- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

FILED: BC Comment on Initial PDP Report for IRTP Part D
by Steve DelBianco April 25, 2014

April 25, 2014

The BC filed the attached comments today, regarding the initial PDP report for IRTP Part D. Thanks to our drafters: Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, and Elisa Cooper. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 at 4:40 PM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: LAST CALL: BC comment on IRTP part D ICANN is soliciting comments on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D initial report (link<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.pdf>) (Part D concerns reporting, disputes, best practices, penalties, etc. ) On 9-April, we circulated draft comments prepared by Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, and Elisa Cooper. (attached) reply comments close 25-Apr, so please reply all with your comments before end of day 24-April. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: Policy calendar for 10-Apr-2014 BC member call Here's a Policy Calendar for the BC member call on 10-Apr-2014. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Cross-community WG on ICANN’s submission to NETMundial (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ccwg-ig-netmundial-08apr14-en.…>) (initial comment by 29-Apr) BC members in this WG are Marilyn Cade, Aparna Sridhar, David Fares, and Phil Corwin 2. Proposal for Policy Advisory Boards for Regulated Industries and Consumer-Trust-Sensitive New gTLDs (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pab-new-gtld-strings-21mar14-e…>) (initial comments close 16-Apr) ALAC approved this proposal to address perceived deficiencies in the Public Interest Commitment Specifications of some new TLD operators. 3. IDN Variant TLDs – Label generation rules (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/msr-03mar14-en.htm>) (reply comments close 22-Apr) 4. Mitigating risk of DNS namespace Collisions (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-collision-26feb14-en.htm>) (reply comments by 21-Apr) BC filed these<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20-%20Name%20Coll…> comments on ICANN’s proposal to mitigate collisions. Now let’s review and respond to the outside expert draft report (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/name-collision-mitigation-…>). Jim Baskin, Sarah Deutsch, and Marilyn Cade indicated some willingness to draft comments for BC. 5. Draft plan for WHOIS accuracy and reporting system (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-accuracy-reporting-11mar…>) (reply comments by 23-Apr) This plan will be used to generate an RFP for WHOIS accuracy reporting systems. 6. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D initial report (link<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.pdf>) (reply comments close 25-Apr) Part D concerns reporting, disputes, best practices, penalties, etc. Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, and Elisa Cooper drafted comments we should approve before 25-Apr deadline. (attachment 1) 7. ICANN future meetings strategy (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-strategy-25feb14-en.htm>) (reply comments by 25-Apr) Michelle Chaplow, Chris Chaplow, and Andrew Mack drafted BC comments (attachment 2). They are finalizing today, to account for Tim Chen’s perspective. BC posted these<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Comments%20on%20ICANN's%20proposal%20for%20consolidated%20meetings.pdf> comments in Nov-2012. 8. Issues report on IGO and INGO access to rights protection in UDRP and URS (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en…>) (initial comments by 14-Apr) BC comments on IGO/INGO from Nov-2013 (Link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00021.html>) 9. ICANN Strategy Panels (comments close 30-Apr) In Durban, the ICANN CEO appointed experts to 4 strategy panels to make recommendations. Steve and Marilyn will provide template language about the top-down process and status of these Strategy Panel reports. The 4 panels: Strategy Panel on Identifier Technology Innovation (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/identifier-tech…>). Elsia Cooper volunteered to draft comments. Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance’ Ecosystem (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecos…>). Marilyn, Aparana, Steve, and Angie volunteered to draft comments. Strategy Panel on ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholde…>). Gabi Szlak, Chris Chaplow, and Andrew Mack circulated a draft on 25-Mar. (attachment 3 ) Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/public-responsi…>). This panel’s membership, transcripts, videos, webinars, etc. are here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/public-responsi…>. Jimson circulated a draft on 25-Mar. (attachment 4 ) Note: BC members are encouraged to do their own comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Gabi Szlak, Councilors. Next Council meeting is 10-Apr-2014 at 14:00 UTC. (Agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-10apr14-en.htm>) Item 4: Discussion of Spec 13 for new gTLD registry agreement, to determine whether NGPC resolution is consistent with 2007 GNSO principles on new gTLDs. Several BC members participated in email dialog on this question last week, with nearly all agreeing that Spec 13 is consistent with GSNO principles. Item 5: Discussion of internet governance issues Item 6: Submission of Council input on Strategy Panels and Future Meetings Strategy --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison Election for GNSO representative to the ICANN Board. --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) Call for Public Input: ICANN’s Draft Proposal of the Principles, Mechanisms, and Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a…>) (comments close 8-May) This document includes a very tight scoping of the transition proposal: "To ensure a clear understanding of the specific issues for which a proposal is sought, a document describing the scope of the document (and what is not in scope): (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr…>)” This scoping document excludes the external accountability that NTIA provides through its authority to award the IANA contract to an entity other than ICANN. As Larry Strickling told the CSG in Singapore: I do think that there really are two sets of issues here that are teed up by our announcement. One is the very specific one of how do the INA functions work and defining the US role in that, and I do think personally although we would never dictate this, that it might make sense to have that specific question answered by people largely out of the customer base of INA, because they’re the ones that at the end of the day have to be satisfied with this. That’s not our decision. That’s the community decision, so that might make sense, but there’s also the other issue that’s clearly been teed up by this, and everyone recognizes it, and many of you have spoken eloquently about this since we got here on Friday, and that’s the symbolic role that we’ve played, whether it’s providing confidence to the community that these systems are going to work right, if the extent that people think that we were able to discipline ICANN by virtue of having - I know that’s Steve’s made that point quite directly throughout the weekend. And so that’s an important topic for the community to work through as well, and that was I think teed up in the second session yesterday. From our perspective we think the issues are interrelated. We certainly think it’s appropriate for the community to take on both issues. I think all we would like to see is that it be organized as efficiently as possible so that we get a good outcome at the end, and that we get a consensus outcome that the community can buy into.

1 0

[icannlabs] Impending Web Site Transition
by Chris Chaplow April 16, 2014

April 16, 2014

FYI From: icannlabs-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:icannlabs-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Gift Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:34 PM To: icannlabs(a)icann.org Subject: [icannlabs] Impending Web Site Transition Over the past few months we have been working together to create a new website that better meets ICANN's needs. I'm pleased to report that it's ready for launch and that the transition to the new site will begin shortly. I wanted you to know what this plan entails. Beginning this Wednesday, April 16th <x-apple-data-detectors://0> , a percentage of ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> users will be redirected to the new site where they will be greeted with a banner explaining the transition, with the option to return to the old site. Over the next two weeks, the number of redirected users will increase until everyone is sent straight to the new site. Both sites will remain in parallel during the transition so users can access the old site, if they wish. Once this process is complete and we are certain that everything is functioning as it should, the old site will be deprecated and moved behind the firewall, and new.icann.org <http://new.icann.org/> will become www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> . I can say with absolute truthfulness that we would not be here if it wasn't for this Digital Advisory Group. Your input, guidance, and active participation made all the difference and has allowed us to collectively deliver a far better experience that what we currently offer. But as I mentioned in Singapore, this is the beginning. It is my belief that a site such as ours is never done and it must be constantly improved and updated to meet the communities evolving needs. And I hope that the majority of you will remain with the group, or at the very least, drop in every once in awhile and help us along. So as soon as we complete this launch we'll restart the meetings and collectively pick the next project to begin. I've also attached an FAQ to help answer questions, but feel free to contact Laura Bengford or me for more information Thank you. Chris Gift ICANN +1.949.244.5033

1 0

BC Comment on Meeting Strategy Recommendations
by Steve DelBianco April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014

Attached are Business Constituency (BC) comments on Recommendations of the Meeting Strategy Working Group. These comments were approved in accord with our charter. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

RE: [Bc-private] FW: Call for volunteers: Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs
by Chris Chaplow April 11, 2014

April 11, 2014

Dear Glen, I volunteer to join the Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: bc-private-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Elisa Cooper Enviado el: jueves, 10 de abril de 2014 20:04 Para: bc-private(a)icann.org Asunto: [Bc-private] FW: Call for volunteers: Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs FYI From: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:59 AM To: liaison6c Subject: [liaison6c] Call for volunteers: Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs Dear All, Would you please make your membership aware of this call for volunteers. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Call for volunteers: Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization is looking for volunteers to participate in a new cross-community Working Group (CWG) on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (UCTN). This CWG has been charted jointly with the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and it is expected to review the current status of representations of country and territory names as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures and to provide advice on whether to develop a framework, applicable across all SOs and ACs and if so, provide advice to the content of such a framework. What this CWG will do The UCTN CWG has been <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf> charted to address three issues: 1. To review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures; 2. To provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs; and 3. Should such a framework be deemed feasible, to provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework. When tackling these issues, the UCTN CWG is advised to take into account the <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-final-08sep12-en.pdf> Final Report of the ccNSO Study Group on the Use of Names for Country and Territory. According to its <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf> Charter, the scope of this CWG is limited to: 1) representations of names of countries, territories and their subdivisions listed on or eligible to be listed on the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 code International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions, hereafter: Country and Territory names (note: other geographical indicators, such as regions, are excluded); 2) the use of Country and Territory names as Top Level Domains (note: the use of Country and Territory names at the second or other level is excluded). However, if issues become apparent to the Co-chairs of the CWG that are considered relevant, but outside the scope of the CWG, the Co-Chairs of the WG, after consulting the members of the WG, shall inform the Chairs of the participating SOs and ACs. How this team will work ICANN WGs use transparent, open processes. The operational aspects of this CWG will be further determined by the co-chairs at the start of the CWGs operations, but typically meetings are recorded, mailing lists are publicly archived and GNSO members are expected to submit Statements of Interest ( <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> SOI) in order to participate. The group may decide to collaborate using a public workspace for draft materials and all final work products and milestones will be documented. Please note that as a working group member you are expected to attend conference calls and to actively participate in online discussions. How to Join The CWG is open to anyone interested to join. If you are interested to participate, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) preferably by 18 April 2014 at the latest, to indicate your interest to join this Cross Community Working Group. Background The ccNSO Study group on the use of Names for Country and Territory published its Final Report in September 2013 (http://ccnso.icann.org/node/42227) The first of the two recommendations of the Study Group to the ccNSO Council was to establish a cross community working group to: · Further review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures; · Provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs; · And, should such a framework be deemed feasible, provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework. The ccNSO Council adopted the recommendations and, as the objective of the proposed Working Group is considered to be of common interest to the broader community, other Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others were invited to participate in the working group on equal footing, and should be preferably undertaken as a collaborative effort. To this end the ALAC, GNSO and GAC were invited by the ccNSO Council to participate in a Joint Working Group. The GNSO Council adopted the charter for the CWG at its meeting on 26 March 2014. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Geographic names policy in the Domain Name System up to the mid-2000s
by Chris Chaplow March 31, 2014

March 31, 2014

Members, I am pleased to say that I have just had a peer reviewed academic paper published in the Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy. http://telsoc.org/ajtde/2014-03-v2-n1 Title: Geographic names policy in the Domain Name System up to the mid-2000s Abstract: The history of the landmark UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) decision in 2006 on <andalucia.com>, related as a memoir by the key protagonist who developed and operated the <andalucia.com> website, shines light on an important legal precedent for the acceptance of non-governmental use of significant geographical names in the Internet Domain Name System. The narrative is supplemented by an overview of the development of geographical names policy in the domain name system from its inception through the development of ICANNs Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and how Panelists applied it to geographical name disputes including references to the first and second WIPO reports. The same editions also publishes a sister paper by Heather Forrest of the IPC which follows on and brings the subject to date. Title: Challenges for the developing Domain Name System Heather Ann Forrest Abstract: Geographic names have posed challenges for Internet domain name policy makers since the earliest days of the Domain Name System (or DNS, as it is most commonly known). As the DNS develops with the addition of hundreds of new top-level domains and the challenges posed by geographic domains are addressed only on an ad hoc basis, DNS policy on these names reduces coherency, thus reducing confidence in the DNS and its controlling authority, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The broad range of issues currently and foreseeably raised by the use of geographic names in the DNS means that all Internet stakeholders are affected, not simply those claiming rights or interests in such names. This article offers insight into why geographic domain names remain problematic more than two decades after these issues first arose, identifies trends in DNS policy respecting geographic names and highlights the impact on various Internet stakeholders of current policy and decisions. With best regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

2 1

FW: ICANN Week in DC
by Phil Corwin March 31, 2014

March 31, 2014

Great to see all of you who were in Singapore/hope you all made it home safe and sound. FYI--- http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Week_DC DC Trains Laser Focus on ICANN. IANA, and NTIA - ICA Counsel to Speak On U.S Role in Internet Governance The calm is over, and the storm may be about to begin. Congress is back from recess and not one but two Congressional Committees are about to hone in on the implications of the NTIA's March 14th announcement of its intention to surrender its IANA functions contract counterparty status with ICANN by September 2015. Meantime, an exhausting ICANN meeting has just concluded in Singapore, at which much more was learned about the import of that decision and the complexities of implementing it (more on that in a separate post-jetlag post). Everything ICANN-related, including the Internet governance status of business in general and domainers in particular, is up for grabs and at risk for at least the next eighteen months. This is ICANN week in Washington. Besides those two Hill hearings, two major think tanks are also holding ICANN-related programs. Here's the lineup: First, on Wednesday, April 2, the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet of the House Judiciary Committee will explore the question of "Should the Department of Commerce Relinquish Direct Oversight Over ICANN?<http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=027833A0-0028-42E2-A14B-B9…>" at 10 am Eastern Time. While the witness list is not yet available, the Subcommittee is likely to focus on whether NTIA has the legal power to make this decision absent Congressional authorization -- and the potential fallout for Internet free speech and trademark and copyright protection. The following day, the Communications and Telecommunications Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider "Ensuring the Security, Stability, Resilience, and Freedom of the Global Internet"<http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/ensuring-security-stability-resilie…> . This is the Subcommittee with direct NTIA oversight, and the hearing may be contentious. The star-studded witness list consists of: The Honorable Larry Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Administration National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The Honorable David A. Gross Partner Wiley Rein, LLP Mr. Fadi Chehadé President and CEO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Mr. Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice Ms. Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin American Resource Center Internet Governance and Human Rights Program New American Foundation Also on Thursday, the influential Information Technology and Innovation Foundation will hold a program on "Bully or Bodyguard? Assessing the Proper Role of the United States in Internet Governance<http://www.itif.org/events/bully-or-bodyguard-assessing-proper-role-united-…>". ICA's Counsel will be one of the presenters. The complete speaker's list is: Robert D. Atkinson President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Moderator Phil Corwin Founding Principal, Virtualaw LLC (and ICA Counsel) Steve DelBianco Executive Director, NetChoice Eli Dourado Research Fellow, Mercatus Center Finally, on Friday, the respected Hudson Institute will host "A Discussion with the Hon. Lawrence Strickling about the future of ICANN<http://www.hudson.org/events/1144-a-discussion-with-the-hon-lawrence-strick…>". Coming just after his Hill appearance, this should be a most interesting session. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, all these events will be webcast live so that you can be an eyewitness to history. 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2014.0.4354 / Virus Database: 3722/7271 - Release Date: 03/30/14

2 3

CircleID posts on IANA transition and ICANN accountability
by Steve DelBianco March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

Just wanted to share two posts I made from Singapore this week, on IANA transition and ICANN accountability A Programmer's Perspective on the IANA Transition<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140326_a_programmers_perspective_on_the_ian…> Earlier this week, I posted from Singapore on the challenges we face in designing the transition of IANA functions from the US government to the global multistakeholder community. Now, let's consider how a programmer would design new mechanisms to accomplish this transition. For starters, a programmer would need something more than high-level principles. Coding requires use cases for routine interaction and especially for cases where users don't follow the expected routine and where the real world intervenes with inconvenient problems. more»<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140326_a_programmers_perspective_on_the_ian…> The Path Forward: Accountability Through the IANA Transition<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140323_the_path_forward_accountability_thro…> It's clear that the US government is intent on dropping its legacy contractual role for the IANA functions. Whatever your views on the wisdom or timing of that decision, the challenge now is to ensure that the transition leaves ICANN in the best possible position to succeed. Arriving yesterday to the island nation of Singapore felt strangely appropriate. Over the past week I've been one of the lonely people in the ICANN community to express concern about the US government's decision. more»<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140323_the_path_forward_accountability_thro…> - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

1 0

FINAL: BC Statement on IANA transition
by Steve DelBianco March 25, 2014

March 25, 2014

Here is the statement we approved today in the BC meeting. Thanks to all for suggestions and quick replies. The ICANN Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) underscores the importance of the announcement by the U.S. Commerce Department to transition the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract to the global multistakeholder community. The BC commits to engage in the ICANN bottom-up, multistakeholder process to develop a consensus-based plan for the transition of IANA and appropriate accountability mechanisms. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Sharing NetChoice Op-Ed on NTIA Announcement
by Jimson Olufuye March 22, 2014

March 22, 2014

3 2

Sharing NetChoice Op-Ed on NTIA Announcement
by Steve DelBianco March 20, 2014

March 20, 2014

Just a little something to read as your trek or prep for ICANN Singapore. A Washington DC publication aimed at US Congressional audiences ran today in The Hill. (link<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/201079-rewriting-the-futu…> and below) (note: there’s nothing here for political partisans. This is about where we are and the work ahead of us) Rewriting the future of Internet governance Americans created, built, and advanced the Internet, while leading the effort to protect it from censorship or discriminatory taxes and regulation. But now the U.S. government is releasing a big part of its stewardship role, leaving it to others to chart a path that keeps the Internet secure, stable, and successful. Last week the Commerce Department announced that it would relinquish control of its contractual authority over the Internet’s global addressing system. The positive global response was immediate and vocal, signaling that the move might relieve some of the intense pressure from foreign governments demanding an end to the United States’ unique legacy role in Internet oversight. That pressure, which has existed for more than a decade, spiked following the Snowden revelations, despite the lack of any linkage between NSA surveillance and the technical operation of the Internet’s addressing system. By relinquishing its legacy ties, the administration may relieve a thorny diplomatic problem, but the effect this move will have on the Internet itself is less clear. Commerce has asked for a transition plan to move control of the Domain Name System into the hands of “the global multistakeholder community”, and it called upon ICANN to develop that plan. ICANN is the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, created by the Clinton Administration in 1998 to assume day-to-day functions and policymaking for Internet addresses. The Commerce Department had oversight over ICANN for the subsequent decade, conducting performance reviews and occasionally reassuring the world about U.S. stewardship. In 2005 when some nations hinted at shifting the U.S. role to the United Nations, Commerce “committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.” By 2009, ICANN had matured to the point that oversight could be relaxed in favor of an agreement with the Commerce Department, known as the Affirmation of Commitments. Under this document, the U.S. Government gave up its direct oversight in exchange for ICANN’s commitment to serve the global public interest, subject to regular reviews of its accountability and transparency, and the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. For all its worth, however, the Affirmation can be cancelled by ICANN with just a 120-day notice. But with or without the Affirmation in place, the U.S. Government has always retained the contractual authority to pull the plug on ICANN if it failed to live up to its obligations. In 2012, for example, Commerce Undersecretary Larry Strickling used his contractual authority to pressure ICANN to raise its operational standards for managing the root zone. Now, the Commerce Department is letting go of the plug, suggesting this kind of contract leverage is no longer needed and that ICANN has matured to the point that it needs no external authority. While the politics of this decision may make all the sense in the world, the process of transition and the methods that will replace U.S. oversight have yet to be developed. The government’s current contract with ICANN runs through September 2015, by which time the Commerce Department must approve the transition plan ICANN comes up with. Commerce announced a few conditions under which it will approve a transition proposal, and there is plenty of time for the Administration to raise the bar for ICANN. The Commerce Department should reject any transition plan that leaves ICANN accountable only to itself and to the world, since that’s like being accountable to nobody at all. If ICANN is no longer going to answer to the U.S. Government, it must answer to someone with the authority to correct the organization if it goes astray. Commerce has promised it would reject any transition plan that gives control to governments or intergovernmental bodies like the UN. But once ICANN has full control, Commerce won’t have the contractual leverage to prevent governments from capturing ICANN. Congress can also play a role, by asking how the Administration came to this decision at this time, and by advising the Commerce Department on how to hand-off control without dropping the ball on the Internet’s security and stability. But ultimately, it will fall to the private sector and civil society – through our participation in ICANN – to design mechanisms that pressure ICANN to be responsible and accountable. The “global multistakeholder community” may not be ready for the task that the Commerce Department has handed us. But ready or not, the future of the Internet may hinge on our success. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

1 0