DOTCOM Act Approved by House Subcommittee, as Partisan Divide Increases Over IANA Transition
A deepening partisan divide over NTIA’s proposed transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions was on full display at the House Communications Subcommittee markup of the DOTCOM Act Thursday. HR-4342, which seeks to delay any transition proposal until a study is done by GAO, was approved with 16 Republican members supporting and 10 Democratic members opposing, and none voting outside party lines (http://1.usa.gov/1kwsM8l). Four Democrats submitted five amendments to the bill, also defeated on party lines (http://1.usa.gov/1n4Pu4H).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The vote occurred simultaneously with a House Judiciary Internet Subcommittee hearing on the IANA transition. (See separate report in this issue.) ICANN, charged by NTIA with leading the transition proposal process, opened a public comment period for the transition earlier this week (http://bit.ly/R3bNxC).
The debate over the DOTCOM Act is a “magnificent tempest in a teapot,” said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., at the markup. This “spasm of fear” will “see to it that the GAO conducts an investigation,” which is what NTIA is “supposed to do,” he said. “Let them do it.”
"The bill should be called the ‘DOTCON Act,'” because of a “conspiracy,” attributable to subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., that President Barack Obama is going to use the transition to “hand over the Internet to rogue nations,” said ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. “I don’t know what’s happened to this committee, since this thing was introduced,” but it’s a “source of embarrassment,” she said. The act feeds into false claims that the U.S. controls the Internet, said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa. “The best way to stop a rogue government” from meddling with the Internet is through the multistakeholder process, he said. “A lot of these so-called multistakeholders are really governments,” said Walden, citing concerns about the transition from Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and former President Bill Clinton. “People like to see what they're buying” before they buy it, which is why the GAO should study the transition before NTIA moves forward, said Walden.
Eshoo’s unsuccessful amendment would have replaced the act with “essentially” the same version of HR-1580, which affirmed the U.S. commitment to the multistakeholder model, she said. HR-1580 passed unanimously in the House last May. It was “designed to combat recent efforts by some in the international community to regulate the Internet, which could jeopardize not only its vibrancy, but also the benefits it brings to the world,” said Walden during a floor speech at the time of the bill’s passage in the House. “I would suggest members go back and read what they voted for,” because that’s what they are “unraveling,” said Eshoo at the markup. The DOTCOM Act “puts teeth” into oversight of the transition, said John Shimkus, R-Ill. “Let’s not just trust,” said Walden. “Let’s trust and verify."
No Black Helicopters
"There is no plan to turn the Internet over to rogue governments,” or “conspiracy or black digital helicopter,” said Eshoo. “The plan is to stick with the plan.” Eshoo’s amendment has “nothing to do with what we're talking about today,” said Walden. “I'm not going to buy into the notion that whatever NTIA wants to do, they get to do,” he said: Americans have the “right” for the GAO to “give us their counsel.”
Eshoo’s amendment would eviscerate the act, said Walden. By saying, “'I'm against having the GAO having an independent analysis of whatever it is the NTIA comes back with,'” it makes compromise difficult, he said. “We've seen enough out of this administration and its imperial presidency politics, but I'm not just going to give them a blank pen and just walk away.” That’s inaccurate, answered Eshoo. Her staff told Walden’s staff they would “accept the GAO report,” but that was “rejected,” she said. “We're not opposed to the GAO examining this, but you had additional language in the underlying legislation that just ties the hands of the administration and NTIA behind their back,” she said. “If this is legislation directed at the president -- who you can’t stand -- I don’t think that’s a good way to legislate.”
Walden conceded that Eshoo’s staff had agreed to a GAO audit, but said it wouldn’t delay NTIA “from taking action.” The act says that “before the NTIA signs off on this proposal,” Congress should know what it “really means,” by giving the GAO “up to a year” to evaluate the proposed transition, he said. “You want to make that six months, I'd be open to six months.” The act will give any administration the chance to sign off on the proposal before NTIA proceeds, said Walden.
The “timeliness” of the transition is “important,” because while the U.S. waits to decide on oversight methods for the transition, governments that favor a multilateral approach could gain momentum, said Kurt Pritz, Domain Name Association executive director and former ICANN strategy chief, in an interview. “We know ICANN and NTIA are going to do it correctly.”
The act “reflects a fundamental misunderstanding” of NTIA’s role with the Internet, said Doyle. He isn’t “opposed” to a GAO study on the transition, which doesn’t require legislation, he said. “I appreciate my colleague’s concerns that authoritarian regimes could hijack” the Internet, but that’s “why we need the multistakeholder model,” said Doyle. The act “sends the wrong message to the rest of the world,” said Rep. Ben Lujan, D-N.M., saying there should be “accountability and oversight” for the transition.