Senate & House Chairmen's Letter to Attorney General & Commerce Sec.

Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), sent the following letter (embed below) on September 8, 2016,  to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, urging them to reconsider the IANA Stewardship Transition. Letter excerpts immediately below, followed by full letter embed. See also US Senator Cruz Attacks ICANN, Fadi Chehadé, IANA Transition (video) and ICANN Answers Questions About The IANA Stewardship Transition.

3 excerpts: Antitrust - Accountability - Jurisdiction

Letter (pdf) embed below:


feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IANA Transition Premature say Grassley & Goodlatte in Letter to NTIA

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte on Monday, June 27, 2016, issued a press release (further below) and their letter (embed below) to NTIA concerning the proposed IANA stewardship transition now scheduled to occur upon expiration of the current IANA functions contract on September 30, 2016. Some of the questions posed by Senator Grassley and Congressman Goodlatte:

• The transfer of government property without Congressional approval raises Constitutional issues and the prospect of illegality. The Government Accountability Office [GAO] is currently conducting a study to determine the United States Government’s property interest in the root zone file – or any other similar component of the Internet that was created and financed by the United States. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all Executive Branch agencies. Has NTIA requested OLC to analyze this issue concurrently with the GAO? If not, why?
• Without the proper analysis regarding the United States Government property interest, it is premature to conduct any transition. Will NTIA commit to postpone any transition in the absence of a determination by GAO and OLC relating to this property issue?
• Did NTIA inform other members of the DNS Interagency Working group of the transition related appropriations provision in the FY2106 Omnibus spending bill?
• Why did NTIA proceed in utilizing funds in furtherance of the transition in light of the clear prohibition created by the FY2016 Omnibus spending bill?
• ICANN’s revised bylaws make it clear that the Public Interest Commitments and the registry contracts that contain them are deemed within ICANN’s mission and not subject to a facial ultra vires challenge. However, some members of the multi-stakeholder community have expressed concern that the ICANN Board may not believe that mitigating certain types of DNS abuse, such as IP infringement, is within ICANN’s mandate. How will this proposal require ICANN’s commitment to maintaining and enforcing the Public Interest Commitments, now and in the future?
• Is NTIA opposed to Congress requiring an affirmative, up-or-down vote for the IANA functions transition to be completed? Why or why not?

Press Release June 27, 2016 (emphasis added): Grassley, Goodlatte: Too Many Unanswered Questions in Plan to Transfer of Internet Authority

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte today raised concerns about Obama Administration efforts to relinquish stewardship of key internet functions in light of unanswered legal, constitutional and human rights questions. Other concerns include whether such a transition would jeopardize free expression on the Internet or weaken certain intellectual property protections.

In a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the chairmen caution that the transition may violate the Constitution if it transfers government property to a private entity without congressional approval. The chairmen have sought clarification on whether the root zone file and similar components, which were created and financed by the U.S. government, constitute government property. They advise that transferring these components without congressional approval raises constitutional issues and the prospect of illegality.

“Despite NTIA’s intention of ending the United States government role, a number of important issues and concerns exist that indicate that this course is misguided or, at the very least, premature,” the chairmen said in the letter. “As we have stated previously, it is unfortunate that this proposal to eliminate the United States historical stewardship role over key internet management functions has been undertaken not because of technical considerations but for political ones.”

They raised concerns about a potential weakening of free expression and human rights protections by leaving terms such as “human rights” undefined and by increasing the authority of foreign governments, some of which have demonstrated a lack of commitment to human rights and an open internet. The chairmen also called into question the legality of the government’s continued work to pursue the transition, given provisions in recent government funding laws that prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used in furtherance of the transition, including proposal review and assessment.

The chairmen ask NTIA to respond to the questions raised in their letter and reiterate their commitment to ongoing oversight and examination of a potential transition of the internet authority. Full text of the letter follows [embedded below].

In the letter are a series of questions to which Senator Grassley and Congressman Goodlatte have requested a response from Larry Strickling, NTIA, no later than July 22, 2016:

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

US vs Apple, House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Encryption, Video

US House Committee on the Judiciary Hearing: The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy, Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. ET (US) time converter

US House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Encryption (press release): On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 1:00 p.m., the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy.” The House Judiciary Committee previously held member briefings on encryption, which included a briefing from technology companies and a classified briefing from the government.  As encryption has increasingly become much more widespread among consumers, there is an ongoing national debate about the positive and negative implications it poses for consumers’ security and privacy. Encryption is used to strengthen consumers’ privacy but it also has presented new challenges for law enforcement seeking to obtain information during the course of its criminal investigations. For example, following the December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, investigators recovered a cell phone belonging to one of the terrorists responsible for the attack. After the FBI was unable to unlock the phone and recover its contents, a federal judge recently ordered Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in obtaining access to the data” on the device. (emphasis added)

Witnesses for the hearing are:
Panel I
The Honorable James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (fbi.gov)
Comey Written Testimony.pdf (65.9 KBs)
Panel II
Mr. Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Apple, Inc. (apple.com)
Sewell Written Testimony.pdf (86.7 KBs)
Ms. Susan Landau, Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Landau Written Testimony.pdf (259.0 KBs)
Mr. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York County
Vance Written Testimony - updated.pdf (177.4 KBs)

Tweets about Apple, encryption
Tweets about Apple, encryption

Below is a statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) on this hearing.

“The widespread use of strong encryption has implications both for Americans’ privacy and security. As technology companies have made great strides to enhance the security of Americans’ personal and private information, law enforcement agencies face new challenges when attempting to access encrypted information. Americans have a right to strong privacy protections and Congress should fully examine the issue to be sure those are in place while finding ways to help law enforcement fight crime and keep us safe ... the House Judiciary Committee will continue its examination of encryption and the questions it raises for Americans and lawmakers. As we move forward, our goal is to find a solution that allows law enforcement to effectively enforce the law without harming the competitiveness of U.S. encryption providers or the privacy protections of U.S. citizens.”

This Committee hearing will take place in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building before the Full Committee and will be webcast [see video above].

See also on Domain Mondo: Apple vs US Government: Terrorism, Security, Privacy, Freedom, Liberty:"... The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge..." --Tim Cook, Apple CEO, Customer Letter

Background: "On Tuesday, Apple will face one of the biggest corporate challenges in its history, when it tells a US House of Representatives committee why it has refused to help law enforcement officers break into the iPhone of Syed Farook – one of the gunmen in the San Bernardino shooting in December that left 14 dead and 22 wounded. The technology giant will be represented by its top lawyer, Bruce Sewell; making the case against it will be FBI boss James Comey. Apple, the world’s most valuable private company, has come under fire from many in politics and law enforcement after refusing to comply with the 16 February court order..." --The Guardian.

• Apple's Motion to Vacate Brief and Supporting Declarations
• Apple - Press Info - Amicus Briefs in Support of Apple

See also: New York judge: FBI can't force Apple to unlock iPhones - Business Insider: On Monday, Federal Judge Orenstein ruled in Apple's favor in a case in New York. From the ruling: "I conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the government has failed to establish either that the AWA (All Writs Act) permits the relief it seeks or that, even if such an order is authorized, the discretionary factors I must consider weigh in favor of granting the motion.... As explained below, after reviewing the facts in the record and the parties' arguments, I conclude that none of those factors justifies imposing on Apple the obligation to assist the government's investigation against its will. I therefore deny the motion." --See Order below--


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IANA Transition: Constitutionality, Letter to GAO, CCWG Meeting Sept 29

Screenshot of relevant portion of Verisign web page referenced by Sen. Cruz et al in letter to GAO
(Verisign Inc. is the Internet Root Zone Maintainer pursuant to a contract with US government)

 “Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power ‘to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.’ If the contract governing U.S. oversight of the Internet is indeed government property, the Administration’s intention to cede control to the ‘global stakeholder community’ -- including nations like Iran, Russia and China that do not value free speech and in fact seek to stifle it -- is in violation of the Constitution and should be stopped.” --U.S. Senator Ted Cruz

As announced today via a press release from the office of  U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Sen. Cruz, along with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, have sent a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an affirmative determination of whether the Obama Administration’s plan to transfer U.S. oversight of the Internet violates the Constitution. The Wall Street Journal columnist, L. Gordon Crovitz, reported on the letter in his Information Age column, “Not Obama’s to Give Away.”

 Sen. Cruz recently filed the DOTCOM Act as an amendment to the highway reauthorization bill the Senate considered in July. Cruz's amendment is identical to the original version of the DOTCOM Act being considered by the Senate with one exception: it would require Congress to have an affirmative up or down vote on the Obama Administration's plan to give away the Internet.

Full text of the Cruz-Grassley-Goodlatte-Issa letter (pdf):

September 22, 2015

Mr. Gene Dodaro
Comptroller General
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
Dear Mr. Dodaro:

On March 14, 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) announced its intent to relinquish oversight of Internet domain name functions to the “global stakeholder community.” This proposed transition raises questions about NTIA’s authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet’s infrastructure to a third party.

The Internet as we know it has evolved from a network infrastructure first created by Department of Defense researchers. One key component of that infrastructure is the root zone file, which the federal government currently designates as a “national IT asset.”[1] Creation of the root zone file was funded by the American taxpayer and coordinated by the Department of Defense, and the file has remained under United States control ever since.

Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” One question arising from NTIA’s decision to transfer its Internet oversight functions to a third party is whether NTIA may relinquish possession and control of the root zone file—or any other similar component of the Internet that was financed and developed by the United States—without authorization from Congress. This concern was raised in 2000 by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), which questioned whether NTIA could relinquish authority over the root zone file and concluded that it was “unclear whether such a transition would involve a transfer of government property to a private entity.”[2] The 2000 GAO report further detailed that the Department of Commerce advised the GAO at the time that “we have not devoted the possibly substantial staff resources that would be necessary to develop a legal opinion as to whether legislation would be necessary” to authorize transfer of the root zone file. Congress should be made aware of the legal status of the root zone file—or any other potential government property—before it makes any final decisions about whether to transfer the government’s Internet oversight functions to a third party.

Some observers and parties involved in the proposed transfer have asserted that the termination of NTIA’s contract with ICANN would not result in the transfer of United States Government property.[3] Others believe that termination of this contract would result in government property being transferred to ICANN and point to a number of factors that would indicate that the root zone file and other contractual deliverables are property of the United States. Supporters of this position point to the fact that the United States acquired title to the root zone file because it was invented pursuant to Department of Defense contracts.[4] In addition, the United States has long claimed ownership or control over the root zone file. For example, President Clinton’s Internet “czar” Ira Magaziner asserted United States ownership of the entire Domain Name System because “[t]he United States paid for the Internet, the Net was created under its auspices, and most importantly everything [researchers] did was pursuant to government contracts.”[5] Additionally the Commerce Department’s contract with ICANN explicitly declares that “[a]ll deliverables provided under this contract,” including the “automated root zone,” are “the property of the U.S. government.”[6] And Verisign and ICANN contracts make clear that changes to the root zone file cannot be made without approval of the Department of Commerce.[7] Congress has also been actively engaged in managing the root zone file. Recently, it enacted the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which explicitly prohibited the Commerce Department from using federal funds to relinquish stewardship of the domain name system, “including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file.”[8]

Given this history, we are concerned that NTIA might potentially relinquish ownership of some form of United States property. To inform the Congress so that it may take any necessary and appropriate steps regarding NTIA’s planned transition of the IANA functions, we would like the GAO to conduct a review to address a number of specific questions.

1. Would the termination of the NTIA’s contract with ICANN cause Government property, of any kind, to be transferred to ICANN?

2. Is the authoritative root zone file, or other related or similar materials or information, United States government property?

3. If so, does the NTIA have the authority to transfer the root zone file or, other related materials or information to a non-federal entity?

Please include in this report a description and analysis of the relevant legal authorities and case law dealing with the transfer of United States Government property. We understand that to perform this work, GAO will need to conduct both significant audit work and complex legal analysis.

Please contact Jonathan Nabavi (Chairman Grassley), Sean McLean (Senator Cruz), Vishal Amin (Chairman Goodlatte), and Veronica Wong (Congressman Issa) of our staffs if there are questions regarding this request.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Ted Cruz
United States Senator

Bob Goodlatte
Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary

Darrell Issa
Member of Congress

[1]See, Verisign Company Information: http://www.verisign.com/en_US/company-information/index.xhtml
[2]U.S. Government Accountability Office., GAO-B-284206, Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (2000)
[3]Letter from Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Sec’y for Commc’ns and Info., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, to Representative Sean Duffy & Representative James Sensenbrenner, U.S. House of Representatives (June 11, 2015)
[4]U.S. Congressional Research Service. Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress (R42351; August 18, 2015), by Lennard G. Kruger
[5]Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World 41 (2006)
[6]Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions Contract between U.S. Department of Commerce and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Contract Number SA1301-12-CN-0035. October 1, 2012.
[7]See, Amendment 11 of the Cooperative Agreement NCR-9218742 between the U.S. Department of Commerce and Verisign, Inc. Also see, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions Contract between U.S. Department of Commerce and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Contract Number SA1301-12-CN-0035. October 1, 2012.
[8]Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No 113-235, § 540, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (Dec. 16, 2014)
(emphasis added)

********

In a related note, the ICANN's CCWG-Accountability (Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability, WS-1 required by the NTIA as part of the IANA Transition) is holding an online meeting Tuesday, September 29, 2015, with ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade attending:

Tuesday, 29 September from 19:00-21:00 UTC (time converter) 3pm ET (US), proposed agenda:
1. Welcome, Roll Call, SoI
2. Assessment of agreement areas, by Fadi Chehadé
3. Work plan to Dublin
4. Engagement plan with Chartering organisations and Board
5. AOB

Anyone may attend and observe the meeting online--"Adobe Connect Room is open to any and all silent observers"--icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/

See also on Domain Mondo:

• ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade "Steamrolled" by CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Sept 27, 2015
• ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model Sept 27, 2015
• CCWG-Accountability F2F LA Meeting, Sep 25-26, ICANN Board Sept 25, 2015
• China (CAICT) Objects to ICANN CCWG Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal Sept 24, 2015
• Only 19 of 90 Comments Support ICANN Accountability Proposal Overall Sept 22, 2015 
• ICANN CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Comments on the Public Comments Sept 15, 2015

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN Not Ready for IANA Stewardship Says House Judiciary Chairman

"ICANN must have accountability and transparency measures in place before such a [IANA stewardship] transition could occur and they simply are not there now."

US House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte Applauds Funding Prohibition on Internet Domain Name System Transfer - Judiciary Committee Press Release (June 3, 2015):

"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) issued the following statement upon House passage of the Fiscal Year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act (H.R. 2578), which includes a prohibition on funds to transition oversight over the Internet’s domain name system away from the Department of Commerce.

“The Obama Administration’s proposal to transition stewardship in overseeing the management of the Internet away from the U.S. and to an international body has kicked off high-profile debates involving many far-reaching questions that relate to the future security, stability, resiliency and integrity of the global Internet’s continued operation.

“While the proposed transition has raised numerous questions, the Administration has been less than forthcoming with answers. The Obama Administration maintains that the International [sic] Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is capable of such a transition but the evidence indicates that this is simply not the case.

“As the House Judiciary Committee’s recent hearing further demonstrated, ICANN must have accountability and transparency measures in place before such a transition could occur and they simply are not there now.

“Given all the concerns over the proposed transition of the Internet domain name system to ICANN, the funding prohibition included in the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill is necessary to halt this flawed policy from the Obama Administration.”

"Background: The House Judiciary Committee’s Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee recently held an oversight hearing in order to hear directly from a wide range of stakeholders on the status and impact of the proposed transition as well as other important issues that relate to whether ICANN is trustworthy, accountable and transparent." (emphasis added)

source: US House Judiciary Committee Press Release

see also on Domain Mondo:

• Two Congressional Hearings Wednesday on ICANN and IANA Transition
• US Hearing Wednesday: ICANN, .SUCKS, IANA Transition, Accountability
• US Congressional Hearing LIVE 2 pm, ICANN, IANA Stewardship Transition
• Video Replay of Congressional Hearings on ICANN, IANA May 13th, Tweets
• ICANN, IANA functions, Ultimate Mechanism of Accountability, A New Root

see also: ICANN: IANA Stewardship Transition | Enhancing ICANN Accountability


Follow @DomainMondo

US Hearing Wednesday: ICANN, .SUCKS, IANA Transition, Accountability

Replay of Live Recording above (hearing begins @ 00:09:15)

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

Hearing: Stakeholder Perspectives on ICANN: The .Sucks Domain and 

Essential Steps to Guarantee Trust and Accountability in the Internet’s Operation

Wednesday, May 13, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. EDT (Time Converter)

2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C.

The hearing will also be webcast live at http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/live-video-feed.

The Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee hearing will examine stakeholders perspectives on the operation of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a non-profit California corporation, charged with managing the Internet’s domain name and addressing system. The hearing will focus on the rollout of the new .sucks domain name and the Obama Administration’s proposal to transition oversight of the Domain Name System (DNS) away from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

Witnesses for Wednesday’s hearing are (prepared witness statements at links below):

• Ms. Mei-lan Stark, Immediate Past President, International Trademark Association
• Mr. Paul Misener, Vice President of Global Public Policy, Amazon.com, Inc.
• Mr. John Horton, President, LegitScript
• Mr. Steven Metalitz, Counsel, Coalition for Online Accountability
• Mr. Bill Woodcock, Executive Director, Internet Commerce Association
• Mr. Steve DelBianco, Executive Director, NetChoice
• Mr. Phil Corwin, Counsel, Internet Commerce Association
• Mr. Jonathan Zuck, President, ACT | The App Association

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) issued the statements below on this hearing.

Chairman Goodlatte: “Just over a year ago the Obama Administration and specifically the National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced plans to transition oversight over the Internet’s domain name system to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), raising many questions about the future of the Internet. Next week the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee will hold its second oversight hearing on this matter in order to hear directly from a wide range of stakeholders on the status and impact of the proposed transition as well as other important issues that relate to whether ICANN is trustworthy, accountable and transparent.”

Subcommittee Chairman Issa: “The United States has a deeply held commitment to supporting a free and open Internet, a policy that our nation has recommitted to throughout the years. The future security and stability of maintaining the Domain Name System (DNS) without interference from any one government or organization is crucial to the Internet’s operation.“As we reflect on our long term aspirations for governing the Internet, we must take the utmost caution in establishing a process to transition to a new form of governance. Before a transition of ICANN can occur, there must be robust protections in place to protect the essential functions of the Internet.”

The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, has jurisdiction over the following subject matters: Administration of U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, patent and trademark law, information technology, other appropriate matters as referred to by the Chairman and relevant oversight. List of Subcommittee members here.

For more information see:

• Domain Mondo | The dot SUCKS Conundrum: ICANN, FTC, OCA, New gTLD Domains
• NTIA announcement
• IANA Stewardship Transition
• Enhancing ICANN Accountability 

Follow @DomainMondo

Response to US Senator and Congressman re: NTIA, IANA, ICANN

Below is the published comment by the Editor of Domain Mondo in response to the CircleID post: Ensuring Trust in Internet Governance by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee and Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, concerning the NTIA, ICANN, and the IANA transition:

"NTIA wants to transfer IANA to the global multistakeholder community--really? In Singapore at ICANN 52, ICANN and NTIA were pressuring stakeholders to hurry up and hand IANA over to ICANN--ICANN is not the global multistakeholder community nor truly representative of it. ICANN, a California non-profit corporation with an essentially self-selected Board of Directors, and no membership, is, and has been for years, largely captured by special interests within the domain name industry--that is why NTIA almost pulled the IANA contract away from ICANN in 2012. Nothing has really changed since then, except the Snowden revelations came to light and the U.S. is now under international pressure to let go of its historic role of Internet oversight. The idea that ICANN could fulfill NTIA's historic stewardship role is ludicrous based on ICANN's own track record. At the same time, NTIA has been less than fully honest in the announcement of its intentions. In March, 2014, NTIA said it wanted to be transitioned out of its role. What is NTIA's role? NTIA said then that its role was as historic steward of the Internet DNS with contract rights and authority over the IANA functions and Internet root zone. Yet, the ICANN-convened process, requested by NTIA, is only focused on the IANA contract, not stewardship responsibilities nor Internet root zone management! How dysfunctional--or disingenuous? Sometime after March, 2014, NTIA also, apparently, decided that ICANN accountability should also be part of this whole process--NTIA said nothing about ICANN accountability in March, 2014, but now NTIA's Larry Strickling says somehow that needs to be included in any proposal that is submitted to NTIA. WOW! Never mind that it will take years to both fully implement and then judge whether any ICANN internal accountability changes are effective, and to what extent. Meanwhile, NTIA still maintains Congressional approval is not needed for any of the transition process. Congress and the NTIA need to review this July, 2000, GAO report. NTIA also needs to be honest and transparent with the U.S. Congress, the American people, and the global multistakeholder community. NTIA (and ICANN) should accept the fact that a majority of people in the U.S., as well as a majority of the global multistakeholder community, justifiably lack confidence and trust in ICANN having sole power and authority over the Internet DNS. NETmundial principles, as well as historic principles of the free and open Internet, actually contravene this vision of an all-powerful ICANN, a single point of failure, with no external accountability nor oversight. I am currently a participant in the process ICANN convened at the request of NTIA. My views herein are only my own. Others have differing views. What is not helpful is NTIA being duplicitous or manipulative, less than fully honest and transparent, as indicated above. At this point, as both a U.S. citizen and member of the global multistakeholder community, I want NTIA transitioned out of its role, as soon as possible--NTIA is no longer an effective steward, and the world is demanding change. However, just walking away and leaving dysfunctional ICANN in charge is not the answer. The challenge is in coming up with an effective solution that has buy-in from the global multistakeholder community while ensuring a free, open, stable and secure Internet for future generations. External solutions to achieve this have been proposed and are currently being considered. I have personally sought input from Ass't Sec Strickling (with copy to Secretary Pritzker) without response. Hopefully Congress, the House and Senate, can get some answers and shed some light on NTIA's true intentions (e.g., why did NTIA exclude stewardship and Internet root zone management responsibilities, from the ICANN-convened process, and what are NTIA's future plans or intentions for those, specifically?)."

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo

Follow @DomainMondo