Public Trust in Internet Requires More Than IANA Transition, Surveillance Reform, Experts Say
ICANN’s process of spinning off U.S. federal government oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and legislation like the USA Freedom Act are dominating the public debate over how to regain public trust in the Internet’s integrity, but broader debates will have a more lasting effect on the Internet’s future, industry experts said Monday. Congress is continuing to scrutinize ICANN’s planning of the IANA transition (see 1505130061) during ICANN’s public comment period on a proposed transition plan and proposed improvements to ICANN’s accountability to stakeholders. Efforts to reform domestic surveillance authorities at the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies shift to the Senate this week, where a Senate version of the USA Freedom Act (S-1123) could get a vote. The House passed its version of the bill (HR-2048) on a 338-88 vote last week (see 1505130054). Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is continuing to push for reauthorization of the controversial Patriot Act Section 215.
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.
Debates over the IANA transition and surveillance legislation are “more of a formality” and don’t necessarily solve fundamental questions about the Internet’s future, said Mozilla Senior Policy Engineer Chris Riley during a joint Internet Society-George Washington University Institute for International Economic Policy event. Fundamental questions about the degree to which international governments ultimately will play a role in Internet governance remain among the “major shifting sands” in that debate that the IANA transition alone won’t solve, Riley said. Those questions really came into the public consciousness during the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications and will continue within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and within the ITU, he said.
The IANA transition process ultimately centers on ICANN’s purview over domain names, which have become “less and less relevant” within Internet governance as time has passed, said Harvard Law School Berkman Center Fellow Bruce Schneier. “We have these very tactical battles and debates, and while these occur technology just moves forward,” he said. Governments’ pressure on the Internet has continued to increase over time, and the extent to which international standards bodies like the IGF and ITU bow to that pressure will ultimately determine whether the Internet remains as open as it currently is, Schneier said.
That Internet governance debate will be partly influenced by whether stakeholders can restore public trust in the Internet that was damaged by the leaks of information about controversial NSA surveillance programs that began in 2013, Riley said. The USA Freedom Act and calls for letting Section 215 sunset aren’t the only things that the U.S. needs to do to restore that public trust, he said, saying those legislative efforts “don’t even scratch the surface” on addressing built-in backdoors in U.S. technology and other vulnerabilities. The government also needs to more publicly address Stingray cellphone surveillance programs, Schneier said. “We really need to have open conversations” about how the government is using the Stingray program, he said.