NTIA, ICANN Leaders Testify on IANA Transition Accountability
Congress misunderstands the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition and needs to be careful of the message its criticism of the transition sends, said several Democratic lawmakers during a House Judiciary Internet Subcommittee hearing Wednesday. In their second appearance on Capitol Hill to discuss IANA, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé and NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling continued to face critical questions from mostly Republican lawmakers about the decision to transition oversight of IANA functions to a global multistakeholder group. A markup of the DOTCOM Act, to slow down the transition, in the House Communications Subcommittee also saw partisan divisions as it passed along party lines. (See separate report in this issue.)
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.
Congressional criticism of the transition has “included inaccurate statements,” specifically regarding the potential for government control of Internet governance, said House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich. The statements and hearings reminded Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., “that generally when the Congress gets involved in the engineering questions of the Internet, we sometimes show we don’t understand the Internet.” But Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said NTIA and ICANN have “not been fully transparent” about how they made the decision to transition IANA functions. Goodlatte -- who said he doesn’t support or oppose the transition -- accused Strickling of being misleading in his statements that the U.S. government and Congress have always supported the eventual transition of these functions to a global multistakeholder group. To make that point is “sophistry,” he said. “Indeed, it’s an attempt to shut down discussion."
Last week, Strickling and Chehadé defended the move before the House Communications Subcommittee (CD April 3 p11). NTIA’s oversight role in ICANN is misunderstood, as is the process to phase out that oversight role, they said. NTIA oversees ICANN’s administration of IANA and domain name system functions, but the degree to which it has input has been the subject of debate during hearings.
NTIA’s ICANN oversight role is almost “clerical,” Strickling told Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas. NTIA signs off on ICANN’s IANA function decisions that are generated through a bottom-up, multistakeholder model, said Strickling. NTIA’s biggest input comes through its voice in the multistakeholder process -- its seat on the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) it signed with ICANN (http://bit.ly/1mZJWLJ), he said. Chehadé said later that ICANN would be starting in the coming days a “public consultation” to “strengthen” the AOC. “The question and concern I have,” Goodlatte said, is that “when we let go of that final link,” will ICANN “be safe from those efforts to regulate the Internet or will it be more exposed because it no longer has the protection of the United States?"
"I'm flummoxed by your question,” Strickling replied. The transition “is not the last link.” Goodlatte was “blowing totally out of proportion” the contractual relationship NTIA has with ICANN and “ignoring the way we participate” through the multistakeholder process, Strickling said.
"Without U.S. oversight, ICANN has the potential to grow into the world’s largest unregulated monopoly,” testified Daniel Castro, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) senior analyst. Several Republicans picked up on the line, asking Strickling and Chehadé to respond. “It is impossible for ICANN to move in that direction because of the multistakeholder model,” Chehadé said, citing the numerous checks on ICANN performance, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). “They have accountability on us,” he said. Even the GAC cannot “offer me advice unless all 133 [committee members] can reach consensus,” he said. “Just like the Internet, ICANN is impossible to capture.” Castro weighed in: “Any political system is subject to various types of designs and those designs put constraints on what people do, but they're not infallible.” Others have pointed out the GAC can change its consensus approach if it chooses (CD April 4 p11).
As part of the proposal, ICANN could consider accountability measures like outside audit boards, an inspector general and a system similar to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), said Paul Rosenzweig, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Chehadé pointed to an ICANN process similar to FOIA that has been in place since 2009. “ICANN has shown its very close attention to the review mechanisms and accountability mechanisms,” he said, saying it’s always open to more.
The accountability concerns are valid, but “are contingency concerns that we ought to bear in mind ... as proposals are put out,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. Lofgren suggested members of Congress could attend ICANN meetings as a way to better understand and gain confidence in the process. “I'll be the first to volunteer,” she said. Chehadé noted judicial bodies hadn’t historically participated in ICANN’s process, but that “Congress is welcome.” He cited the benefit ICANN had gained from having law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and Interpol participate in the multistakeholder model. They have helped with the agreements ICANN has signed with various registrars, he said.
Strickling and Chehadé said the timetable on the transition isn’t pressing. While NTIA’s IANA contract with ICANN expires Sept. 30, 2015, it has the option to renew for up to four years, Strickling said. “There is no rush,” Chehadé said. “We have the time to get this right.”