes?
Mr. Chehade. There is always more we can do, and since we
have arrived, this ICANN Administration has added systems for
managing the stakeholders' relations, we have more than tripled
now the size of the team that is supporting applicants. We have
made sure that that team is available globally, 24 hours a day,
5 days a week, so there is a series of things we have done to
actually enhance the service to the applicants and ensure that
they are well informed of what we are doing.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
Ranking Member.
I really am very much involved and interested in governance
because I think governance is key to everything, whether it is
a government, whether it is a non-profit organization, city
council or whatever, and I believe that, in particular, this is
a huge undertaking. And I know we have kind of marched through
this for 15 years, but I think now in particular, the Internet
is at a different place, obviously, and the participants in the
Internet are huge, it is global. So my sense is that, in the
governance model, it is unlike many others in the sense that,
as we move along giving more and more voices or stakeholders to
be addressed. So my sense is that I am glad that you are taking
your time because I think that is really very important,
because as more and more information goes forward, I think that
you will have more and more stakeholders.
I am really pleased that the Administration, Mr.
Strickling, has really committed to support no proposal that
really does not support a free and open Internet. I think that
is really very important as a principle moving forward. And I
do recall, since I was in the Clinton Administration, how this
process moved forward, and I don't think any of us really
envisioned quite where it would be today as far as even the
users of the Internet. However, having said that, it is really
huge in the sense of where we are today, and this is not about
creating headlines at all. It is real, and it is about ensuring
that the Internet governance transition moving forward is
responsible to Americans and the whole digital economy.
And so I want to know something about this in a sense
because, Mr. Strickling, do you think there are any other
processes or procedures that should be put in place to ensure
ICANN reviews the proposals by stakeholders in an open and
transparent way?
Mr. Strickling. We have not asked ICANN to be a reviewer of
proposals. We have asked them to convene the process by which
the community will develop a proposal to submit to us. We
expect that we will get a proposal that is--has the support of
the community and meets the criteria we have laid out for it.
So there is no process by which there is some judge over at
ICANN who is going to be a decision-maker on this, it is what
emerges from the community discussions in the form of a
community proposal to us.
Ms. Matsui. OK, well, thank you. And, Mr. Chehade, you were
very eloquent in your testimony. It really does indicate to us
why this Internet and ICANN is so important moving forward.
So, therefore, Mr. Chehade, can you commit to a--I mean we
are saying this over and over again, but I think it is really
important, an open and transparent process for the deliberation
of any transition proposal that will provide an opportunity for
notice and comment, not only to organize civil society and
well-financed stakeholders, but also now, you know, to the
general public, because we have participants that are worldwide
here.
Mr. Chehade. Absolutely. If we do not do that, the process
should not be accepted by NTIA, in our opinion. In other words,
we are expected to do this. We will do it. Without it, this
process is not legitimate.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Chehade. And not only are we going to do it within the
ICANN community which is growing and vast now globally, we will
reach out to other communities, we will hold public
consultations at the IETF, we will hold public consultations
with the regional Internet registries, we will hold public
consultations with the Internet society globally. We already
announced an extensive schedule of listening and bringing to
consensus all the communities towards a proposal that will be
acceptable to NTIA.
Ms. Matsui. Will this also include other communities like
academic communities and, generally speaking, a broader
community which generally isn't part of the so-called Internet
organizations?
Mr. Chehade. The answer is yes. In fact, I--we are in
discussions right now with the Harvard Berkman Center and the
NYU Governance Lab in New York to actually--along with multiple
universities around the world, start the process to have the
academic community participate in the future of where we are
heading here. So absolutely.
Ms. Matsui. And also too, I am wondering whether, you know,
think about governance, are you also consulting with people who
deal with governance, and what works and what doesn't work?
Now, this is a whole new, I think, level of governance, so to
speak, because we are dealing with something, in a sense, that
touches every sector of society, every sector of business,
every sector, and we don't know yet what is going to be
happening down the road. So I think it is important to
understand what could happen and may not happen, and----
Mr. Chehade. Yes. The answer is absolutely yes. We have to
be using the same innovation that led us to the Internet in the
process of designing that process.
Ms. Matsui. Yes.
Mr. Chehade. So we met--I met with Professor Joseph Nye, we
are meeting with Professor Beth Noveck at NYU, many, many
academics around the world who understand how to innovate and
governance to make them part of the process.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you very much.
Yield back.
Mr. Walden. Gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee,
Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will note
for the committee and those present that Mr. Rekeda, who worked
with us on the DOTCOM Act, walked back with me from Budget
Committee where I am splitting my time today so that he could
be a part of our hearing.
Mr. Strickling, first to you. Getting ready for the
hearing, I went back and looked at some of the WCIT-12
comments, Ambassador Verveer had made a quote, and I wanted to
ask you if you agree with this. He says, ``Discussions with
figures in various governments around the world, there is a
very significant reoccupation with respect to what we are
proposing with respect to broadband, and especially with
respect to Net neutrality. The proceeding is one that could be
employed by regimes that don't agree with our perspectives
about essentially avoiding regulation of the Internet, and
trying to be sure not to do anything to damage its dynamism and
its organic development. It could be employed as a pretext, he
is talking about Net neutrality, or as an excuse for
undertaking public policy activities that we would disagree
with pretty profoundly.''
You agree with that statement?
Mr. Strickling. I guess I neither agree nor disagree
because I don't know the context in which it was stated. I
think it is a statement from a few years ago. I can state that
it has not been put into the record by governments in the
fashion that it sounds like Ambassador Verveer feared at the
time.
Mrs. Blackburn. Well, do you think that the U.S. could set
a better example about Internet governance and a multi-
stakeholder approach to Internet government by stopping the
push for Net neutrality?
Mr. Strickling. I think the best example the United States
can set is to proceed with the proposal that we made on March
the 14th.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yesterday, Michael O'Rielly, who is one of
the FCC commissioners, issued this statement. At this pivotal
moment for Internet freedom, the FCC's Net neutrality
proceeding could severely contradict and underestimate the U.S.
Government's international position.
So how can the U.S. Government tell the world to accept a
multi-stakeholder model, while at the same time the FCC is
working with the White House's approval to impose greater
control of the Internet through Net neutrality?
Mr. Strickling. Your question?
Mrs. Blackburn. How can the U.S. Government tell the world
that they want them to accept a multi-stakeholder process when,
within our government, the FCC is pushing forward to implement
Net neutrality rules?
Mr. Strickling. Well, I think we are comparing apples and
oranges.
When we are talking about international Internet
governance, we are talking about governments acting
collectively----
Mrs. Blackburn. Sir, I think that a lot----
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. In this space----
Mrs. Blackburn [continuing]. Of innovators had conflated
the two, and I think that that is truly a problem with us, that
there has been a conflating, and we are not setting a good
example on that.
You referenced the affirmation document, .8 of that, which
would mean that the governance for the Internet--for ICANN
would stay domiciled in the United States. Do you expect that
to hold?
Mr. Strickling. I do, but you have the CEO right next to
me----
Mrs. Blackburn. And I plan----
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. You might ask him directly.
Mrs. Blackburn [continuing]. To ask him. I am going to go
directly to him with that question.
So, Mr. Chehade, to you, would you expect that to hold?
Mr. Chehade. I do. It has worked very well for us. It has
worked very well for the world, so I think before any change--
--
Mrs. Blackburn. What would keep it from changing?
Mr. Chehade [continuing]. We should be conscious of that.
Pardon?
Mrs. Blackburn. What would keep it from changing?
Mr. Chehade. To keep the model that is working to the
world, working well, by supporting the model that works. The
more we try to exert one government's influence on the model,
the more people will want to move it elsewhere. The more we
show them that we support the multi-stakeholder model, the more
they will say this works.
Mrs. Blackburn. Well, then--and I want to say I appreciate
the conversation that I have had with you, and I know that you
have a difficult task in front of you because there is such a
low level of trust with this Administration. And I would just
ask you, sir, when we look at a multi-stakeholder model that is
free from government control, what kind of message is this
Administration sending if the FCC continues to push forward
with regulation of the Internet and Net neutrality standards?
Mr. Chehade. Again, from my perspective, the best example I
can continue giving the world is that the U.S. Government is
united behind the multi-stakeholder model that enabled the
Internet and ICANN. And I will continue seeking your support
for that.
Mrs. Blackburn. Would your job be easier if the FCC stopped
being an activist agency and trying to force Net neutrality?
Mr. Chehade. I am making my job easier by clarifying to
people that what ICANN does have nothing to do with content. We
are just managing names and numbers, and we will do it well,
and I hope that the success of our work in this area spreads in
the world, not just in the U.S., but in the world.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
Yield back.
Mr. Walden. Gentlelady's time has expired.
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr.
Lujan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I know,
although we are here to talk on a specific topic, it seems that
the hearing has turned towards Net neutrality as well.
And as we talk about the basic structure associated with
the United States and the FCC, making sure that they are
inserting themselves into this conversation, I think lends to
what we are talking about today; keeping things open, making
sure that everyone can access, that--and I appreciate this from
our staff as well, Mr. Chairman, on the minority side, open
Internet rules are not government regulation of the Internet.
Net neutrality is about ensuring the broadband service
providers that control the onramps to the Internet don't become
the gatekeepers with the power to favor their own content,
troublesome applications or block consumers' access to
information. And I think that is an example to the rest of the
world, as we talked about this, not a hindrance to the rest of
the world. So I hope that we are able to find some agreement
there as well.
Mr. Chairman, my questions today center a bit around the
Affirmation of Commitments, to talk a little bit about that,
but I think that, you know, I agree with some of my colleagues
on this committee that we need to send a strong message to the
world that the Internet has thrived under a decentralized,
bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance model, and that we
should all commit ourselves to the free market, multi-
stakeholder Internet governance model that has worked so well
in the past. And those are quotes from 2012 and 2013 by one of
my colleagues as well, and I wholeheartedly agree with her, and
hope that we can find a way to work together in this area as
well, but in the area with the Affirmation of Commitments,
specifically from a response from NTIA that the affirmation is
an agreement that includes multi-stakeholder oversight
mechanisms to address accountability, transparency in ICANN's
decision-making, the security, stability and resiliency of the
Internet DNS, as well as promote competition, consumer trust
and consumer choice.
How do you envision the Affirmation of Commitments will
function after the management of the DNS is completely
privatized?
Mr. Strickling. So we haven't, in our announcement, done
anything to suggest it needed to change at all. We recognize
though that as the community starts to address the questions of
ICANN accountability, that the matters covered in the
affirmation which you just summarized may well come into that
discussion, and we certainly have no problem with that being
the case. In the meantime, we will continue to press for
increased accountability and transparency, although I will say,
from my own experience of having served on 2 of the
accountability and transparency review teams, the 2 that have
happened so far, ICANN is about the most accountable and
transparent organization I have dealt with. That is not to say
it can't be improved, and indeed, out of the last team we
presented I think more than a dozen recommendations of
additional steps ICANN can take. And that will always be the
case. We will always be able to find things they can do to
improve, but the progress that they have made over the last 4
years in this area has been quite substantive, and was part of
the factors leading us to make the announcement we made 2 weeks
ago, that it was now time to proceed with the final phase of
the privatization.
Mr. Lujan. I would just add that I hope that the
Affirmation of Commitments becomes and will always be a staple
associated with the transition, as well as the permanency
associated with this conversation.
And another question that I have is, what is Verisign's
role and responsibility? I know that when we go to Web sites,
you see the Verisign there, and it is to encourage trust to
individuals, but what exactly does that Verisign mean?
Mr. Strickling. So Verisign is a large company involved in
a number of different places in the Internet. So, for example,
most people know them through the registry from DOTCOM, which
is the largest of the top level domain names. With respect to
the IANA functions, the specific role they perform is that
after ICANN, through its policy-making process, sends to us a
change for the root zone file, we verify its accuracy, we pass
it on to Verisign who actually performs the updating of the 13
authoritative root zone servers with that information. So that
is the specific role they play with respect to IANA.
Mr. Lujan. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I--as my time runs
out, I think what that translates to is Verisign--or is saying
that this Web site is coming from where. It says that it is
coming from, but I hope that the committee would entertain a
conversation down the road with trust, with best practices,
that we as consumers can also use down the road, which is not a
topic for today, but one I think that we can explore to help
consumers down the road to make sure that when they are seeing
information, they know exactly what it means, as opposed to
seeing Verisign, as some constituents have reached out to me
and said, they completely trust the content, and those that are
behind what is being moved, as opposed to the DNS being tied to
where the IP protocol is coming from.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hearing today.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, and thanks for your input.
I think that is a very good point.
We will go now to the former chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me say to Mr. Chehade we rarely have
testimony that is inspirational, but yours was. I mean I wish
we had a copy of that to show school children what America is
all about. That really was moving to me.
So I will ask you the first question.
Have you ever heard of the phrase, if it is not broke,
don't fix it? Well, when I was listening to you, and I am at
this point neutral but suspicious of this proposal, it dawned
on me, everything you said, I agree with. If it is working,
what is so wrong with the current system that we want to change
it?
Mr. Chehade. Thank you, Congressman.
I do believe that there is a confusion as to what NTIA has
announced. What is working will not change. ICANN's work to
administer these functions is already with us, has been with
us, and we have managed it well for 15 years. That is not about
to change, and I think the stability of that is important. It
sends the right message to the world.
What is changing is the accountability mechanisms, really
the stewardship that the U.S. Government has kept over our
activity. Today, that is shared between the U.S. Government and
our community. In fact, it is not just the U.S. Government that
ensures we do what we say we need to do. We go through reviews
with the engineers at the IETF who meet me every quarter, check
on my performance. So there are other mechanisms already in
place to make sure we do what we do.
The role that the U.S. played progressively became smaller
over the years, and has now become largely symbolic. By letting
the multi-stakeholder model take that role and strengthen our
existing mechanisms to make sure we are accountable, we are
sending a message to the world that we trust the multi-
stakeholder model. They need to hear that. And today more than
ever, we need the world to hear that because other issues of
Internet governance are coming up in the world. We want them to
look at ICANN and say this is working, and the multi-
stakeholder model works.
Mr. Barton. It is a little bit of a stretch, but, after
World War II, we put U.S. troops in Japan, we put U.S. troops
in Germany. Seventy years later, sixty years later, the world
has changed but we still have some U.S. troops in Germany and
some U.S. troops in Japan. The Internet got started in the
United States, and to the credit of lots of people, we have
tried to decentralize and have the government step back and
assume more of an administerial or just a kind of an oversight
role, but what gives the world community faith in the Internet
is that they know they have the full faith and credit of the
U.S. Government behind it. And our ideals as established in the
Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are for
openness and transparency. If ICANN were to decide to move its
headquarters to North Korea, that might not hold true. So I
read your little booklet here, which is very informational. You
give the Department of Defense a run for their money on
acronyms, I will tell you that, but what people like me, I am a
free market guy, and I can intellectually understand what you
are attempting to do, but there is just at the back of my mind
there is that old Reagan phrase, trust but verify. And that is
what we don't want to give up. I have no problem with this
multi-stakeholder community, and I looked at all your
organizations and all that, but people like me are a little bit
afraid that if NTIA steps back, and we just get--so there is
not that real kind of FDIC guarantee, so to speak, to use a
banking analogy, that the next government that might want to
try to do something, the Chinese, the Russians, who knows, they
might not take the same attitude as the U.S. Government. That
is what people like me are concerned about.
And my last question, and my time has expired, is there any
country that is not a part of ICANN?
Mr. Chehade. Yes. We have 133 countries represented now,
over the attendance, beyond government representatives is now
covering almost all countries in the world.
And I want to say if I could, Mr. Barton, that I actually
100 percent agree with you that we must have the right belts
and suspenders on the proposal we give back to the U.S.
Government. And, frankly, if it doesn't, I will be the first
one to not submit that proposal.
Mr. Barton. OK. Well, that is my concern.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy
and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Barton. Thank you,
Mr. Chehade.
We will now turn to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Doyle, for 5 minutes. Mr. Doyle, you already went? I am sorry,
then I would be delighted to go to Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Maybe we should note that it is a first for a
Ranking Member--the last shall be first, how is that? That is a
great quote from scripture.
Well, I want to thank each one of you because I think that
this is really one of the best panels we have had before the
subcommittee. Each one of you has been outstanding. You are
rooted in very broad and deep experience, and we are very
grateful to you.
And, Mr. Chehade, I think that you make the case this
morning in such an elegant and eloquent way, that immigration
is the lifeblood of our nation. You wouldn't be before us if
that were not the case. And I wouldn't be here as a first
generation, none of us would, if that wasn't one of the great,
great values of our country. So thank you to each one of you
for your testimony.
It seems to me that we are all saying the same thing,
except there is kind of a hairball in this thing. I would think
that multi-stakeholder, all the companies and corporations, the
private sector that have weighed on a multi-stakeholder model,
would be so embraced by every single colleague here, but we
have fear of moving away from U.S. Government-perceived
control, to the control of some bad actor countries. Now, that
is a huge leapfrog when we go from NTIA to North Korea, but
really that is what the fear is on this side of the aisle. What
I am concerned about is, and Ambassador Gross underscored this,
is that everything we say, everything we do is being measured,
especially by the countries that do not agree with our
principles, our Democratic principles that are built into the
Internet.
So can someone give the assurance to this notion that,
regardless of how the Congress voted, 413 to zip, with all of
the principles that were in it, that somehow we are weakening
the path forward and that the bad guys, the bad actors in the
world, will be able to snatch this away from us and do to the
Internet what they do to their own people, because I really
think that is the central question that is here, because that
is the fear, and fear is--if you list human emotions, it is the
top one.
So who would like to go at that and perhaps develop some
comfort level here with my colleagues?
Mr. Strickling. So I will start, but I think this is a good
question for everyone on the panel.
So first off, I understand the concern, but it is not going
to happen, partly because one of our key conditions is we will
not accept a proposal that turns this over to a government-led
or intergovernmental organization, so it is off the table.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Strickling. Frankly, I am not sure we needed to say
that, and--because I don't think there was ever any prospect we
were going to get a proposal like that. The multi-stakeholder
community, again, formed by civil society organizations and
large, small, medium-sized corporations, would never have
brought a proposal like that back to us.
I am not sure what people see is the possible mechanism by
which an authoritarian regime would seize control of the domain
name system. I think it is an unlikely thing to occur, but one
way to prevent it from ever occurring is to make sure we have
strong multi-stakeholder groups in countries such as in the
developing world who would have to be part of any process to
try to----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes, but I just want to interrupt.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. Move U.N. control.
Ms. Eshoo. You know what happens around here though is that
someone or a group makes a statement and then it becomes a
fact. And more than anything else, I think that is what has
happened, and there are some outside of this institution that--
I am not going to go there because it is not worth it, but I
would just like both Mr. Chehade and Ambassador Gross to go at
this. I only have 19 seconds, and I would also like to ask
unanimous consent to place in the record statements of support
from really the father of the Internet, Vint Cerf, the former
FCC Commissioner, McDowell, the Internet Association, Cisco,
and a letter from 6 NGOs. So with what I have--well, I have----
Mr. Walden. Without objection----
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Chehade. Well, I will simply say that--to Mr.
Strickling, if he had not put that condition, I would have made
sure it is put.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Chehade. So this is an important condition, and I
understand Mr. Strickling's comment that it wouldn't have
happened, but it is good for the world to understand that this
is impossible to happen. It will not happen, and I believe we
will come back with a proposal that allays all these fears.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Gross. And the only thing I can add is we have a
commitment from people to my right that no proposal that will
allow that will go forward. We have a commitment from the U.S.
Government that no such proposal could be accepted. And on
behalf of our constituents, we will be watching.
Ms. Eshoo. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the witnesses. Just an outstanding panel.
Mr. Walden. Thank the gentlelady for her comments.
And now we will go to Mr. Shimkus from Illinois for 5
minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Strickling, as you know, I introduced the DOTCOM Act
last week with several of my colleagues as co-sponsors. Is NTIA
opposed to the Government Accountability Office providing to
Congress prior to a transition of IANA functions, are you
opposed to a Government Accountability Office review to ensure
what you have testified today is true?
Mr. Strickling. Well, Congressman, as I understand it, you
can request a GAO study----
Mr. Shimkus. Well, my question is----
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. When you----
Mr. Shimkus. My question is do you oppose us asking for a
Government Accountability Office review to ensure your
testimony today, that we have comfort in that?
Mr. Strickling. I see--it doesn't really matter what I
think. You can request that study.
Mr. Shimkus. No, I--you are here--I am--do you oppose or do
you say it is not a big deal, go ahead?
Mr. Strickling. I am in favor of full discussion of these
issues.
Mr. Shimkus. So you----
Mr. Strickling. I am happy to talk to you----
Mr. Shimkus. But you agree? So you support a Government
Accountability Office review, you--it could be helpful?
Mr. Strickling. I neither support nor oppose it. I am
simply telling you----
Mr. Shimkus. I wish Mr. Dingell was here.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. That----
Mr. Shimkus. If I was--if I am Mr. Dingell, yes or no,
would you support a Government Accountability review of this
transition?
Mr. Strickling. Again, I have no problem full airing in
discussion of these issues.
Mr. Shimkus. So I guess I am going to take that as a yes.
Mr. Chehade?
Mr. Chehade. I do not have a view on a particular----
Mr. Shimkus. You all made great promises.
Mr. Chehade. But having said that, I will commit to you, as
I did yesterday, that everything we were asked to do, we will
do in full transparency to you and to the world.
Mr. Shimkus. So a Government Accountability Office review
of this proposal should not be a challenge or a risk to you?
Mr. Chehade. I think reviews by anyone, and there will be
many around the world of our accountability in that process----
Mr. Shimkus. So I guess I can assume that as----
Mr. Chehade [continuing]. Making----
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. As a yes.
Mr. Chehade. Well, again, as I told you yesterday, ICANN is
a global organization.
Mr. Shimkus. No--I have only got 2 minutes--I have like 3
questions, and if I have time, I would be happy to. Ambassador
Gross.
Mr. Gross. I would like to associate myself with the prior
comments----
Mr. Shimkus. You know----
Mr. Gross [continuing]. But I will say that more
information is better.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank----
Mr. Gross. The process should be open, should be
transparent, more information is always helpful.
Mr. Shimkus. And we understand the GAO is the Government
Accountability Office. It is our arm, it is nonpartisan, it
looks, it evaluates to ensure that things that we are concerned
with, we have another look, which is what you all are saying. I
am actually kind of shocked at the frustration of this because
I think it would help bring more education, more transparency,
and maybe resolve some of the fear.
Ambassador Gross, what is to prevent a multi-stakeholder
model from then choosing to transition to a government-led ITU
model of Internet governance?
Mr. Gross. I think you have gone to the very core of what
will be required of any proposal going forward. The problem we
all have, and I include myself in this, is that at the moment
we are at the beginning of a process. To answer your question,
your important question, we have to know the answer at the end.
We don't know that. The question now becomes one for the
community, the Internet community, to come up with a creative,
important and belt-and-suspenders answers so that the question
you asked if fully answered.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and don't you think we have a right to
ask these questions?
Mr. Gross. I think----
Mr. Shimkus. And----
Mr. Gross [continuing]. Absolutely so.
Mr. Shimkus. And the government to do the investigation to
find out some of these answers?
Mr. Gross. I think that it is completely up to all of you--
--
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Mr. Gross [continuing]. To be able to figure out what your
comfort level is.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Mr. Chehade, I have been involved in eastern European
issues my whole career up here. What is the current Internet
country code for the Crimea region of Ukraine? Is it .RU or is
it .UA?
Mr. Chehade. Again, we follow what the U.N., in terms of
country codes, we follow the U.N. coding. So even when south
Sudan was created, we had to wait for the U.N. to issue the
actual code, and then that is when we----
Mr. Shimkus. So you don't know right now of any plans to
change that?
Mr. Chehade. No.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
I am going to end there. I just want to highlight to my
friends here on both sides, we take an oath to support and
defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. We take that seriously. I don't pledge to some
international organizations or governments. Due diligence by
the Legislative Branch of this Government is not harmful to
this process; in fact, I would argue that it could be very,
very helpful, and I appreciate your testimony in support of
that.
And I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back.
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
Terry, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, and I think everyone has the same
theme, and, in a way, it is kind of asking the same questions,
but I want to use a different terminology, at least.
We talk about you won't accept, Mr. Strickling, the
proposal and you wouldn't accept as the CEO the proposal. I
think a lot of our, not just trust but questions, are what
happens after the proposal is accepted.
I think all of us in this room have probably experienced
some bait and switch at some point in time, whether it was a
meaningful fraud, or things just, OK, you have this new
governance and it develops its own personality, and over time
they expand their abilities and what they can cover, or what
they determine provides certainty within the system. And so I
want to ask the whole panel, what happens when a scenario
occurs where they start expanding the power, for example,
saying, geez, if that Web site is going to use too much band
width, where--you have to put up so much money, or there has to
be some conditions tied to that. How do we prevent that from
occurring, and a new stakeholder group accepting that, when
there is no NTIA to verify, hey, that is not within your
jurisdiction, because it sounds like once they develop the new
governing body of ICANN, that there is no more check left. And,
frankly, and we have heard it, we don't trust Russia or China
when they are sitting on there, or Iran or now Turkey, to make
policy decisions. And I know we are only talking about domain
names, but they can sit there and say this is tied to a domain
name, because we are not going to issue you a domain name or a
root because. Mr. Strickling?
Mr. Strickling. Well, again, I think that this apprehends
what we do today. The policy-making in ICANN today is performed
by the multi-stakeholder community.
The United States participates in that process, not through
the IANA functions contract, but through our participation in
the Governmental Advisory Committee. That is not changing. We
are not going away. As I said in my opening statement, we will
remain vigorous advocates for a free and open Internet through
the Government Advisory Committee, and we will be joined in
that by a number of other likeminded governments participating
in that. So----
Mr. Terry. All right, help me work through that because
that is somewhat confusing to me. So now today, as I
understand, like if France, on a root file, ICANN approves it
but then it comes to you for just the double check
verification.
Mr. Strickling. In terms of----
Mr. Terry. There is no entity, once the proposal is
accepted, there is no entity then other than just the ICANN
Board. So if they make a mistake, there is no one there to
verify it now. Is that correct?
Mr. Strickling. Well, our role doesn't even necessarily
look back at the Board process. What we look at is kind of the
technical accuracy, and it is kind of a checklist to make sure
that what is being sent through followed all the appropriate
procedures to come through, and we verify its accuracy.
First off, the policies probably aren't going to be as
specific as your example in terms of some specific request----
Mr. Terry. But we don't know.
Mr. Strickling [continuing]. From France. What?
Mr. Terry. We don't know that.
Mr. Strickling. Well, but it would still be based on the
overall policy for top-level domains established by the
constituency organizations within ICANN. So if your example is
dealing with .FR, the country code, that is one supporting
organization at ICANN. If France, the government, is dealing
with generic top-level domain, that goes to a separate
supporting organization. So that is here the policy-making is
done, and in those sessions you have the people who are
involved in those different communities participating in
answering those questions. So that, today, happens through a
multi-stakeholder process, and then the Governmental Advisory
Committee sits separately to resolve public policy issues that
may emerge out of the policy-making that is happening in these
other organizations, and it is there that, through consensus
policies, the governments can speak to particular issues.
Mr. Terry. Anyone else?
Mr. Chehade. Well, I could add, Congressman, that, as part
of our proposal our community is going to be very alert to put
these belts and suspenders in that proposal to avert the
potential down the line of things going awry. We don't know
what this will look like, as Ambassador Gross said. We need to
get the community involved in designing that process, but you
heard today mention by one of the panelists on a panel coming
up that there are ideas for testing various models to test
this. I am sure our community that doesn't let me change the
brand of coffee in my cafeteria, I have thousands of people
watching everything we do, will be on top of that, and will
make sure that the proposal comes back with the right
guarantees as best we can that this thing does not go the wrong
way.
Mr. Terry. OK. Yield back.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back balance of his time.
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Scalise, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate you having
this hearing. Appreciate our panelists for being here as well.
This is an issue that I know a lot of us are real concerned
about as we look at all the questions, and potential
ramifications that are involved in the NTIU making any changes
to the ICANN process and the multi-stakeholder process that
works so well. I have been a strong supporter of an open and
free Internet, and especially free from governments that have
an interest in taxing, restricting, censoring the Internet and
the ability of its people to use it, and all the power that
people have been empowered with to do the things that they have
done because of it. So I know I support Congressman Shimkus'
bill that he is going to be bringing forward, the DOTCOM Act,
that puts some of those belts and suspenders that you are
talking about in place to slow this thing down and say let us
get a real clear picture of what we are looking at, because
there are a lot of unanswered questions when we look at the
ramifications of this. I don't find it often where I can quote
the Heritage Foundation and Bill Clinton in the same sentence,
both in support of the same thing, but just last week I think
you may have heard Bill Clinton express concerns about this, as
did the Heritage Foundation, and even the Washington Post, and
the concern was that giving up ICANN could ``open the door'' to
nations that don't value an open and free Internet. And just to
go one step further, this is an actual quote from former
President Clinton, ``A lot of people have been trying to take
this authority away from the U.S. for the sole purpose of
cracking down on Internet freedom, and limiting it and having
government protect their backsides instead of empowering their
people.'' These are serious concerns being raise by, again,
people that don't always see eye to eye, but share a lot of the
concerns that I and many of our colleagues have expressed.
So first, I would like each of the panelists to just real
briefly, if you can, touch on those concerns that are being
expressed by people that aren't always on the same page.
I guess we will start with you, Mr. Strickling.
Mr. Strickling. So I will refer back to my statement at the
opening, which is we won't let that happen, number one.
Mr. Scalise. What is an assurance of that? I mean it is
good to say we won't let that happen.
That is nice to hear it, but nobody knows what is going to
happen. You can't tell me what is going to happen.
Mr. Strickling. Well, but I am----
Mr. Scalise. How do you know you won't let it happen?
Mr. Strickling. I am saying that we will not accept a
proposal that has that as its outcome, period, end of story. So
it won't happen. Secondly, no one has yet explained to me the
mechanism by which any of these individual governments could
somehow seize control over the Internet as a whole.
Mr. Scalise. You really don't think that Russia----
Mr. Strickling. Explain----
Mr. Scalise. Look, Russia and China have made it very clear
what they want to do to suppress Internet freedom. They have
made it very clear.
Mr. Strickling. And they do it within their own country.
Mr. Scalise. And you don't think----
Mr. Strickling. There is nothing we can do to stop that.
Mr. Scalise [continuing]. That they are going to be
working--whatever rules you come up with, at the end of the
day, you all would come up with some sort of process if you are
going to transfer away, and I say if, capital I, capital F, if
you transferred away, because you would come up with some sort
of process. Do you really not think that Vladimir Putin, with
all the other things he is busy with right now, isn't going to
try to figure out some way to get control, it won't be through
the Russian government directly, necessarily, but China and
Russia have proven very resourceful at trying to figure out
what that process is so that they can manipulate it. And you
can do all the things you want to stop that from happening, but
at the end of the day it comes out to where those countries
have figured out a way, like they have figured out a lot of
other ways too, to do something subversive that goes against
all of the intentions that we have. You can't stop that.
Mr. Strickling. Well, Congressman, what is it that you
think they could do that they can't do today?
Mr. Scalise. Well, do you really think--look at Putin is
doing right now. I know the President just doesn't seem to take
this seriously what he is doing through eastern Europe. I mean
he is trying to rebuild--get the old band back together, get
the Soviet Union back together right now, before our very eyes.
I mean Secretary of State Kerry says, oh, the international
community won't accept this. They are doing it. They don't care
what the international community thinks. And they are talking
about invade--they are invading a country, you know, so I mean
what would they do to get control of the Internet if you threw
something out there? Again, I mean these are real concerns that
are being expressed. If the other two panelists can touch on
this as well.
Mr. Chehade. Thank you, Congressman.
Let me be clear that at ICANN, it is impossible for them
today to do so. They have been trying for 15 years.
Mr. Scalise. Exactly. Which is why----
Mr. Chehade. They have not.
Mr. Scalise [continuing]. Why it is working.
Mr. Chehade. But it is not because the U.S. actually has
the current stewardship role, it is because of the multi-
stakeholder model. It stops them. Now, where they will try to
do what you are suggesting is in the international,
intergovernmental organizations.
Mr. Scalise. Yes.
Mr. Chehade. They have been trying to do that there. So we
want to take away from them any argument that they can still go
to the U.N. and try to take over what ICANN does, by making
sure ICANN is free of one government control, to show them that
ICANN believes in the multi-stakeholder model, and this great
country that created that model trusts it.
Mr. Scalise. Thanks. And, Mr. Gross, real quick because I
know I am almost out of time. The Administration right now is
getting ready to participate in the 2014 Internet Governance
Forum in Istanbul, Turkey, a country that, as we speak, is
blocking its citizens from access to Twitter. Why are we even
participating in a sham like this?
Mr. Gross. Well, I think it is important to recognize that
the Internet Governance Forum is a non-decision-making, multi-
stakeholder process. It has no authority to do anything.
Mr. Scalise. Why would we validate----
Mr. Gross. Even----
Mr. Scalise. Why would we validate the things that they are
doing, that I would hope the Administration is opposed to, by
attending that conference?
Mr. Gross. I would take a different approach. I would
recommend taking a different approach, is that those who
believe in the free flow of information ought to attend and
speak loudly about the importance of free flow of information.
It is the people of Turkey, among other places, that need to
hear it and feel supported, not ignored. So it seems to me it
is an opportunity for us to be strong in our beliefs there, and
not shy away from it.
Mr. Scalise. Well, I would appreciate if you all would look
at the legislation that Mr. Shimkus is bringing forward because
I think it does go back to putting those protections in place
that we all ought to be concerned about with people that don't
have good intentions, that will try to figure out how to get
around this.
So thank you. Thank the panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5
minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here. And, Secretary Strickling, thanks. We worked on spectrum
together. I appreciate that.
And I would just like to say, Mr. Chehade, you just said
that they would try to work the international organizations. I
know this isn't really on the subject I wanted to go, but I
know when Mr. Shimkus asked about whether Ukraine was going to
be RU versus--.RU versus dot, whatever Ukraine, you said that
is up to--you would follow the U.N. on that. So is there a
little inconsistency there? I mean I just have a question. And
real quick because I really want to get to my----
Mr. Chehade. No, country codes in many ways are set by
standards--ISO standards that come out, so that we don't make
up countries, we follow the country code model that is in
place.
Mr. Guthrie. And Mr. Scalise quoted President Clinton and
the Heritage Foundation. Ms. Eshoo, my friend from California,
said the issue over here and she put over here on us is that
our concern was the countries could take over, countries we
don't want taking over the Internet take over use of the
Internet. And I understand Secretary Strickling said it can't
happen, and there is really not a mechanism for that to happen,
will not happen, will not accept it. I know that you had a
great presentation, Mr. Chehade, on American values, American
exceptionalism, as I would say, and so when we go into these
negotiations, we always want everybody to say we want to do
this because America--this is what America does, we create
multi--but not every other country does that.
And so I will get to my question. You said there is really
no mechanism, Mr. Strickling, for that to happen. You say we
won't accept, so make it what Mr. Shimkus asked but in this
way, you say we won't accept any plan from Mr. Chehade or any
group that is not accountable and transparent. So what
parameters or what will you be looking for in terms of
accountability and transparency? And I think Mr. Gross kind of
answered that in saying, well, we don't even know what it is
because they haven't developed it yet, but we need to go in, at
least, knowing what we know and knowing what we are looking
for. And what would you be looking for in an accountable and
transparent program?
Mr. Strickling. We need to see, and again, ICANN has made
great strides in this over the last several years, the fact
that the multi-stakeholder community feels that the decisions
that they are making, the policies that they are developing,
are being executed as they have directed them. And so we look
to how ICANN actually performs in that respect, we look at what
the mechanisms are that are in place to ensure that ICANN
performs in that fashion. And again, this has been the subject
of 2 accountability and transparency review teams that I have
personally participated on in 2010 and 2013, and we will
continue to push for those sorts of improvements throughout the
next period of time while this plan is being put together, and
beyond, because as I said earlier, the organization can always
find ways to improve in that regard.
Mr. Guthrie. But when you look for something transparent,
is there something specific going in that you are--I want to
see that they are able to allow us to have annual public
audits, they--or what--or, Mr. Chehade, what would you offer up
as these are going to show that the ICANN organization that you
chair would be transparent in a way that is a solid plan to
know not only that it can't happen now, but that concerns what
happens when we are all gone, to get to Mr. Shimkus' model,
the--I think Mr. Yeltsin signed the Budapest Memorandum. Well,
Putin didn't get the memorandum. And so how do we kind of
ensure this going further, and those are the--kind of the
concerns we have, and they are real concerns.
Mr. Chehade. Yes, and they are real concerns and they are
ones we take seriously. I want to assure you of that. We do not
belittle the possibility of us going into the wrong mode, so we
have to be alert, we have to be vigilant. We need all these
companies that supported this move to remain engaged, because
they have been for 15 years, and to watch what we do.
From my side, operationally, I need to make sure that every
part of this process is open, is transparent, is inclusive,
that we don't simply do it in a suburb, hiding in a room, and
people around the world can't see what is happening. They need
to participate. We have remote participation at these meetings,
multiple translation. Meaning inclusivity, openness and
transparency have to underpin this process or it is not
legitimate to this government or to anybody in the world. And
that is our commitment.
Mr. Guthrie. And let me just say in my last 20 seconds, so
when we are speaking and speaking from our role in the
government, we do know that we are exceptional, and Americans
expect freedom and opportunity and things that are forward, and
we also know that other governments don't have that, and it is
internal, their governments are doing it now. What we are doing
now is not preventing them from doing it. We understand that,
but that is what people understand, so we have got to be very
careful and very transparent, very accountable if this process
moves forward so people can be confident that we are going to
have the same opportunities that we have without relinquishing
our American exceptionalism, or our American ideals to other--
an international body.
Thanks. I have just ran out of time. I appreciate it.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
New Jersey.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, and good morning to the
distinguished panel.
I would like the panel to know that I have received a good
deal of correspondence on this issue, and certainly those in
the district I serve are concerned about the situation, and I
want to work to the greatest extent possible to allay the
concerns of the constituents whom I represent. And the district
is a well-educated district and certainly wants access to the
greatest extent possible across the globe.
I support Mr. Shimkus' legislation. To you, Secretary
Strickling, if the legislation were to pass both Houses of
Congress and reach the President, I know you have indicated,
sir, that you are neither for it nor against it, would you at
the least not oppose it if it were to reach the President's
desk?
Mr. Strickling. Well, Congressman, I think, as you know,
Administration positions on legislation are developed through a
process that hasn't happened yet on this bill, so I couldn't
speak to that.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Certainly, Mr. Shimkus doesn't need
me to lobby for his legislation, but I do support his
legislation, and I would hope that the Administration might
work in a cordial fashion with Mr. Shimkus as the situation
moves forward.
Mr. Strickling. So as I told the Congressman, and I will
repeat to you and to the other members, we are committed to
keeping this committee advised and informed of the process as
we work our way through it. We expect to be up here on a
regular basis, perhaps not with all of our friends and
neighbors, but we will do what we can to keep you advised and
informed of the process as it moves forward.
Mr. Lance. Thanks, Secretary. To that end, I do have a
question, and perhaps you have just answered it. You are
willing to advise Congress of the proposals submitted for the
transition and commit, I would hope, to delay action until you
have briefed Congress on the consequences of accepting any of
the proposals?
Mr. Strickling. We will keep you fully informed, yes, sir.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
To the other distinguished members of the panel, I want to
reiterate the concerns of my constituents, and I would like to
work in a fashion where we are effective to make sure that this
be as open a process as possible. And, obviously, it is the
unanimous view of members of this subcommittee, I would presume
of members of the House and Senate, that we want an open and
transparent process, recognizing that freedom across the globe
is essential as we move forward in this area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Latta [presiding]. Well, thanks very much. The
gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
And seeing no other members here to ask questions, I want
to thank, on behalf of Chairman Walden, our distinguished panel
for being here today. Appreciate it. And we are now on our
second panel. Thank you.
Well, thank you very much. We will convene the second panel
at this time. And the Chair would first like to recognize Steve
DelBianco, the Executive Director of NetChoice. And we
appreciate you being here, and the mic is yours for 5 minutes.
Thank you very much.
STATEMENTS OF STEVE DELBIANCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NETCHOICE;
AND CAROLINA ROSSINI, PROJECT DIRECTOR, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION
OPEN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE
STATEMENT OF STEVE DELBIANCO
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee.
If you look back across 16 years and three different
Administrations, I think you will see that our government has
protected ICANN and helped it to mature. You might also see
that the U.S. cannot retain that unique role forever, and you
might also admit that politics today are forcing a discussion
to begin on the transition.
You have heard complicated concepts and acronyms all
morning long, so how about a simply analogy? Think of a car and
a driver. So the top-level domain table, think of it as a car.
It was designed and built here in the U.S.A. in 1990, and the
license plate on this car reads I-A-N-A, IANA. In 1998, we
asked for a designated driver on this car, and we created ICANN
to fulfill that role. Then we handed the car keys to ICANN, and
giving them the authority to make policies while driving that
car, but we monitored what they did in the care of the car.
Then in 2009, we figured ICANN was mature enough to be given
some independence, and we did that under the Affirmation of
Commitments, but all along, the U.S. Government retained the
title to that car. The IANA car was kept by the U.S. That
became leverage for us to hold ICANN accountable for the
symbolic powers that Secretary Strickling mentioned earlier.
NTIA's announcement that you are debating today doesn't say
what happens to the title for IANA. It doesn't say it at all.
It is possible that the community proposal would have NTIA sign
the title over to ICANN, but that is not a foregone conclusion.
It might be that we sign the title over to an independent
multi-stakeholder entity that could then hold ICANN accountable
the way NTIA has for 16 years.
Now, NTIA's principles for the transition are great as far
as they go, but to hold ICANN accountable and to prevent
government capture after we sign over the title, we need more
than just principles. We have to ask how any proposed mechanism
would respond to potential scenarios or stress tests.
So back to the car-and-driver analogy. We can tell our
teenagers about the good principles of driving carefully in the
winter, but it is the stress tests to have them respond to
having the car spin sideways on a snow-covered road. In today's
testimony, I suggested several stress tests and used case
scenarios, and our task is to develop accountability mechanisms
that could answer to those tests at least as effectively as the
mechanism we have today, the NTIA oversight.
So I mentioned stress tests in there, like what if ICANN
lacked the financial or technical capability to actually
execute its obligations, who would rescue the root in that
case. I gave richer examples in there, like example scenarios
six and seven on Internet censorship. Today, censorship happens
at the edge of the Internet where governments can block a
domestic access to a Web site. As you know, Turkey is blocking
Twitter inside the country, even though the rest of the world
can see Twitter.com. But consider a stress test where
censorship migrates from the edge of the Internet to the core
of the Internet, which is the root table that we are talking
about here, that is used by the entire world. ICANN's
Government Advisory Committee, or GAC you heard today, they can
change their operating procedures at any time. They can change
from the consensus they have today to majority voting, which is
what they are used to at the United Nations. There were only 61
governments who showed up at the ICANN Singapore meeting, so 31
governments would have been enough for a majority. So let us
say that those governments advise ICANN that the new
TLD.corrupt, the .corrupt top-level domain, must get government
permission for any domain that matches the name of a government
official. After all, top-level domains already need that kind
of permission for city and territory names in new top-level
domains, so it seems like a relatively easy matter for them to
approve a brand new policy on permission.
The question is what would ICANN's Board do in that stress
test. If the future Board felt very seriously threatened by the
ITU and U.N., as Ms. Rossini will warn you in a moment, then it
might not have the guts to reject that kind of advice coming
from governments. So how could our new mechanism resist that
pressure? It should be at least as strong as the present
arrangement where a government with First Amendment in its DNA
would reject censorship in the DNS.
So I will conclude by saying most of the questions you have
asked today probably can't be answered today. So we have to
continue the process of developing proposals, and then we can
ask how each of those proposals would answer the stress tests
and questions. We can design a new accountability mechanism for
ICANN, possibly with independent and external safeguards, and
above all, let us be realists about the risks as we head down
this road, but let us begin as optimists that we can arrive
safely.
And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DelBianco follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony today.
And the Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes Carolina Rossini,
Project Director of the Internet Governments and Human Rights
Program at the Open Technology Institute at the New America
Foundation. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF CAROLINA ROSSINI
Ms. Rossini. OK. Members of the subcommittee, sirs and
madams in the audience, I am very pleased to testify before you
today.
The views I share with you today are those of the Open
Technology Institute at New America Foundation, but are also of
Public Knowledge. Although I speak only for OTI and PK, I am
also a member of a broader U.S.-based coalition of public
interest nonprofits brought together to advocate for Internet
governance systems that preserves the open, free, generative
and global Internet, organizations that have a vested interest
in promoting the free flow of information online. This
coalition is guided by human rights principles, and evolves
based on processes that are democratic, inclusive, open,
transparent and consensus-based, what we often call multi-
stakeholder processes. We share concerns that in this
transition, the Internet must continue to be an open platform
for the free exercise of human rights online, and we believe
this move could help hinder government overreach in Internet
governance, which would have harmful implications for human
rights worldwide. This is a critical step in the history of the
global network of networks.
Three are my main key points today. First, we welcome the
Department of Commerce proposal transfer of oversight of key
Internet domain name function to the global multi-stakeholder
community which we are part of. This represents a fulfillment
of many years of U.S. promises to the private sector, technical
experts and international community at large. We have cleared
that the NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces its role
with government-led or any intergovernmental organizations
schemes, and we commend NTIA to not forego its contract with
ICANN if a set of four principles previously mentioned and
explained is not met by the final proposal.
A transition on this set of terms would be fully consistent
with prior bipartisan unanimous policy by the Congress that has
sought to preserve and advance the multi-stakeholder governance
model under which the Internet has thrived. Those resolutions
were an act of U.S. leadership, and I stress that,
international leadership, in the advance of the WCIT conference
a couple of years ago.
Second, we encourage the subcommittee to view the oversight
of the DNS system through the lens of human rights. Freedom of
expression and the spread of democratic ideals around the
globe. Yesterday resolution offered by members of the
subcommittee calling for Internet freedom in Turkey is a proof
that we are on the same page. And today, we call for that
vision to be spread and applied to all of the layers of the
Internet.
Third, we believe that if proposed transfers do not go
through, the--political outcomes can be disastrous. For
stalling the transferring of the IANA functions to the global
multi-stakeholder community could further empower critics who
favor a government--a governance model, a governmental or
intergovernmental model of Internet governance, whether
implemented through the ITU or some other government-dominated
no multi-stakeholder body. In this current international
context, the DOTCOM Act may actually place into the hands of
those who use the Internet as an instrument of political
control.
My final remarks. The pragmatic truth is that the United
States cannot afford to maintain the symbolic control
indefinitely. A change is going to come. The question is what
change and in what form. We at the OTI and PK supported by a
broad coalition of U.S. and international public interest
nonprofits welcome the Department of Commerce plans, and we
watch closely and engage deeply in all the venues of
engagement, ensuring that the transition meets, as we all hope,
the standards of inclusiveness, openness, transparency and
accountability. In the meantime, we welcome the subcommittee
interest in this complex issue, and look forward to working
with its members to ensure the security, stability, reliance
and freedom of the global Internet. As Ambassador Gross
mentioned, the world is watching.
Thank you so much for your time and for your trust.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rossini follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony
today. We appreciate it.
And I will start with my 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Rossini, you appear to be claiming in your testimony
that if the transfer does not occur, the near-term geopolitical
outcome will be a transfer of functions away to a specialized
agency of the United Nations, subject to political control. If
this is, in fact, the case, doesn't that inform us of the dire
necessity of making sure that the process that the
Administration is about to undertake is a sound one, and that
safeguards are in place to protect against that outcome after
the transition is complete?
Ms. Rossini. Yes, I agree with that statement.
Mr. Latta. OK----
Ms. Rossini. But I do believe----
Mr. Latta. I am sorry, go ahead.
Ms. Rossini. I do believe though that we have to understand
the timing, and if any actions--that transition can cause in
terms of the symbolic movement of U.S.
Mr. Latta. Did you want to make a comment on that, Mr.
DelBianco?
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The mechanism for what Ms. Rossini is talking about would
have been instructive on the previous panel; this notion that
the United Nations might adopt a resolution, indicating that it
has got an agency that should take over. In today's world,
since we do hold the title, we do hold control of the root, any
attempt to do that is a nonstarter in today's world. It is the
post-transition world where we no longer hold that title, that
the entities we charge with it have to be strong enough to
resist that.
So the mechanisms of takeover, I give you one with respect
to the governments changing the way they vote within ICANN,
within the institution of ICANN. Ms. Rossini has talked about
threats from without, outside of ICANN, and again, both cases
call for us to create stress tests that can resist that.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. DelBianco, if I could follow up with another question
then to you. If the NTIA role in overseeing the IANA contract
is administerial, minor and has no real impact on day-to-day
operations of ICANN or the Internet, as Mr. Chehade stated,
what impacts would this transition really have?
Mr. DelBianco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To call it symbolic, it does not mean that it doesn't
exist. Symbolic just means we have to ask another question
about what it means.
In 2010 after the Affirmation of Commitments was signed,
the then-chairman of ICANN told a group in Europe that he
viewed the Affirmation of Commitments as a temporary document
that he would like to terminate. So, frankly, it is the fact
that we hold the title, the fact that NTIA's supervision is
there, that keeps ICANN from leaving the Affirmation of
Commitments, it keeps ICANN honoring the obligations they have
under the Affirmation. And I am reassured when the president of
ICANN today says that we will live by the Affirmation, we won't
quit it because it is working well, and I agree, but he won't
be the president of ICANN forever. There is an ebb and flow
with powers and pressures in a geopolitical environment. The
question is what holds ICANN to live within the Affirmation?
That is a symbolic value. You could call it that, but it is
quite real and has an effect right now, because the Affirmation
of Commitments was cited by everyone on the previous panel as
the real constitution that keeps ICANN truly accountable and
transparent to the world.
Mr. Latta. OK, let me follow up with another question to
you then.
What role can the nonpartisan research entities like GAO
and CRS play in this process?
Mr. DelBianco. Mr. Chairman, a GAO review, similar to what
I saw in the Shimkus-Blackburn Bill, could explore what these
four principles mean, explore what the words multi-stakeholder
and open of the Internet, that would be very helpful to get an
explanation of flushing out those terms as we, the community,
design these processes. And a GAO might, or Congress might
also, help to devise these stress tests that I delineated in my
testimony. I only put eight of them in there. We may need a few
more. And as the stress tests are put together, the community
can then use those to figure out whether the proposals are
going to work.
I think Chairman Upton said--he characterized these Bills
as something of--in terms of hitting the brakes. I would
characterize it differently. It would be better if GAO helped
us to design a crash test for the vehicles that we have to
test, as opposed to hitting the brakes on the process.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Ms. Rossini, what role do you think that public interest
and civil society groups such as yours play in this transition,
and how can you encourage a good outcome in that transition
process?
Ms. Rossini. Since many years, Mr. Chairman, civil society
has engaged, actually, since the very first creation of ICANN,
members of the Berkman Center that then went on to public
interest organizations, helped form ICANN, helped inform its
bylaws. So historically, we are deeply involved. We are also
deeply involved to committees of representation that are driven
by consensus building--and we are also informed by the bylaws
when we participate on those. We can also inform decisions
through participation in IJET, which is non-decision-making,
but it is important for how to set the rules on how we are
talking about concepts and so on, and we can also engage in--
even in multilateral--informing the countries on those. So
there are many avenues for engagement, participating in a more
decisive decision at the end.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
And my time has expired, and I now recognize for 5 minutes
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony today. It seems that a lot of
my colleagues here that have expressed concern is that some
future Board of ICANN 20 years from now, or somewhere in the
future be, that would be influenced by some repressive
government to somehow restrict access to the Internet. And, you
know, I was reading an article here from Weekly Standard that
really questions really how powerful ICANN is, and I just want
to read from the statement. It says contrary to dark
speculations by various conservative commentators, ICANN can't
really facilitate Internet censorship in China and Iran to
please those governments. ICANN can't stop them from that doing
that now. Nor is there any plausible scenario in which ICANN
imposes censorship on U.S. Web sites. Actual Web sites operate
through 13 root servers, some still directly run by U.S.
Government agencies, some by U.S. universities, and some by
U.S. private companies. It would be no technical challenge for
them to bypass ICANN and coordinate amongst themselves.
Politically, it is really unimaginable that they would all bow
to Chinese pressure for censorship because ICANN told them to
do so.
How do you react to a statement like that? And you--I mean
if the root servers are controlled by mostly American
governments, private companies and universities, what can ICANN
really do to force them to somehow censor the Internet in the
United States?
Mr. DelBianco. What the root servers contain,
Representative, is a set of the top-level domains, the .com,
.net, .mil, .org., and 200 brand new ones that have just come
along, as well as the country code, and we are still having 800
or 1,100 more coming in the next year. Each of those new top-
level domains was approved by ICANN, and the ICANN Government
Advisory Committee, and we call it the GAC here, came up with a
disapproval of a few. For instance, they said that .Islam
should not go into the root. So that means it doesn't go into
the main root, and it doesn't go into any of those root
servers, wherever they are controlled. So the top-level domains
that are approved, that responsibility lies with ICANN, and
then ICANN hands it over and puts it in the root. And as I
mentioned earlier, that root--the U.S. Government has custody
of that through IANA, and that is what we are transitioning to
some other body.
So it--the censorship that we are speaking of is whether
labels, like the top-level domain of a government official's
name, .corrupt, would still be allowed to exist. And there are
pernicious ways in which to achieve that. One can attach rules,
and I mentioned in my testimony that the--ICANN makes the
rules, and today, you cannot light up Washington. any top-level
domain without the permission of that city, that country or
that territory name. So those are the kind of rules that allow
governments to expand their control of the labels that are used
for Web sites, and I know they do so in their own countries
today. The question is how do we prevent that, and we can, we
can prevent that, from sneaking its way into controlling the
root at the top level.
Mr. Doyle. But there is no way that ICANN has no power to
force any of these root servers to do what it says. I mean they
could easily just bypass ICANN and coordinate amongst
themselves. Is that not true?
Mr. DelBianco. That is an interesting proposal. That might
be one of the proposals that comes back. The root server
operators are an independent group of technology companies.
Mr. Doyle. Right.
Mr. DelBianco. They may well suggest a proposal for they
taking title to the root, as opposed to giving it to ICANN. We
will wait and see, but the questions you ask are hypotheticals
that might be answered by a proposal, and I think those
hypothetical questions are exactly what we need in terms of
stress tests.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Let me ask another--Mr. Shimkus'
legislation, I don't know whether the panelists have been
provided a copy of Mr. Shimkus' legislation to read it but one
of the concerns I have, I have no problems with the GAO doing a
study, I do have a problem with the fact that it delays the
process for a year, or it could delay the process for up to a
year, is written in it.
What impact do you think that would have if this process
could be delayed up to a year while the GAO conducts a study?
Ms. Rossini?
Ms. Rossini. Mr. DelBianco asked me to go first. So I think
that this year we see a couple of very important milestones in
this process. We have the--coming in Brazil end of this month,
and we also have the ITU coming later in November. So you are
going to have two very important meetings in this moment where
we are trying to define the principles of the Internet
governance ecosystem, and if that announcement, if that
symbolic announcement that actually has a lot of--is not made
clear, and is not a real commitment of U.S., we can have a very
difficult outcome, some very difficult outcomes from these
meetings. The ITU meeting coming out, you are going to have
them, the voices of those governments that are known democratic
governments, that can speak much loud than they would be able
to speak here or even in--which will be a multi-stakeholder
government. And we have civil society, we have a range of
actors acting from protestors in the street, to--strategy, to--
advisory. I am part, actually, of the Global Commission on
Internet Governance that was announced in the Web, so we have a
lot of ways to engage to be sure that the results of those
meetings are well received, and also in agreement with the open
Internet. So the announcement--we need your help to make those
meetings work for an open Internet. So----
Mr. Doyle. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your indulgence.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back. And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
following my friend from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chehade had said in his written testimony he mentioned
that the importance of not rushing this process. That is his
testimony. So I think it is important for us to get it right,
and I think we have got to have comfort with this, and I
understand the international push, but we have done numerous
things in this government rushing, and then being embarrassed
by the results of rushing through the process. So the
Government Accountability Office, as I said, is the Inspector
General for us. I think it is--really the least, we should at
least do is have another pair of eyes on this process,
answering a lot of the questions that Mr. DelBianco had
mentioned.
Ms. Rossini, thank you for coming. First two questions are
kind of part of your written testimony. In your testimony, you
say that my Bill, the DOTCOM Act, seeks to block the transition
in the name of human rights. Can you cite the part of the Bill
that says that?
Ms. Rossini. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. In your written testimony, you say that
the DOTCOM Act seeks to block the transition in the name of
human rights. Your--you say----
Ms. Rossini. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. This bill is really an antihuman
rights bill, I think.
Ms. Rossini. Well, thank you, Mr. Representative, first,
for reading my complete written testimony, and I think that is
not my understanding what I have written there.
My concern is that if we wait one year, if we block the
transition now and wait one year until we have a report, that
is the risk and that is the risk that we are going to have for
known democratic governments to actually make their voices even
louder, and manipulate the narrative both in--and in November.
Mr. Shimkus. And if I may, because I have another question
I want to follow up, so I appreciate that because that was kind
of maybe an answer I was expecting from the first panel, but,
in essence, they didn't give me that.
Ms. Rossini. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. They basically said we support, you know, we
support another look, transparency, good review, fortunately
for us I think they, in essence, endorse the bill. Because they
could have responded a different way, which----
Ms. Rossini. And one thing I would do--I am sorry.
Mr. Shimkus. No, go ahead. Go ahead.
Ms. Rossini. One thing that I actually would add to that is
that if U.S. had supported through bipartisan, unanimous
consensus, the resolutions that foster multi-stakeholder, this
statement, this report could come--has one stakeholder input
not to hold the process back. So you are going to have a voice.
U.S. has a strong voice.
Mr. Shimkus. But you understand that doing a review by the
Government Accountability Office would take some time. If we
believe--you heard the concerns out here, and I think some of
them are--as the Internet has changed over the decades so has
the world community. I think the people would credibly argue
that the world is a more dangerous place today, not a safer
place today.
Ms. Rossini. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. So, these aren't crazy things to ask and
review.
Let me turn to Mr. DelBianco to address that concern, and
the concern about another government look.
Mr. DelBianco. Congressman, the members of NetChoice are
concerned that we send the wrong signal by simply hitting the
brakes or having a delay, and yet we think you are sending the
right signal by asking questions about defining the terms and
the four principles. What does the term mean, multi-
stakeholder, meeting the needs and expectations, what does
openness mean, and more importantly, what are the risks to
those four principles, and the risk of government influence
associated with new proposals. So that is exactly how I believe
we can channel the kind of energy that you and Congresswoman
Blackburn have brought here, channel that energy into having
GAO begin now in articulating what they think definitions that
are appropriate for accountability, and the risks, because that
will allow us in the community who are designing proposals to
test those proposals against the risks that Congress and the
GAO have identified. Those should begin in parallel because we
started last week in Singapore to design multiple proposals,
and you wouldn't believe the email traffic that has already
gone on since we left Singapore. Thousands of email messages
with different groups, not all ICANN, different groups coming
up with proposals, in over 18 months plus potentially two 2-
year extensions, we will have the opportunity to narrow that
down to a short list of proposals. I would benefit from having
your work, the work of GAO or anybody in the U.S. Government in
articulating the risks we want to avoid.
Mr. Shimkus. And I would just end, Joe Barton stole the
phrase I was going to use from Ronald Reagan, trust but verify.
And all this is is a verification of what everybody says is
going to happen is actually going to happen.
Yield back my time.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, could I just add one brief thing
for the record----
Mr. Latta. Yes, it is----
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. It will take 3 seconds?
Mr. Latta. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
I just want to state for the record that I did not hear any
of the panelists in the first panel endorse Mr. Shimkus'
legislation.
Mr. Shimkus. And then----
Mr. Latta. Mr. Shimkus?
Mr. Shimkus. If I may? I would say I would hope my
colleague was at the first panel, and they definitely did not
oppose the Bill.
Mr. Doyle. OK, but they didn't endorse it either.
Mr. Shimkus. That is debatable.
Mr. Latta. OK, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
I want to thank the--on behalf of Chairman Walden for your
testimony today. We greatly appreciate you being here and
testifying before us today.
And seeing no other business come before the subcommittee
this afternoon, the committee will stand adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton
Last year, the House unanimously passed H.R. 1580 declaring
it the policy of the United States to preserve and advance the
multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet. While I may
have supported this measure, I have a number of questions
regarding the process of relinquishing the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) role
with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN).
I believe that transparency is imperative during this
process, and I am happy to be an original cosponsor of the
DOTCOM Act of 2014. This bill requires the GAO to release a
report on every proposal given to NTIA for consideration by
ICANN, and I strongly believe that Congress should have an
oversight role regarding this process. Because NTIA has clearly
indicated that it will not approve a proposal that does not
maintain the openness of the Internet and allow for the
governments of other countries to control the Internet, it is
my expectation that the Administration will adhere to their
promises. The last thing I want is for some other governmental
body in another country having a greater influence over how our
Internet works today.
With this said, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses and learning more about ICANN's vision of advancing
the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]