3 excerpts: Antitrust - Accountability - Jurisdiction
Letter (pdf) embed below:
feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo
DISCLAIMER
Showing posts with label Chuck Grassley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chuck Grassley. Show all posts
2016-09-09
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
3 excerpts: Antitrust - Accountability - Jurisdiction
Letter (pdf) embed below:
feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo
DISCLAIMER
2016-06-28
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:
Press Release June 27, 2016 (emphasis added): Grassley, Goodlatte: Too Many Unanswered Questions in Plan to Transfer of Internet Authority
- 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:
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:
2015-02-16
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
"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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)