U.S. House Subcommittee, IANA Transition Hearing, March 17th Video

      After the Chairman's opening, a recess occurs, the hearing resumes at 48:40 (10:59:11 AM)

The U.S. House Commerce and Energy Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing on the IANA stewardship transition, Thursday, March 17, 2016, at 10:15 a.m. EDT (time converter) in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.; the hearing is entitled “Privatizing the Internet Assigned Number Authority.”

UPDATE: Opening Statement by Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (highlighting added):


Committee Leaders Acknowledge Progress On Internet Transition Proposal | Energy and Commerce Committee: March 10, 2016 Press Release: WASHINGTON, DC – "House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), and Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) today acknowledged the multistakeholder community’s proposal to transition stewardship of the Internet Assigned Number Authority from the U.S. government to the Internet community. The committee has been actively engaged in the future of the Internet. “This transition proposal marks a major milestone in the history of the Internet. We thank the entire multistakeholder community for their hard work and attention to this important task,” said Upton, Walden, and Shimkus. "Now we in the U.S. government must do our work. We look forward to reviewing the proposal and to the thoughtful analysis from NTIA as we look to whether this proposal meets the U.S. government's requirements for the transition and the needs of the American people. This final step of removing U.S. government oversight of the IANA functions is irreversible and we must be sure the transition will not harm the Internet or the millions of Americans that rely on it. There are no do-overs. Once the U.S. relinquishes its role in IANA, that’s it, there’s no going back. We must get it right." On Thursday, March 17th, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a hearing on "Privatizing the Internet Assigned Number Authority” to begin consideration of the proposal. The subcommittee will hear from a cross-section of stakeholders that participated in the development of the proposal." (emphasis added)

Subcommittee Background memo:

Witnesses:

Dr. Alissa Cooper
Chair, IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
Witness Statement
Truth in Testimony and CV

Mr. Steve DelBianco
Executive Director, NetChoice
Witness Statement
Truth in Testimony and CV

The Honorable David A. Gross
Former U.S. Coordinator, International Communications and Informational Policy, Wiley Rein LLP
Witness Statement
Truth in Testimony and CV

Ms. Audrey Plonk
Director, Global Security and Internet Governance Policy, Intel Corporation
Witness Statement
Truth in Testimony and CV

Mr. Matthew Shears
Representative and Director, Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Project
Witness Statement
Truth in Testimony and CV

Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth
Vice President, Global Policy Development, Internet Society
Witness Statement
Truth in Testimony and CV

IANA Transition Timeline in Audrey Plonk prepared testimony

Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) has previously announced that the subcommittee will continue its oversight of the administration’s work to transition certain oversight functions of the Internet to "multi-stakeholder governance." “We will continue to exercise our oversight over the administration’s effort to transition its oversight of the Domain Name System to ensure that the Internet remains free and open for all users.” 

More information: https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings-and-votes and Communications and Technology Subcommittee. Twitter: @HouseCommerce | YouTube channel.

See also on DomainMondo.com:

• News Review: ICANN, IANA Transition Plan, NTIA, and U.S. Congress
• ICANN President & CEO Fadi Chehade's Last Letter to Dilma Rousseff
• How ICANN and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé Evade Accountability

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

State of the Net: Internet Governance, IANA Transition, EU Safe Harbor

International Perspectives of the State of Governance on the Internet (56 mins) with Larry Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, United States Department of Commerce, NTIA; and Bertrand de la Chapelle, Director, Internet & Jurisdiction Project. 

MODERATOR: Cheryl Miller, Director, International Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Verizon.

High Noon for the IANA Transition (63 mins) PANEL: Steve Crocker, Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors; Alissa Cooper, Distinguished Engineer, Cisco; Steve DelBianco, Executive Director, NetChoice; David Redl, Counsel, U.S House Committee on Energy and Commerce; Greg Shatan, Partner, Abelman Frayne & Schwab; Chris Wilson, Vice President, Government Affairs, 21st Century Fox. MODERATOR: Laura DeNardis American University

The Collapse of the EU Safe Harbor: Assessing the Damage and Exploring Solutions (59 mins) INTRODUCTION: Justin Antonipallai, Counselor to the Secretary with Delegated Duties of Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce; PANEL: Andrea Glorioso, Counselor, Delegation of the European Union to the U.S.; Bijan Madhani, Public Policy & Regulatory Counsel, Computer & Communications Industry Association; Meg Jones, Assistant Professor, Georgetown University; MODERATOR: Kelly A. DeMarchis, Counsel, Venable LLP.

See also: Europe’s Top Digital-Privacy Watchdog Zeros In on U.S. Tech Giants - The New York Times: ".... A number of digital-rights advocates, including Mr. Schrems, are also preparing new privacy cases if a data-transfer deal is not reached by Feb. 1. That will most likely cause more problems for American tech giants, pushing Ms. Falque-Pierrotin and her European counterparts to consider new investigations — and, eventually, fines. But her position on protecting personal data continues to appear unwavering. “Does the U.S. provide sufficient privacy guarantees?” she said. “Until now, the answer is no.”"

more info:

• The 12th Annual State of the Net Conference: January 25, 2016, at the Newseum’s Knight Conference Center, Washington, DC
• State of the Net - The largest Internet policy conference in the U.S.
• Domain: stateofthe.net
• @SOTN (twitter)

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IANA Trademarks and Domain Name, ICANN or IETF Trust?

ICANN video above: Alissa Cooper (IETF) - published on Jul 25, 2014 - Alissa Cooper discusses her representation of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) during the group’s first meeting in London, 17-18 July 2014.

Note: this is a continuation of yesterday's post: IANA Transition: IANA Trademark and Domain Name Controversy Erupts.

[Disclosure: this background information and analysis has been provided by the Editor of Domain Mondo, John Poole (hereinafter "John"), who was also an observer of the CWG-Stewardship (observers are called "participants" in the CWG-Stewardship, as they are allowed to have a "voice" in the proceedings, but no "vote" in the consensus decision-making).]

As noted yesterday, Alissa Cooper (hereinafter "Alissa"), ICG co-chair, sent an email to CWG-Stewardship Friday, in which the "ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC." This issue being the transfer of the IANA trademarks and domain name to the IETF Trust as proposed by the Numbers community (RIRs/CRISP). The IETF Trust, is not affiliated with ICANN, and according to its website, its sole beneficiary is the IETF, also known as the "the Protocols community," represented by Alissa (see video above). The IETF has agreed to have the IETF Trust be the transferee of the IANA trademarks and domain name (iana.org) which are owned/registered in the name of ICANN. The two other key players in this whole saga are Greg Shatan (hereinafter "Greg"), IP attorney and IPC President, and Professor Milton Mueller (hereinafter "Milton"), who is a member of the ICG but also participates or contributes to the Names, Numbers, Protocols, and CCWG-Accountability mail lists, and has been active in ICANN since the late 1990s.

Here are the most relevant links (dates are all calendar year 2015):

February 23: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name - Greg flagged the Numbers proposal to transfer the IANA trademarks as an issue to be addressed by the CWG-Stewardship on February 23, 2015, by way of his proposed Design Team G.

February 23: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [Internal-cg] Numbers community response to question from the ICG: via Alissa, Numbers community rationale for transferring the trademarks and domain name from ICANN to the IETF Trust.

March 1-2: [CWG-Stewardship] Design team list: Greg responded to John's objection to Design Team G, after which, John concurred with Greg's statement: "To my mind, it's actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co. model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN. A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models."  John: "... I will defer to your and Jonathan's and Lise's [CWG-Stewardship co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr] wise judgment on how to best proceed on this--perhaps even the formality of a design team can be dispensed with--it sounds like you need to move quickly "to slow the train down." If so, do whatever is necessary..." [note: soon thereafter John withdrew from any active participation in the CWG-Stewardship].

So what happened to Greg's Design Team G? Nothing it appears--the CWG-Stewardship Wiki page indicates:

June 10: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5: Bill Manning and Milton catch the "draft language" that Greg inserted into the CWG-Stewardship proposal, which is the same language referred to by Alissa in her email of June 19, 2015.

June 10-11:  [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5: Milton and Greg each express their respective positions which led to even more discussion by many people on the CWG-Stewardship mail list, including even John, who after reading the exchanges, contributed the historical context--[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5--to which Greg replied with "thanks," and Milton responded that the historical trademark/domain name record was "not relevant" to which John responded (also explaining the importance of this issue for domain name registrants, trademark holders, and the global multistakeholder community). Thereafter Greg responded to Milton which left the CWG-stewardship proposal with the draft language to which the ICG responded Friday through Alissa.

postscript: Jonathan Robinson's (co-chair of the CWG-Stewardship) posting on June 11, 2015, is interesting:

Bill [Manning],
Two key points from my perspective:
1. There is urgency to send the proposal out to the chartering organisations but that does not in any way imply a lack of recognition to deal with this trademarks issue.
2. Lise and I have previously had meetings with the CRISP chairs. We have also had meetings with the ICG chairs group. The purpose of the meetings was primarily to ensure continuous updates on progress and current issues. We touched on the trademarks issue in a meeting with the ICG chairs yesterday. Clearly, there is now some more work to be done.

Jonathan

Yes, there is clearly "some more work to be done"--that may be the understatement of the year!

Domain Mondo doesn't know how the SO/ACs are supposed to approve a CWG-Stewardship proposal that isn't yet finished. Welcome to the Land of ICANN!

Domain Mondo UPDATE: ICANN Board and CWG address IANA Trademarks and Domain Name


Follow @DomainMondo

IANA Transition: IANA Trademark and Domain Name Controversy Erupts

"What's in a name? 

That which we call a rose

By any other name 

would smell as sweet."

-- Juliet in Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

by William Shakespeare

 IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) meeting agenda, Friday, June 19, 2015, Buenos Aires

The IANA Stewardship Transition process, convened by ICANN pursuant to the NTIA's March, 2014, announcement, has involved three ICANN "communities"--Names (CWG-Stewardship), Numbers (RIRs a/k/a CRISP), and Protocols (IETF a/k/a IANAPLAN)-- each coming up with their own IANA Transition proposal and submitting it to the  IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) which will "deliver a proposal to the NTIA recommending a transition plan of NTIA’s stewardship of IANA functions to the Internet community, consistent with the key principles outlined in the NTIA March 14 announcement" according to the ICG website.

Pursuant to the ICG meeting June 18-19, 2015, in Buenos Aires (Friday agenda above), ICG co-chair Alissa Cooper, who is also a member of the IETF (Protocols) community, sent the following email to the CWG-Stewardship (emphasis added):

Alissa Cooper to cwg-stewardship:

Dear CWG,
The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text was not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus and is flagged as subject to further negotiations.

During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing an incompatibility between the three operational community proposals. Both the IETF and RIR communities have been using and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3,353 RFCs over several decades. The CWG’s proposal for ICANN to grant an exclusive license may not be compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term.

Second, the RIR community has specified in its proposal that the IANA trademark and domain name [2] should be transferred to an entity independent of any IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made compatible in this regard. After discussion these communities reported back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support such a decision. [3]

Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extend to the domain name as well.

The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. The ICG would like to request that in completing its proposal the CWG review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities, determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities, and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC.
Thank you,
Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG

[1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132
[2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition."
[3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html
[4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html

Initial analysis and  background note:

[Disclosure: information and analysis provided by the Editor of Domain Mondo, John Poole, who was also an observer of the CWG-Stewardship (observers are called "participants" in the CWG-Stewardship, as they are allowed to have a "voice" in the proceedings, but no "vote" in the consensus decision-making).]

Interestingly, the members of the ICG, and specifically, Co-Chair Cooper, who also attended CWG-Stewardship meetings and received all emails posted on the CWG-Stewardship mail list, failed to note that the RIR community's IANA trademark and domain name proposal to transfer the IANA trademarks and domain name to the IETF Trust, was first flagged as a problem by CWG-Stewardship member Greg Shatan, intellectual property attorney, and President of the ICANN IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency), on February 23, 2015. Domain Mondo's next post will provide further background information and analysis of this issue, why its resolution is important, not only for ICANN and its "communities," but also for domain name registrants, trademark holders, and the global multistakeholder community, also known as the global Internet community.

Domain Mondo UPDATE: ICANN Board and CWG address IANA Trademarks and Domain Name


Follow @DomainMondo