Scott Bradner: A Look Back at the History of IANA & ICANN (video)

NANOG 68 Keynote IANA Transition:

Video above published Oct 18, 2016:

Keynote: IANA Transition

Meeting: NANOG 68, 2016-10-17 10:30am - 11:30am
Presenter / Speaker: Scott Bradner, Harvard University, retired

Abstract: "Scott Bradner will discuss the history of Internet Governance leading up to the transition of oversight of the IANA function from NTIA to the internet's multistakeholder community."

Topics discussed include Jon Postel, competition in the TLDs (top-level domains) space, ICANN's expansion of new gTLDs and what Jon Postel would think about what ICANN has done, and become, since Jon's vision for the organization in 1998 when it was formed. (Hint: .COM, .NET, and .ORG domains will become more valuable.)

Scott Bradner was involved in the design, operation and use of data networks at Harvard University since the early days of the ARPANET. He was involved in the design of the original Harvard data networks, the Longwood Medical Area network (LMAnet) and New England Academic and Research Network (NEARnet). He was founding chair of the technical committees of LMAnet, NEARnet and the Corporation for Research and Enterprise Network (CoREN). Bradner retired from Harvard University in 2016 after 50 years working there in the areas of computer programming, system management, networking, IT security and identity management. He still does some patent related consulting. 

"... Scott Bradner is of the view that ICANN is seen as process bound, and I find it hard to disagree. He noted that the original ByLaws of the organisation had 9,000 words, and over time this has expanded to 36,000 words. Scott appears to hold the view that ICANN blew any goodwill Jon [Postel] had personally gathered from the start, and has maintained a largely secretive and capricious perception. Again, I cannot disagree with this opinion .... we are now in a new phase and one that has its elements of continued change and potential instability. The degree of public sector commitment is variable, and the pressures on ICANN are completely and totally unpredictable. It's likely that at best, all we can say is that this will probably not stay the same as it is today ..."--Geoff Huston, Author & Chief Scientist at APNIC, circleid.com (emphasis added)

Note: NANOG 68 | North American Network Operators Group | nanog.org: NANOG 68 took place on October 17-19, 2016, at Dallas, TX.

Presentation slides (pdf) embedded below:

Transcript (pdf) auto-generated by YouTube.com (unedited) embedded below:

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IANA Transition's Unanswered Questions Require An Extension?

Do the IANA Transition's Unanswered Questions Require An Extension of the IANA functions contract? "Yes" say Berin Szoka, President of TechFreedom (TechFeedom.org), Paul Rosenzweig, Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org) and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security, and Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at The Heritage Foundation, in a September 8, 2016, white paper entitled ICANN Transition is Premature - Unanswered Questions Require an Extension (link is below), (note: the views expressed in the white paper reflect those of TechFreedom and the individual authors, but not necessarily those of The Heritage Foundation), excerpts:

Introduction:

Is the Internet ready for the U.S. government to give up its historic role as the ultimate guarantor of
Internet governance? Yes, insists the Obama Administration. Global stakeholders — users,
businesses, technical experts and civil society groups — will remain firmly in control, they assure us.

We’re skeptical. But before we tell you why, let’s make a few things clear. We support the multistakeholder model. We do not believe any government should control or own the Internet. We do not oppose the “Transition” — wherein multi-stakeholders would assume the current U.S. oversight responsibilities over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). But we do oppose rushing the Transition before critical questions are resolved. We recommend extending the contract for a year or two to vet the proposal and complete all of the reforms sought by the community.

Administration officials have stated repeatedly that “it is more important to get this issue right than it is to simply get it done.”5 However, as we near the end of President Obama’s second term, it is hard not to conclude that the Administration has become more concerned with getting this done right now than in getting it right. We wonder because of the many serious concerns surrounding the Transition that remain unresolved even as the Administration appears dead-set on moving forward regardless of the potential consequences.

We worry that approving the Transition prematurely will set the multi-stakeholder model up to fail. We fear that governments will gain new influence over the Internet, that Internet freedom will suffer, and that the ICANN leadership (CEO and staff) will continue its troubling pattern of
cavalierly ignoring its bylaws and procedures while the ICANN Community proves too fractious to
hold the leadership accountable.

What’s needed now is a “test drive” — a trial period of a year or two in which the U.S. withdraws
and allows the new ICANN to operate autonomously, but with the possibility of reasserting its traditional role if unforeseen problems arise, if ICANN resists additional reforms, or if the multistakeholder community determines that the new bylaws or governance structure are insufficient to hold ICANN accountable.
. . . .
Here are just the most prominent of our remaining concerns — and why they matter. We start with practical concerns and conclude with legal ones. Here’s a high-level list:

1. Whatever happens with the Transition, there’s no reason whatsoever to think authoritarian countries like Russia and China won’t try to exert greater control over the Internet and the long-term impact of the Transition on positions of other governments vis-à-vis U.N. governance of the Internet are unknown. 
2. It is unclear at best whether the multi-stakeholder community has the cohesion and resolve necessary to serve as an effective check on the ICANN Board post-Transition. 
3. Governments will have more power post-Transition than they do currently, and it is unclear how this will affect ICANN. 
4. Recent events revealed that ICANN has serious transparency and governance problems, which could make it vulnerable to corruption and abuse. 
5. The U.S. government’s role is a major reason why the ICANN Board has been willing to accept accountability measures, because the Transition is dependent on their adoption. But a number of important additional reforms will not be completed until after the Transition, and. failing to extend the contract may jeopardize their implementation. 
6. Substantial questions on ICANN’s jurisdiction, including where ICANN will be headquartered and incorporated and to which laws ICANN will be subject, remain unanswered. 
7. The U.S. failed to secure legal ownership and control of the .MIL and .GOV domains, which could create national security concerns in the future. 
8. The new ICANN bylaws may not be in line with California law, which could lead to legal and political challenges. 
9. If the Transition involves a transfer of property, ending the contract without congressional authorization would violate the Constitution. 
10. NTIA may have violated a funding prohibition if it fails to extend the contract. 
11. It is unclear that U.S. antitrust law will actually be an effective remedy (or deterrent) against anti-competitive behavior by ICANN, even the Transition doesn’t change its legal status. Yet foreign antitrust laws could be used strategically to portray ICANN as a cartel, and thus make the case for a shift to U.N. control. 
12. NTIA may have violated administrative law by failing to adequately consider public comments on the Transition directly, and instead relying on ICANN to do so on its behalf.

The complete white paper--ICANN Transition is Premature | Unanswered Questions Require an Extension (pdf).

UPDATE: Verisign White Paper Response Letter


feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

US Senator Cruz Attacks ICANN, Fadi Chehadé, IANA Transition (video)

US Senator Ted Cruz Urges Colleagues to "Stop Obama's Internet Giveaway"

Video above: U.S. Senator Cruz (R-Texas) took to the U.S. Senate floor Thursday, September 8, 2016, to give a speech against the Obama Administration's plan (and by implication, NTIA), to give away control of the Internet to an international body [ICANN] akin to the United Nations, singling out specifically, for criticism, ICANN's former President and CEO Fadi Chehadé:

“You look at the influence of foreign governments within ICANN, it should give us greater and greater concern.

“For example, ICANN’s former CEO Fadi Chehadé left ICANN to lead a high-level working group for China’s World Internet Conference. Mr. Chehadé’s decision to use his insider knowledge of how ICANN operates to help the Chinese government and their conference is more than a little concerning.

“This is the person who was leading ICANN, the body that we are being told to trust with our freedoms. Yet this man has since gone to work for the Chinese Internet Conference, which has rightly been criticized for banning members of the press such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

“But you know what, even reporters you may fundamentally disagree with have a right to report and say what they believe. And yet, the World Internet Conference banned them – said ‘we do not want these reporters here, presumably, because we don’t like what they’re saying.’ – which led Reporters Without Borders to demand an international boycott of the conference, calling China the ‘enemy of the Internet.’ Mr. President, if China is the enemy of the Internet, do we want the enemy of the Internet having power over what you’re allowed to say, what you’re allowed to search for, what you’re allowed to read online? Do we want China, and Russia, and Iran having the power to determine if a website is unacceptable, it’s taken down?

“I would note that once this transition happens, there are serious indications that ICANN intends to seek to flee U.S. jurisdiction and flee U.S. laws. Indeed, earlier this summer, ICANN held a global conference in Finland in which jurisdiction shopping was part of their agenda, trying to figure out what jurisdiction should we base control of the Internet out of across the globe.

“A representative of Iran is already on record stating, ‘[w]e should not take it [for] granted that jurisdiction is already agreed to be totally based on U.S. law.’ Our enemies are not hiding what they intend to do.

“Not only is there a concern of censorship and foreign jurisdictions stripping U.S. law from authority over the Internet, there are also real national security concerns. Congress has received no assurances from the Obama administration that the U.S. Government will continue to have exclusive ownership and control of the .gov and .mil top-level domains in perpetuity, which are vital to our national security. The Department of Defense, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines all use the .mil top-level domain. The White House, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security all use .gov.

“The only assurance ICANN has provided the federal government regarding .gov and .mil is that ICANN will notify the government in the future if it decides to give .gov and .mil to another entity. So if someone is going to the IRS, or what you think is the IRS, and you’re comforted that it’s on a .gov website so that you know it must be safe, you may instead find yourself victims of a foreign scam, a phishing scam, some other means of fraud with no basic protections.

“Congress should not sit by and let this happen. Congress must not sit by and let censorship happen ..." (emphasis added, full speech embedded below)

For more on former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé's shenanigans in China at the World Internet Conference, see on Domain Mondo: After Wuzhen, Should ICANN President & CEO Fadi Chehade Be Fired?:

"... Beyond the embarrassment and distracting spectacle that Fadi Chehade has brought upon ICANN at a critical juncture in its IANA transition planning, there are 2 aspects of Chehade's Wuzhen fiasco at play here which should be of concern to the ICANN Board and the "ICANN community"--1. That Fadi Chehade continuing as ICANN CEO, even for a few weeks until March 12, 2016, puts at risk the entire IANA transition process, from ... alarmed Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C. ..."

The IANA stewardship transition is scheduled to become effective October 1, 2016, upon expiration of the IANA functions contract which ends September 30, 2016, as previously indicated by NTIA--see  NTIA Tells ICANN: IANA Functions Contract Will Expire October 1, 2016. In Washington, D.C., TheHill.com has reported that next Wednesday, Cruz plans to hold a hearing on "Protecting Internet Freedom" and that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said Republicans in both chambers [U.S. House and U.S. Senate] were "discussing options" to "stop the transition from moving forward as part of a broader legislative package this month." See also: GOP chairmen ask administration to reconsider ICANN transition | TheHill.com Sept 8, 2016: "Signing on to the letter were 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.)." --UPDATE: See Senate & House Chairmen's Letter to Attorney General & Commerce Sec. and ICANN Answers Questions About The IANA Stewardship Transition.

Transcript (pdf) of Senator Cruz's full speech embedded 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

IANA Transition, What's Next, Years of Litigation in U.S. Federal Courts?

Excerpt from IANA Functions Contract between ICANN and US government (p. 31, July 2, 2012) (pdf)

After Tuesday's Senate Commerce Hearing, it appears the movement to extend the IANA functions contract (currently due to expire September 30, 2016), "for the next two years until the new structure proves itself and the details of Work Stream 2 are fully developed and their implications understood" (see prepared testimony of  Brett Schaefer), has increasing support on Capitol Hill.

As the Obama Administration and NTIA have stated, the "community" has only one chance to get this right (though still unclear which community is being referred to: "ICANN community" or global internet community a/k/a global multi-stakeholder community?).

Several U.S. Senators, including Senator Ted Cruz, have already requested NTIA extend the IANA functions contract with ICANN, and Senator Marco Rubio (with other Senators) has also sent a letter requesting delay (pdf), and may also be gathering more signatures requesting same, based upon his remarks at the Senate Commerce Hearing. Even one ICANN community stakeholder from India stated following the hearing on Tuesday: "... In many ways, a soft interim role for the US Government, or a short delay would actually ensure that the transition details are gracefully accepted by the whole world."

But the issues are even deeper than those aired at the hearing, and include future jurisdiction of ICANN, federal property issues, and probably most troubling, antitrust issues as raised in the prepared testimony of Richard Manning at the Senate Commerce Hearing (embedded in full further below):

"That [40 U.S.C. 559 (b)(1)] is a huge liability for ICANN, and potentially for anyone involved at the agency if the provision of the contract stating “All deliverables under this contract become the property of the U.S. Government” was deliberately ignored. No more so than because 15 U.S.C. Section 2 prohibits and makes a felony any attempt “to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” 15 U.S.C. Sections 13 and 14 forbid any business practice where the effect “may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.” Antitrust law challenges to IANA functions administrator were anticipated in the 1998 statement ... Yet, to date, the White House has failed to produce the legal basis for transferring the IANA functions without Congress, despite numerous requests ..." (Manning, infra, pp. 6-7, emphasis added)

Prepared testimony of Richard Manning (highlighting added) at Senate Commerce Hearing:


It's not hard to see where this could all be headed. If the Obama administration and NTIA refuse to extend the IANA functions contract, then ensuing federal court litigation, with restraining orders and injunctions, could be filed before September 30, 2016. The irony is that in such case, final determination of the issues in U.S. courts will likely exceed the 2-year time extension being requested.

The common sense approach would be to extend the contract to September 30, 2018, and perhaps even ask for Congressional approval of the IANA transition, to avoid litigation. But the ICANN-IANA transition proponents who testified at the Senate Commerce Hearing, appear to have hardened their positions. Which is why we have a federal judicial branch of government. The lawyers are waiting.

See also on Domain Mondo:

• UPDATE: Enhancing ICANN Accountability, Much Work Left for Work Stream 2
• Senate Commerce Hearing on ICANN & IANA Transition, Tuesday, May 24
• News Review: ICANN, IANA Transition, Capitol Hill Reality Check
• IANA & ICANN: Cruz, Lankford & Lee Letter to Pritzker & Strickling
• US Senators Cruz, Lankford & Lee Accuse ICANN of Stonewalling Congress
• US Senators Cruz, Lankford, Lee's New Letter to ICANN Chairman re: China
• US Senators Cruz, Lankford & Lee Demand Answers From ICANN CEO
• IANA Transition: Constitutionality, Letter to GAO, CCWG Meeting Sept 29

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

Senate Commerce Hearing on ICANN & IANA Transition, Tuesday, May 24

UPDATE May 25, 2016:  IANA Transition, What's Next, Years of Litigation in U.S. Federal Courts?
and May 26, 2016 Enhancing ICANN Accountability, Much Work Left for Work Stream 2.

U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, announced a full committee hearing titled “Examining the Multistakeholder Plan for Transitioning the Internet Assigned Number Authority,” Tuesday, May 24, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. ET in the Senate Russell Building 253, Washington, D.C. Witness testimony, opening statements, and video livestream will be available on the Senate Commerce Committee website.

[UPDATE] Witnesses:

• Mr. Michael Beckerman, President and CEO, The Internet Association
• Mr. Steve DelBianco, Executive Director, NetChoice
• The Honorable David A. Gross, former U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, U.S. State Department
• Mr. Rick Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government
• Mr. Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, Heritage Foundation
• Mr. Andrew Sullivan, Chair, Internet Architecture Board

According to the announcement: "The hearing will examine the proposed transition of oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), a department of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that allocates Internet IP addresses and domain names, to the global multistakeholder community. Two years ago, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to transition IANA functions. On March 10, 2016, ICANN forwarded to the NTIA a transition proposal developed by the international community of Internet stakeholders. The NTIA set a target of 90 days to complete its review. Witnesses will testify on advantages and disadvantages of the proposed transition of IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community." (emphasis added)

Prepared Testimony of Brett Schaefer (highlighting added): 

TheHill.com also reports Republican members of Congress are again moving to block the Obama administration's plan to hand off oversight of the internet domain name system. "A House Appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday advanced a funding bill for Commerce, Justice and Science that included a provision barring the government from using funds to make the transition through 2017 ... Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appears to be circulating a letter to colleagues pressing the head of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA) to delay the handoff amid concerns." (TheHill, supra, emphasis added).

Members of the Committee:

Majority Members:

Chairman John Thune South Dakota

• Senator Roger Wicker Mississippi
• Senator Roy Blunt Missouri
• Senator Marco Rubio Florida
• Senator Kelly Ayotte New Hampshire
• Senator Ted Cruz Texas
• Senator Deb Fischer Nebraska
• Senator Jerry Moran Kansas
• Senator Dan Sullivan Alaska
• Senator Ron Johnson Wisconsin
• Senator Dean Heller Nevada
• Senator Cory Gardner Colorado
• Senator Steve Daines Montana

Minority Members:

Ranking Member Bill Nelson Florida

• Senator Maria Cantwell Washington
• Senator Claire McCaskill Missouri
• Senator Amy Klobuchar Minnesota
• Senator Richard Blumenthal Connecticut
• Senator Brian Schatz Hawaii
• Senator Ed Markey Massachusetts
• Senator Cory Booker New Jersey
• Senator Tom Udall New Mexico
• Senator Joe Manchin West Virginia
• Senator Gary Peters Michigan

See also on Domain Mondo:

• News Review: ICANN, IANA Transition, Capitol Hill Reality Check
• IANA & ICANN: Cruz, Lankford & Lee Letter to Pritzker & Strickling
• US Senators Cruz, Lankford & Lee Accuse ICANN of Stonewalling Congress
• US Senators Cruz, Lankford, Lee's New Letter to ICANN Chairman re: China
• US Senators Cruz, Lankford & Lee Demand Answers From ICANN CEO
• IANA Transition: Constitutionality, Letter to GAO, CCWG Meeting Sept 29

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

Will ICANN File An Interlocutory Appeal in DCA Trust gTLD AFRICA Case?

UPDATE June 16, 2016: New gTLD AFRICA Litigation: Defendant ZACR Dismissed as a Party.

UPDATE ICANN filed an appeal on May 11, 2016, of the District Court's Order granting DCA Trust a Preliminary Injunction--Notice of Appeal embedded below:




UPDATE May 6, 2016: ICANN has withdrawn its Motion to Dismiss (pdf) "[i]n view of the Court's order on DCA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction" (which DCA won), and Defendant ZACR has now filed its own Motion to Dismiss (pdf) set for hearing on May 31, 2016, at 9:00 am in Los Angeles U.S. District Court.

UPDATE April 17: see News Review: dotAFRICA, Public Interest, Judge Holds ICANN Accountable.

[original post below]

"... Here, the public has an interest in the fair and transparent application process that grants gTLD rights. ICANN regulates the internet – a global system that dramatically impacts daily life in today’s society. The IRP Declaration recognizes that ICANN’s function is “special, unique, and publicly important” and ICANN itself “is the steward of a highly valuable and important international resources.” (Bekele Decl.¶ 23.110, Ex. 1, ECF No. 17.) .... the Court finds “serious questions” going toward DCA’s likelihood of success on the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply in DCA’s favor ... Additionally, the Court finds that both the likelihood of irreparable injury and the public interest favors the injunction. As such, the Court GRANTS a preliminary injunction barring ICANN from delegating the rights to .Africa until this case is resolved ..."--Judge Klausner, U.S. District Court, April 12, 2016, DotConnectAfrica Trust vs ICANN & ZA Central Registry, infra, embedded below (emphasis added).

In a U.S. District Court ruling that may have far reaching impacts beyond just the Plaintiff's case, new gTLD .AFRICA applicant, DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA Trust), won its motion for preliminary injunction, as indicated above (read the full decision embedded below).

Will ICANN now file an interlocutory appeal from the Court's ruling?

One legal commentator on Standards of Appellate Review (pdf) has written:

"An appellate court reviews a preliminary injunction primarily for “abuse of discretion.” It will (and should) be predisposed to affirm the trial judge; getting a reversal will be difficult. Most trial courts will at least pay lip service to the usual factors for entering a preliminary injunction. This avoids reversal for simple legal error, and showing abuse in the weighing of those factors can be close to impossible.  The problem is more than just a likely loss, however. A hasty decision to take an interlocutory appeal that you then lose can hurt in the ultimate resolution of the merits. The fact that the standard of review is abuse of discretion reflects an appellate judgment that some decisions are best left to the trial court. Still, declaring the law is what appellate courts principally do; so, when they review the “possibility of success” criterion in injunction appeals, they often announce in controlling dicta the rules for later proceedings. See West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc. 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986)." (emphasis added)

In this case, ICANN and its counsel, Jones Day, may very well decide to file an interlocutory appeal. Obviously ICANN needs controlling legal precedent to prevent parties from seeking redress in the Courts after they have knowingly given up their "rights to sue" in new gTLD applications, registry agreements, etc. This case may also have a bearing on ICANN's suitability to serve as steward of the IANA functions and coordinate the global internet DNS, and may even affect the current IANA transition process now underway. In any event, this ruling is not dispositive of all issues in the case--ICANN has a pending motion to dismiss DCA Trust's case (pdf)--stay tuned.

Complete copy of Court's Ruling* (yellow highlighting added):

*DCA Trust issued a press release dated April 12, 2016, with link to the document embedded above. As of April 13, 2016, 2:50 pm PDT, ICANN still had not posted the decision on its webpage of all documents filed in this case, nor made any reference to the ruling on the ICANN website.

See also on Domain Mondo: New gTLD AFRICA: DotConnectAfrica Trust vs ICANN, End of the Line?


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

US Senators Cruz, Lankford & Lee Accuse ICANN of Stonewalling Congress

On Monday, April 4, 2016, U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah), sent a follow-up letter to Dr. Stephen Crocker, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), demanding a response to a series of unanswered questions that remain from previous congressional oversight letters concerning ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and the planned transition away from U.S. government oversight of the Internet.

Excerpt from Senators' letter (emphasis added):

“On March 3, 2016, we sent you a letter requesting information to gain a better understanding of the potential implications of ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and its impact on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition. Since then, ICANN has submitted to the U.S. government an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal that seeks to end U.S. government oversight of the IANA functions. Given this recent development and congressional concerns over ICANN’s transparency, accountability, and relationship with the Chinese government, it is imperative that we receive a response to our letter.

“After sending our initial request 32 days ago, your staff indicated that you would be unable to respond before March 18. Two weeks has passed since your own self-extended deadline, and ICANN has not only failed to provide a response, but has been unable or unwilling to provide an exact date for when we can expect a complete response to our March 3 letter.

“This series of events comes on the heels of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s failure to respond to all of the questions in our February 4, 2016 letter addressed to him. We would note that not only did Mr. Chehadé fail to respond to our questions in full, but he disparaged the oversight request during a February 5 question-and-answer session in Los Angeles, California with members of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Non-Contracted Party House ...To our dismay, ICANN has failed to respond in full to questions posed in two oversight letters. We are therefore resending our questions and ask that you and Mr. Chehadé provide a response to all unanswered questions (provided below) from our February 4 and March 3 letters as soon as possible, but no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2016 ....”

Read the latest letter from U.S. Senators Cruz, Lankford, and Lee, in full, below:


See the previous letters sent by U.S. Senators Cruz, Lankford, and Lee to former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade and ICANN Chairman Steve Crocker at:

• US Senators Cruz, Lankford & Lee Demand Answers From ICANN CEO | DomainMondo.com

• US Senators Cruz, Lankford, Lee's New Letter to ICANN Chairman re: China | DomainMondo.com

See also: ICANN Is Stonewalling the U.S. Congress | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas.


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

Brazil Insulted by ICANN President & CEO Fadi Chehade Farewell Letter

Former ICANN President & CEO Fadi Chehade
[Icannphotos (CC BY-SA 2.0)]

Fadi Chehade apologizes to Brazil for 'misunderstanding' his farewell letter to the ICANN Board of Directors, which was published on the ICANN website:

The insult:

“... Finally we set our fourth objective to evolve the multistakeholder model, which included increasing participation and promoting ethics and transparency. Among our concerns in this realm: The pressure from governments such as Brazil, China, India and Russia to bring the IANA Functions under the control of the United Nations via a multilateral instead of a multistakeholder governance model ...”--Fadi Chehade, Farewell Letter to the ICANN Board (pdf) Feb 19, 2016 (emphasis added)

Brazil's retort:

Fadi Chehade's reply:

"Thank you, Ambassador Benedicto. I appreciate very much the statement of your government. And as I have shared with you before privately, I had no intention to position the Brazilian government in any different way than what I have said on multiple occasions, including the many openings at ICANN meetings. So if the letter that I wrote in closing my tenure for the board was misunderstood in any way, I offer you a private apology and I give now the Brazilian government a public apology. I would like to thank you and all the members of the Brazilian delegation, as well as the CGI, as well as her excellency, the President, who has done nothing but actually change the course of the entire Internet governance dialogue when she had the courage and the vision to engage and to do what she did in NetMundial. NetMundial would not have been possible without the Brazilian government steps. And NetMundial, as the U.S. Government said in this room a few days ago, in Larry Strickling's statement, NetMundial and Brazil really shifted the dialogue. So to you the thanks, to your government the thanks, to your people the thanks. And the Marco Civil work and other things that have been done in Brazil are, frankly, a beacon to the world in how Internet governance can be done in a multistakeholder way. So we thank you for that. And again, my sincere apology. I did not intend to in any way sully the deep commitment to multistakeholder governance that your government has." (Fadi Chehadé Statement (pdf) ICANN55 GAC Meeting with the Board 9 March 2016 Marrakech, emphasis added.)

OK, that takes care of Brazil--how about China, India and Russia?

Signing off for the last time as @icann_president. I'll be at @fchehade from here on out. So long #ICANN. pic.twitter.com/ZqjHbLZpjL

— ICANN President (@icann_president) March 10, 2016

Note--the original title of this post was: ICANN President & CEO Fadi Chehade Leaves Office By Insulting Brazil [Updated Mar 15, 2016]


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

Total ICANN Tab for IANA Stewardship Transition? US$31+ Million!

Total ICANN Tab for IANA Stewardship Transition (including CCWG-Accountability) per Board Director Cherine Chalaby (see further below): "US$25 million in FY15 and FY16 and a further potential expenditure of US$6-9 million in FY17."

Better hope ICANN is a better steward of the IANA functions than it is of the fees paid by domain name registrants (generally US$.25 per gTLD domain name per year) which provide most of the funding for ICANN, including ICANN's IANA Stewardship Transition--and there isn't even a Registrants Stakeholder Lobby Group in ICANN! (did someone say taxation without representation?)--

From the CCWG-Accountability public mail list (March 1, 2016, emphasis added):

Dear Colleagues,
Please find below an update from the Board Finance Committee on a proposed way forward regarding the management of the [IANA] Transition Project costs. This is a particularly timely contribution to our F2F meeting [Friday, March 4th] in Marrakech. We have specifically invited the Finance Committee members to attend the part of our meeting where we plan to discuss this topic.
Best and safe travels to all,
Mathieu Weill (CCWG Co-Chair)

From Cherine Chalaby [ICANN Board Member] Transition and Accountability Cost Next Step:

Dear CCWG and CWG co-chairs,
Further to our call on 9 February 2016 to discuss the cost of the Transition and Accountability work, I have had follow-up calls with the leaders of the SO/AC Chartering Organisations, and I am pleased to report to you that we have reached an agreement on a way forward.

Historical Perspective
Historically, it has not been not part of the multi-stakeholder model to have any one person or even a small group given the authority to make decisions, including on costs. Furthermore, the SOs/ACs have not been able to obtain information about detailed costs for their work, meetings, staff time, etc. Nevertheless, given the large sums of money involved:

USD 25 millions in FY15 and FY16 and a further potential expenditure of USD 6-9 million in FY17, it would be good practice to produce reliable estimates and to manage costs going forward. This would represent a change of culture for the ICANN community. Therefore, it would be best to adopt a two-step approach in order to get the gradual buy-in of the community. Step 1 entails developing reliable estimates, and Step 2 entails deciding how best to manage cost.

Agreement on Step1 - Developing Reliable Estimates (4-6 weeks)
The leaders of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations agreed that it is imperative to get a good handle and clarity on past and future expenditures. First we must undertake an in-depth analysis of past expenditures in FY15 and FY16 (up to Marrakech) and understand where and how money was spent. From what we will learn, we should be in a position to estimate future expenditures for the remainder of FY16 (from Marrakech to end of Financial Year in June), and for all of FY17. We must also identify potential problem areas and develop ways to address them, one-by-one. With such plans, we can then present to the CCWG and CWG co-chairs what is likely possible and what is likely to be problematic in terms of cost control mechanisms.

We agreed that Step1 should be undertaken, on a pilot basis, by a small dedicated Project Cost Support Team (PCST) and should not last more than 4-6 weeks. The PCST will consist of four members: a project manager, a legal manager, a financial planner and a project administrator. The ICANN CEO will be responsible for selecting these individuals. The desired selection criteria are: competent, respected and trusted by the community, familiarity with ICANN transition and Accountability work and available on a full-time basis for 4-6 weeks. ICANN will pay for the PCST. The leaders of the SO/AC Chartering Organisations as well as the CCWG and CWG co-chairs will be informed of the cost of the PCST.

The PCST is neither a decision making nor a management team. The PCST is a support function to the CCWG and CWG co-chairs. It must therefore coordinate closely with the co-chairs while undertaking Step1.

Given that the Draft FY17 Budget will be posted on 5 March 2016, a placeholder of USD 6-9 millions has been included in the draft budget for Transition and Accountability work in FY17. This figure will be adjusted once the PCST completes Step 1. It is therefore desirable to start Step1 as soon as possible.

Next Call
It was agreed that we should set up a call once Step1 is completed (around mid to end April) to review the findings of the PCST and to agree collectively on how best to manage cost going forward (Step 2).

I sincerely hope that you are supportive of the pilot work we agreed to undertake. Please do not hesitate to ask me any questions.
Best regards,
Cherine

More information (source: ICANN): IANA Stewardship Transition Project Costs


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IANA Transition, ICANN Accountability, Comment Analysis, Timeline

Above: CCWG-Accountability 3rd Draft, Public Comments, Trends & Analysis (published by ICANN on January 18, 2016)

Background: "As initial discussions of the IANA Stewardship Transition were taking place, the ICANN community raised the broader topic of the impact of the transition on ICANN's current accountability mechanisms. From this dialogue, the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process was developed to provide assurance that ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S. Government, which has been perceived as a backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability since 1998. The CCWG-Accountability was chartered to consider how ICANN's broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened in light of the IANA Functions transition, and to review the existing accountability mechanisms such as those within the ICANN Bylaws and the Affirmation of Commitments [AoC]. The CCWG-Accountability is in the process of refining its conclusions and proposals based on the public comment received on the Accountability Framework it identified as essential to have in place or be committed to before the IANA Stewardship Transition (Work Stream 1). Next steps include finalization of the report for the Chartering Organizations' final endorsement. As appropriate, the Work Stream 1 conclusions will be delivered to the ICANN Board of Directors." (source: ICANN Report of Public Comments; emphasis and links added)

Additional info:

• CCWG-Accountability meeting schedule
• Link to public comment box: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en
• Link to public comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/
• Link to public comment summary and analysis: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-08jan16-en.pdf

Below is the CCWG-Accountability timeline published in late 2015, which has suffered slippage:

Below is the overall IANA Stewardship Transition process, scheduled to be completed in 2016 (except for WS2 / Work Stream 2 accountability issues)

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IGF 2015 Workshop on the IANA Stewardship Transition (video)

IGF 2015 Day 4 Workshop: IANA Function transition: A new era in Internet Governance?

Georgia Tech Professor Milton Mueller led this IGF2015 workshop on Friday, November 13, 2015, the last day of the Internet Governance Forum 2015. Professor Mueller served on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as a representative of ICANN's NCSG (Noncommercial Stakeholders Group).

Topics covered include NTIA (US Government) requirements, ICANN, IANA functions, proposals submitted by the names, numbers, and protocols communities, Internet Root Zone management, ICANN accountability process, workstreams 1 (WS1) and 2 (WS2), GAC (Government Advisory Committee) and Stress Test 18.

Panelists:

• Jari Arkko, Ericsson Research, IETF Chair, ICG member 
• Brenden Kuerbis, Postdoctoral researcher, Georgia Institute of Technology
• Izumi Okutani, Policy Liaison, JPNIC and CRISP team member
• Gangesh Varma, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University Delhi
• Mary Uduma, Nigerian Communications Commission and ICG member
• Keith Drazek, Verisign, Inc. and ICG member
• Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior, Government of Brazil, GAC representative

Workshop description provided by IGF2015:

• The IANA functions transition has been organized within the ICANN community. IGF is an appropriate venue to engage a broader range of stakeholder groups and understand their perspective. 
• This workshop considers the commonalities and differences in the proposals from Names, Protocols and Numbers communities. It evaluates the transition process and discusses how different constituencies have handled the way ICANN combines policy making for Names and the operation of the IANA functions. 
• The workshop discusses the way the proposal will be received by stakeholder groups not normally part of the ICANN process, such as the US Congress, other governments and other stakeholder groups. How are they reacting to the final IANA functions transition proposal, what are their concerns, is there any interference with the transition? The workshop’s contribution will be to broaden consensus on IANA transition requirements.

Agenda:

• Opening (5 minutes): The moderator (Milton Mueller) gives a brief overview of the IANA transition, and the ICG (combined) proposal.
• Introductions (10 minutes): Each panelist is introduced and briefly (1-2 minutes) explains how their stakeholder group relates to the IANA functions operator and what they see as the benefits or problems of the transition.
• Discussion led by moderator followed by Q&A.

This Session's background as published in advance by IGF2015:

• IANA functions transition has been the focus of the past year’s Internet governance discussions. The three operational communities who rely on the IANA functions (names, numbers and protocols) were asked to draft proposals on how the transition should take place. By the time the IGF will be held, the final proposal will probably have been submitted by the ICG to the U.S. Commerce Department NTIA, and it will be a suitable period to analyze the proposal’s level of public support, strengths, weaknesses and features in a multi-stakeholder manner at a non-ICANN venue. 
• The IANA functions transition has been organized within the ICANN community. IGF is an appropriate venue to engage a broader range of stakeholder groups and understand their perspective. 
• This workshop considers the commonalities and differences in the proposals from Names, Protocols and Numbers communities. It evaluates the transition process and discusses how different constituencies have handled the way ICANN combines policy making for Names and the operation of the IANA functions. 
• The workshop also discusses the way the proposal will be received by stakeholder groups not normally part of the ICANN process, such as the US Congress, other governments and other stakeholder groups. How are they reacting to the final IANA functions transition proposal, what are their concerns, is there any interference with the transition? The workshop’s contribution will be to broaden consensus on IANA transition requirements.

About IGF 2015:

• The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is an annual multi-stakeholder forum for policy dialogue on issues of Internet governance. It brings together all stakeholders in the Internet governance debate, including representatives of governments, the private sector, and civil society, as well as members of the technical and academic community, on an equal basis and in an open and inclusive process. Establishment of the IGF was formally announced by the United Nations Secretary-General in 2006, and IGF2006 convened in Oct–Nov 2006.
• The Internet Governance Forum 2015, #IGF2015, was at João Pessoa, Brazil.
• The Internet Governance Forum 2015 videos are on YouTube
• IGF 2015 Transcripts.

See also on Domain Mondo: ICANN Open Forum at IGF 2015: IANA, Globalization, Accountability, Trust


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN Accountability, IANA Transition, Proposals, Comments, Webinars

UPDATE August 31, 2015: Volume 9: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions - ICANN: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions, Date: August 31, 2015 (read the full update at the link above)

UPDATE: Important dates in the IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability processes:

Public Comment Period on ICG's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal closes 8 Sep 2015 

Public Comment Period for CCWG-Accountability's 2nd draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) closes 12 Sep 2015

18-19 Sep 2015 : ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, Los Angeles

30 Sep-15 Oct 2015: CCWG-Accountability's 2nd and final proposal (Work Stream 1) presented to ALAC, ASO,ccNSO, GAC and GNSO for their approval.

18-22 Oct 2015: ICANN 54 inc. ICG Face-to-Face meeting and presentation of proposals for IANAstewardship and ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) to the ICANNBoard for subsequent transmission to the NTIA.

Week 1, Nov 2015: ICANN Board transmits IANA stewardship transition and ICANN accountability (Work Stream 1) proposals to NTIA.

Announcements from ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group) and ICANN:

1. IANA Stewardship Transition
The ICG is asking the public to review the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community. Comments are due by the deadline of 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.

• Public comment web site: https://comments.ianacg.org
• Webinars: The ICG will hold two (identical) webinars via Adobe Connect and dial-in (webinar details here): 

1. Thursday 6 August 2015 from 19:00-20:30 UTC time converter 
2. Friday 7 August 2015 from 11:00-12:30 UTC time converter 

• News release: https://www.ianacg.org/news-release-icg-seeking-public-input-on-key-internet-governance/

2. ICANN Accountability
The CCWG-Accountability (Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability) has published its 2nd draft for 40-day public comment--see Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) - ICANN. Community feedback is requested on this 2nd draft proposal of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability framework that the CCWG-Accountability has identified as essential to happen or be committed to before the IANA Stewardship Transition takes place (Work Stream 1). Comments are due by the deadline of 12 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.

Community feedback (see ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Comments) will help the CCWG-Accountability to improve its proposal and carry on with next steps, including Chartering Organizations' endorsement of the CCWG-Accountability output before it is submitted to the ICANN Board during or after ICANN 54 in Dublin in October 2015.

In order to brief the community on the contents of their 2nd draft proposal, the CCWG-Accountability Chairs will host two identical briefing webinars via Adobe Connect and dial-in (webinar details): 

1. Tuesday 4 August from 19:00 – 21:00 UTC time converter
2. Friday 7 August from 07:00 – 09:00 UTC time converter

Tweets by @sgdickinson

Follow @DomainMondo

DOTCOM Act of 2015, IANA Stewardship Transition, LIVE Video

UPDATE: Full Committee Vote on the DOTCOM Act - APPROVED Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 5:00pm and Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 10:00am: Full Committee Vote on the DOTCOM Act | Energy & Commerce Committee
and http://energycommerce.house.gov/studio/webcasts (additional video links)

The U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce will meet in open markup session on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. for opening statements only.

The Committee will reconvene on Wednesday, June 17, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. to consider the following: H.R. 805: the Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2015 also known as the DOTCOM Act of 2015.

Above: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 hearing

Background: On March 14, 2014, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intention to transition the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global multistakeholder community at the end of the existing contract, in September 2015. NTIA characterized the move as a step to “support and enhance the
multistakeholder model,” asking Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a transition proposal. NTIA asserted that the intent of the U.S. Government and other Internet architects was always to transition the role away from the U.S. Department of Commerce. More info: Background Memo

H.R. 805, DOTCOM ACT OF 2015

On February 5, 2015, Representative John Shimkus, along with thirteen co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 805, the “DOTCOM Act of 2015.” The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a legislative hearing on H.R. 805 entitled “Stakeholder Perspectives on the IANA Transition” on Wednesday, May 13, 2015. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology forwarded H.R. 805, as amended, to the full Committee by voice vote. More info: H.R. 805, the "Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2015 (pdf)

The following is a summary of H.R. 805, as amended:

Section 1. Short Title.

This section provides that the bill may be cited as the “Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2015” or the “DOTCOM Act of 2015.”

Section 2. Requirements for IANA Stewardship Transition.

Subsection (a) requires the NTIA to continue to serve in its role as steward of the IANA functions in the Internet’s DNS until 30 legislative days after the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information submits the report required by subsection (b) of the Act. 

Subsection (b) requires the Assistant Secretary to submit a report to Congress that contains two certifications. First, the Assistant Secretary must certify that the proposal for transition that was submitted to NTIA by ICANN meets NTIA’s stated criteria for a successful successor to the U.S. government’s role in IANA. Specifically, that the proposal:

• Supports and enhances the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance;
• Maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet domain name system;
• Meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority services;
• Maintains the openness of the Internet; and
• Does not replace the role of the NTIA with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.

Second, the Assistant Secretary must certify that the changes to ICANN’s bylaws that are

required by the multistakeholder community as prerequisites to the IANA transition have been

implemented by ICANN.

USHR01 House Energy and Commerce Committee (US Congress)

Follow @DomainMondo

ICANN, IANA Transition, New DOTCOM Act, Enactment Likely (video)

Above video is a session at the Techonomy Policy conference, June 9, 2015, on the Worrisome Future of the Internet (Policy 15 - Techonomy): Fadi Chehadé, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN); Steve DelBianco, NetChoice; Miriam Sapiro, Summit Strategies International and The Brookings Institution; Moderator: Gordon Goldstein, Silver Lake - discussion includes the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability. Beginning @12:55 Steve DelBianco discusses Congressional bipartisan support for an amended DOTCOM Act (see below).

"Subject: Bipartisan Amendment to DOTCOM Act -- Attached please find a copy of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute that Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, and Mr. Shimkus have agreed to.  As we mentioned on calls to many of you, we think this amendment represents a responsible path forward that respects the multistakeholder process without abrogating our Committee's oversight of NTIA. Very shortly, we will be noticing a subcommittee markup for this Wednesday, where we expect the subcommittee will favorably report H.R. 805 to the Committee with bipartisan support." (emphasis added) Attachment: "Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2015" / DOTCOM Act of 2015 (pdf) which provides an amended new title: "A bill to provide for certain requirements relating to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority stewardship transition."-- posted on the ICANN CCWG-Accountability mail list by Paul Rosenzweig who also stated:

"... [the legislation] will be considered in Congress tomorrow [Wednesday, June 10, 2015] relating to the IANA transition. Unlike other bills floating in Congress, this one has the support of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In other words, it has support of both Democrats and Republicans and, implicitly, is likely something the Administration would accept. Thus, though one can never be sure in these matters, I assess it as reasonably likely that this bill will become law.

"On the merits, my own sense is that many in the community will welcome the provisions of this bill. First, and foremost, it puts Congress on record in favor of the overall goal of having the transition happen, thus laying to rest concerns that some in Congress might seek to short-circuit the process. In more detail ... the bill provides:

"1. There will be 30 legislative days (i.e. working week days) after notification to Congress prior to the transfer going into effect. This will allow Congress to review the terms of the transfer. To stop it, however, would require a separate bill enacted into law.

"2. It requires NTIA to certify that the proposed transition meets the five criteria set by the NTIA at the start of the process. This seems a very modest requirement, since if our proposal did not meet that set of requirements, NTIA would not approve it in the first instance.

"3. It also requires NTIA to certify that ICANN has approved and implemented all required bylaw changes contained in the final report of the CCWG and the CWG before the transition occurs, i.e., ICANN has to follow through and complete the bylaw revision process before the formal termination of the contract." (emphasis added)

From the amended/substituted HR 805:

"Requirements for IANA Stewardship Transition: .... a certification by the Assistant Secretary [Larry Strickling, NTIA] that— (A) such proposal— (i) supports and enhances the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance; (ii) maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet domain name system; (iii) meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority services; (iv) maintains the openness of the Internet; and (v) does not replace the role of the NTIA with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution; and (B) the required changes to ICANN’s by-laws contained in the final report of ICANN’s Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and the changes to ICANN’s bylaws required by ICANN’s IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group [ICG] have been implemented." (emphasis added)

The current NTIA-ICANN IANA Functions Contract (pdf) expires September 30, 2015, but contains an option period of October 1, 2015 - September 30, 2017.


Follow @DomainMondo