Wanted to forward this to the list in case some of you haven’t seen John Laprise’s note to the ISOC Internet Policy list… regards Robert
From: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> To: internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org Subject: [Internet Policy] The latest from the US congress about the IANA transition. Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 11:27:45 -0500
This is provided courtesy of Steven Aftergood's fantastic work at the FAS.
The Future of Internet Governance: Should the U.S. Relinquish Its Authority Over ICANN? Lennard G. Kruger Specialist in Science and Technology Policy Congressional Research Service (CRS) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf Summary Currently, the U.S. government retains limited authority over the Internet’s domain name system, primarily through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). By virtue of the IANA functions contract, the NTIA exerts a legacy authority and stewardship over ICANN, and arguably has more influence over ICANN and the domain name system (DNS) than other national governments. On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced the intention to transition its stewardship role and procedural authority over key Internet domain name functions to the global Internet multistakeholder community. To accomplish this transition, NTIA has asked ICANN to convene interested global Internet stakeholders to develop a transition proposal. NTIA has stated that it will not accept any transition proposal that would replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution. Currently, Internet stakeholders are engaged in a series of working groups to develop a transition proposal. Their goal is to submit a final proposal to NTIA by summer 2015. NTIA must approve the proposal in order for it to relinquish its authority over the IANA functions contract. While the IANA functions contract expires on September 30, 2015, NTIA has the flexibility to extend the contract for any period through September 2019. Concerns have risen in Congress over the proposed transition. Critics worry that relinquishing U.S. authority over Internet domain names may offer opportunities for either hostile foreign governments or intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations, to gain undue influence over the Internet. On the other hand, supporters argue that this transition completes the necessary evolution of Internet domain name governance towards the private sector, and will ultimately support and strengthen the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Legislation has been introduced in the 113th and 114th Congresses which would prevent, delay, or impose conditions or additional scrutiny on the transition. In the 113th Congress, a provision in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) provides that during FY2015, NTIA may not use any appropriated funds to relinquish its responsibility with respect to Internet domain name system functions. In the 114th Congress, H.R. 805 (the DOTCOM Act of 2015) would prohibit NTIA from relinquishing its authority over the Internet domain name system until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) submits a report to Congress examining the implications of the proposed transfer. The proposed transition could have a significant impact on the future of Internet governance. National governments are recognizing an increasing stake in ICANN and DNS policy decisions, especially in cases where Internet DNS policy intersects with national laws and interests related to issues such as intellectual property, cybersecurity, privacy, and Internet freedom. How ICANN and the Internet domain name system are ultimately governed may set an important precedent in future policy debates—both domestically and internationally—over how the Internet should be governed, and what role governments and intergovernmental organizations should play