As Mr. Crovitz quoted me, to understand those quotes in context the hearing video and my full statement for the record (and that of the seven other witnesses) are available at http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=7E5AF16E-B1F8-45B8-803B-9E3... This is the oral statement I delivered to the Committee--- Oral Statement of Philip S. Corwin Counsel, Internet Commerce Association Before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Regarding "Stakeholder Perspectives on ICANN: The .Sucks Domain and Essential Steps to Guarantee Trust and Accountability in the Internet’s Operation" May 13, 2015 Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Nadler, Subcommittee members, I‘m Philip Corwin on behalf of the Internet Commerce Association -- a domain industry trade group and member of ICANN’s Business Constituency, which I represent on the GNSO Council. I commend the Subcommittee for this hearing. Congress has a legitimate interest in an IANA transition and enhanced ICANN accountability that proceed soundly and effectively. The stakes include the security and stability of the DNS, and Internet free expression and uncensored information. Two cliché’s are apropos today. The first is, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” The ICA consensus is that U.S. stewardship has been benign and beneficial, and that ICANN accountability should proceed on its own. But the second is, “You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.” The NTIA’s announcement raised global expectations. Hundreds of ICANN community members have already expended thousands of hours in designing transition and accountability measures. Therefore, Congress should not reflexively oppose the IANA transition -- but should exercise strong oversight in support of ICANN’s stakeholders. While enhanced ICANN accountability measures are overdue they will operate best only if ICANN’s Board and senior staff embrace a culture of accountability that assumes responsibility for the fallout of ICANN decisions and encompasses early consultation with the multistakeholder community that provides organizational legitimacy. We’re some distance from that culture. The road to the NTIA’s announcement led through Montevideo and Brasilia and was paved by ICANN’s misappropriation of the Snowden disclosures. The CEO’s travels were backed by a secret September 2013 Board Resolution. Those actions were not transparent or accountable and reflected no community consultation. ICANN’s community is on the right stewardship and accountability track. But a final package will not be ready by September 30th, much less the implementation of required pre-transition accountability measures. Therefore, NTIA should announce an IANA contract extension soon. The final package must set key community rights in tandem with ICANN accountabilities in its Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. Turning to .Sucks, ICANN’s request that the FTC and OCA determine its legality was an abdication of responsibility rather than its embrace. ICANN had more than a year to explore and take appropriate action under multiple contract options. There are other new TLD program issues. While the jury’s still out on ultimate success, the total number seems larger than market demand, and many TLDs are practically giving domains away which aids spammers and phishers. Major unresolved consumer protection and technical issues remain, as well as uncertainty about expending $60 million in auction fees. The rights protection measures are working well. But any review of domain dispute procedures should set standard contracts between ICANN and arbitration providers that ensure uniform administration. ICANN must take responsibility for fair adjudication of domain disputes. Finally, besides ensuring full satisfaction of NTIA’s principles, Congress should confirm that ICANN’s continued U.S. jurisdiction is accepted and not an “irritation” for those who would make ICANN a multilateral organization. You should also know that the transition does not mean ICANN assumption of technical operation of key Internet functions. ICANN lacks the technical capacity to do so, and is dependent on the experience and expertise of stakeholders for maintaining core functions. While the NTIA’s announcement requires stakeholders to address certain policies, there is no equivalent need to revamp DNS technical operations. Continued operational excellence will bolster the confidence of global users in the Internet’s stability, security and resilience. I hope my testimony has been helpful and would be happy to answer your questions. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:17 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: WSJ/Crovitz/Obama's bungled internet surrender Colleagues This is an opinion piece that published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. I thought it might be of interest. Paul Paul Rosenzweig Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com<mailto:Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com> +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Our travel blog: www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com<http://www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com/> My professional blog: www.paulrosenzweigesq.com<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Obama’s Bungled Internet Surrender The group the White House favors for online oversight is turning into an abusive monopolist. [http://s.wsj.net/img/renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif]<http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-bungled-internet-surrender-1431898743> By L. GORDON CROVITZ May 17, 2015 5:39 p.m. ET 68 COMMENTS<http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-bungled-internet-surrender-1431898743#liv...> President Obama’s plan to give up protection of the open Internet is wreaking havoc even though it will probably never be carried out. In anticipation of the end of U.S. stewardship, the organization the White House wants to give more power has become an abusive monopolist, refusing to be held accountable by the Internet’s stakeholders. The administration last year announced its intention to abandon the contract the Commerce Department has held since the beginning of the Web with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann. Congress used its power of the purse to block the move, which had been set for September this year. But the prospect of escaping U.S. oversight led Icann to deny accountability even for its core duty of keeping its monopoly over Web addresses working smoothly. The House Judiciary Committee last week held a hearing titled “Stakeholder Perspectives on Icann: The .Sucks Domain and Essential Steps to Guarantee Trust and Accountability in the Internet’s Operation.” The .sucks domain was one of hundreds of new top-level domains Icann added beyond the original .com, .org and .gov. Icann, organized as a nonprofit, collects a fee each time it approves a new top-level domain and gets a cut of the registration charge for individual domain names. The corporation’s total take so far from the new domains is more than $300 million. The Intellectual Property Constituency, an Icann stakeholder group, calls the .sucks domain “predatory, exploitative and coercive.” Judiciary chairman Bob Goodlatte says trademark holders are “being shaken down”—compelled to buy new addresses defensively to prevent their use. Apple bought applestore.sucks. Gmail, Sam’s Club, Uber and Yahoo<http://quotes.wsj.com/YHOO>registered .sucks addresses, as did celebrities including Taylor Swiftand Kevin Spacey. The standard price: $2,499, versus $10 for unclaimed .com addresses. Mr. Goodlatte says the approval of .sucks “demonstrates the absurdity and futility of Icann’s own enforcement processes.” Instead of policing itself, Icann asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into whether the .sucks domain is abusive. Philip Corwin, a lawyer for the Internet Commerce Association, wrote on the CircleID website: “This is the equivalent of sending a message stating: ‘Dear Regulator: We have lit a fuse. Can you please tell us whether it is connected to a bomb?’ ” Mr. Corwin told lawmakers the U.S. has been a “useful and corrective restraint on Icann” and a “first line of defense against any attempt at multilateral takeover and conversion to a government-dominated organization,” so “should exercise strong oversight in support of Icann’s stakeholders” in any transition of the contract. The Internet ain’t broke, and Mr. Obama shouldn’t have tried to fix it. Icann and its stakeholders have spent the past year exhausting themselves on the impossible mission the White House set for them. They were tasked with finding some way to keep Icann operating with accountability but without U.S. oversight. Unsurprisingly, no one found a viable alternative. Mr. Obama may be uncomfortable with American exceptionalism, but the Internet since its launch has reflected U.S. values of free speech and open innovation. That is why China, Russia and other authoritarian regimes lust for the power to control it. Some stakeholders proposed a new institution to oversee Icann, while others wanted to build more accountability within Icann. Last week Icann chief Fadi Chehade told the French news agency AFP that China and Brazil agreed with Icann’s proposals to end U.S. oversight and let Icann oversee itself: “It is now up to the community to wrap them up, put them in a nice little box with a bow and ship them to Washington.” Even the Obama administration knows Mr. Chehade’s nonaccountability approach is a nonstarter. The .sucks saga shows that Icann won’t protect the Internet from unscrupulous business practices, never mind authoritarian regimes. The Commerce Department recently asked several stakeholder groups how far past the original September date it would take to propose and implement alternatives to U.S. protection. The Obama administration still acts as if it can give up the contract overseeing Icann, but it can’t. Congress banned any steps by Commerce to give up the contract before the date in September, when the agreement must be renewed for two more years. This means Mr. Obama’s successor will decide. The administration should tell Icann and the stakeholders to use the next two years to focus on creating accountability for Icann. If the White House persists in its wrongheaded idea to give up U.S. protection for the Internet, it should take the precaution of buying up ObamaInternetPlan.sucks. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5941 / Virus Database: 4342/9721 - Release Date: 05/08/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

Dear Paul Thank for pasting re whole article in your email It is a great help to all of us who don't have access to the WSJ's walled garden Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone

El may 19, 2015, a las 12:17, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com> escribió:

Colleagues

This is an opinion piece that published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. I thought it might be of interest.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Our travel blog: www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com My professional blog: www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key

Obama’s Bungled Internet Surrender The group the White House favors for online oversight is turning into an abusive monopolist.

By L. GORDON CROVITZ May 17, 2015 5:39 p.m. ET 68 COMMENTS President Obama’s plan to give up protection of the open Internet is wreaking havoc even though it will probably never be carried out. In anticipation of the end of U.S. stewardship, the organization the White House wants to give more power has become an abusive monopolist, refusing to be held accountable by the Internet’s stakeholders.

The administration last year announced its intention to abandon the contract the Commerce Department has held since the beginning of the Web with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann. Congress used its power of the purse to block the move, which had been set for September this year.

But the prospect of escaping U.S. oversight led Icann to deny accountability even for its core duty of keeping its monopoly over Web addresses working smoothly. The House Judiciary Committee last week held a hearing titled “Stakeholder Perspectives on Icann: The .Sucks Domain and Essential Steps to Guarantee Trust and Accountability in the Internet’s Operation.”

The .sucks domain was one of hundreds of new top-level domains Icann added beyond the original .com, .org and .gov. Icann, organized as a nonprofit, collects a fee each time it approves a new top-level domain and gets a cut of the registration charge for individual domain names. The corporation’s total take so far from the new domains is more than $300 million.

The Intellectual Property Constituency, an Icann stakeholder group, calls the .sucks domain “predatory, exploitative and coercive.” Judiciary chairman Bob Goodlatte says trademark holders are “being shaken down”—compelled to buy new addresses defensively to prevent their use.

Apple bought applestore.sucks. Gmail, Sam’s Club, Uber and Yahooregistered .sucks addresses, as did celebrities including Taylor Swiftand Kevin Spacey. The standard price: $2,499, versus $10 for unclaimed .com addresses. Mr. Goodlatte says the approval of .sucks “demonstrates the absurdity and futility of Icann’s own enforcement processes.” Instead of policing itself, Icann asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into whether the .sucks domain is abusive. Philip Corwin, a lawyer for the Internet Commerce Association, wrote on the CircleID website: “This is the equivalent of sending a message stating: ‘Dear Regulator: We have lit a fuse. Can you please tell us whether it is connected to a bomb?’ ”

Mr. Corwin told lawmakers the U.S. has been a “useful and corrective restraint on Icann” and a “first line of defense against any attempt at multilateral takeover and conversion to a government-dominated organization,” so “should exercise strong oversight in support of Icann’s stakeholders” in any transition of the contract.

The Internet ain’t broke, and Mr. Obama shouldn’t have tried to fix it. Icann and its stakeholders have spent the past year exhausting themselves on the impossible mission the White House set for them. They were tasked with finding some way to keep Icann operating with accountability but without U.S. oversight. Unsurprisingly, no one found a viable alternative.

Mr. Obama may be uncomfortable with American exceptionalism, but the Internet since its launch has reflected U.S. values of free speech and open innovation. That is why China, Russia and other authoritarian regimes lust for the power to control it.

Some stakeholders proposed a new institution to oversee Icann, while others wanted to build more accountability within Icann.

Last week Icann chief Fadi Chehade told the French news agency AFP that China and Brazil agreed with Icann’s proposals to end U.S. oversight and let Icann oversee itself: “It is now up to the community to wrap them up, put them in a nice little box with a bow and ship them to Washington.”

Even the Obama administration knows Mr. Chehade’s nonaccountability approach is a nonstarter. The .sucks saga shows that Icann won’t protect the Internet from unscrupulous business practices, never mind authoritarian regimes.

The Commerce Department recently asked several stakeholder groups how far past the original September date it would take to propose and implement alternatives to U.S. protection. The Obama administration still acts as if it can give up the contract overseeing Icann, but it can’t. Congress banned any steps by Commerce to give up the contract before the date in September, when the agreement must be renewed for two more years. This means Mr. Obama’s successor will decide.

The administration should tell Icann and the stakeholders to use the next two years to focus on creating accountability for Icann. If the White House persists in its wrongheaded idea to give up U.S. protection for the Internet, it should take the precaution of buying up ObamaInternetPlan.sucks.

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community