[kictanet] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Speech by Larry Strickling

[Barrack Otieno]

Listers,

Quite and interesting piece from the Assistant Secretary Larry
Strickling on the IANA transition. It is worth reading if you are
interested in Internet Governance.

Regards

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.id.au>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:15:52 +1000
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Speech by Larry Strickling
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>

All,

FYI below the text of a speech Assistant Secretary Strickling just
gave at the IGF-USA.

Video at https://www.igf-usa.org/igf-usa-2106-live-video/
<https://www.igf-usa.org/igf-usa-2106-live-video/>




Cheers,

Chris


Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
The Internet Governance Forum USA
Washington, D.C.
July 14, 2016
--As Prepared for Delivery--
I come here today to speak out for freedom. Specifically, Internet
freedom. I come here to speak out for free speech and civil liberties.
I come here to speak out in favor of the transition of the U.S.
government’s stewardship of the domain name system to the global
multistakeholder community. And I come here to speak out against what
former NTIA Administrator John Kneuer has so aptly called the
“hyperventilating hyperbole” that has emerged since ICANN transmitted
the consensus transition plan to us last March.
Protecting Internet freedom and openness has been a key criterion for
the IANA transition from the day we announced it in March 2014. The
best way to preserve Internet freedom is to depend on the community of
stakeholders who own and operate, transact business and exchange
information over the myriad of networks that comprise the Internet.
Free expression is protected by the open, decentralized nature of the
Internet, the neutral manner in which the technical aspects of the
Internet are managed and the commitment of stakeholders to maintain
openness. Freedom House reported that “Internet freedom around the
world has declined for the fifth consecutive year ...” Its
prescription for defending Internet freedom is to encourage the U.S.
government to “complet[e] the transition to a fully privatized Domain
Name System.”
What will not be effective to protect Internet freedom is to continue
the IANA functions contract. That contract is too limited in scope to
be a tool for protecting Internet freedom. It simply designates ICANN
to perform the technical IANA functions of managing the database of
protocol parameters, allocating IP numbers and processing changes to
the root zone file. It does not grant NTIA any authority over ICANN’s
day-to-day operations or the organization’s accountability to the
stakeholder community. The transition plan goes beyond any authority
that NTIA or the U.S. government has today by enhancing the power of
stakeholders to ensure ICANN’s accountability. For example, the U.S.
government has no ability to reject an ICANN budget or to remove an
ICANN board member—two of the new enumerated community powers.
Extending the contract, as some have asked us to do, could actually
lead to the loss of Internet freedom we all want to maintain. The
potential for serious consequences from extending the contract beyond
the time necessary for ICANN to complete implementation of the
transition plan is very real and has implications for ICANN, the
multistakeholder model and the credibility of the United States in the
global community.
Privatizing the domain name system has been a goal of Democratic and
Republican administrations since 1997. Prior to our 2014 announcement
to complete the privatization, some governments used NTIA’s continued
stewardship of the IANA functions to justify their demands that the
United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union or some
other body of governments take control over the domain name system.
Failing to follow through on the transition or unilaterally extending
the contract will only embolden authoritarian regimes to intensify
their advocacy for government-led or intergovernmental management of
the Internet via the United Nations.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and retired Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright recently noted
in Politico that rejecting or even delaying the transition would be a
gift to those governments threatened by a free and open Internet. The
Global Commission on Internet Governance, a group of leading experts
from around the world, echoed this message by recently calling on the
U.S. Government to adopt the proposal and to meet the September 2016
target date for the transition of the IANA functions. Failure to do
so, the Commission said, would “send the wrong message to the
international community, increase distrust, and will likely encourage
some governments to pursue their own national or even regional
Internets.”
Over the past two years, the global Internet community, comprised of
businesses, technical experts, public interest groups and governments,
has engaged in one of the most compelling demonstrations of a
multistakeholder process ever undertaken. The transition plan is a
thoughtful proposal that was developed through consensus over two
years by hundreds of stakeholders around the world. Stakeholders spent
more than 26,000 working hours on the proposal, exchanged more than
33,000 messages on mailing lists, held more than 600 meetings and
calls and incurred millions of dollars of legal fees. Given the
intensive level of effort that went into constructing the transition
plan and obtaining support for it from all parts of the ICANN
community, it is no surprise that the community supports the
transition and wants to see the United States follow through on its
long-standing, bipartisan commitment to privatize the domain name
system.
I realize that the transition raises many important questions. None
are more important than the ones we asked in March 2014 when we laid
out the criteria for the transition. We said then that the plan must:
support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance;
maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners
of the IANA services; and
maintain the openness of the Internet.
In addition, we said we would not accept a plan that replaced NTIA’s
role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.
Upon the community’s completion of the plan, NTIA led an intensive
interagency review to ensure the plan met these criteria. On June 9,
we found that the plan satisfied each and every one of our criteria.
We also evaluated the proposal against relevant internal control
principles, as recommended by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO). We separately engaged a panel of corporate governance
experts to review the ICANN accountability proposal. The experts
concluded that the proposal is consistent with sound principles of
good governance.
Despite the open and transparent two-year process that developed the
plan, the many pages of documentation provided by the community to
describe and support the plan, and the exhaustive review we conducted,
misperceptions and outright misrepresentations about the plan continue
to circulate. I will use the remainder of my time to correct the
record on many of these claims.
Among the most persistent misconceptions is that we are giving away
the Internet. First off, we do not control the Internet. It is simply
not true, and people who really understand the Internet know it is not
true. No one controls the Internet. The Internet is a network of
networks that operates with the cooperation of stakeholders around the
world. The most significant operational change required by the
transition is to end the largely clerical role NTIA plays in reviewing
updates to the root zone file.
Even more extreme (and wrong) is the claim that we are giving the
Internet away to Russia, China, and other authoritarian governments
that want to censor content on the Internet. No one has set forth even
a plausible scenario as to how that could happen, and the fact is it
simply will not happen as a result of completing the transition.
Within ICANN, the transition proposal does not expand the role of
governments vis-à-vis other stakeholders. The bylaws retain the
prohibition on government officials serving as voting board members.
The role of governments in ICANN policymaking remains advisory. Under
the proposal, governments will continue through the Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC) to provide input to the Board in the normal
course of business. As is currently the case, the Board is free to
reject GAC advice.
Today, the Board does give special consideration to consensus GAC
advice. The transition proposal codifies current practice through a
bylaw change that defines consensus as agreement to which no one
formally objects. Now it is true that under the proposal, the
threshold for rejecting such GAC consensus advice does increase from
50 percent to 60 percent. However, given the codification of
“consensus” in the bylaws, this standard only applies to advice from
governments to which no government, including the United States, has
objected.
The GAC has the potential to participate in the Empowered Community,
but only at a level commensurate with other stakeholders. Notably, the
GAC cannot unilaterally exercise the community powers. Moreover, the
bylaws expressly prohibit the GAC from participating in the community
powers when the issue in contention is a Board action on GAC advice.
Some argue that authoritarian countries are not going to give up their
goal of having governments control the domain name system and that the
United States is daft for thinking that this transition will change
those countries. We would be silly if we thought that, but that has
never been our goal. We have never thought we would persuade
authoritarian regimes that our view of the Internet is the best
approach, but what matters is what the rest of the world thinks. There
we have made great progress over the last few years.
At the ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications in
Dubai in 2012, 89 countries joined in a resolution to expand the
authority of the ITU relative to Internet issues. The United States
was in the minority that day. However, since then, we have worked hard
with countries in the developing world to build support for the
multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Due in part to our
transition announcement and due in part to focused diplomacy of the
U.S. government coordinated by the State Department, we have made a
lot of progress, as represented by the fact that almost 30 of those 89
countries have now demonstrated their support for multistakeholder
governance of the domain name system by joining in the Governmental
Advisory Committee’s consensus position to move the transition
proposal forward.
Another claim now making the rounds is that the transition plan is a
radical proposal that is being rushed through by the Obama
Administration. How can anyone call a longstanding bipartisan policy
to privatize the Internet radical? The direction to privatize the
domain name system goes back nearly twenty years. The community spent
two years to develop its plan. No one rushed the community effort. To
the contrary, we extended the contract for a year when the community
said it needed more time to complete its work. Nothing is being rushed
here and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts.
Another false claim is the fear that ICANN will move its headquarters
abroad once the transition is complete and “flee” the reach of U.S.
law. However, this ignores the fact that the stakeholder community has
spent the last two years building an accountability regime for ICANN
that at its core relies on California law and on ICANN to remain a
California corporation.
ICANN’s own bylaws confirm that “the principal office for the
transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California, United States of America.” ICANN’s Board
cannot change this bylaw over the objection of the stakeholder
community.  Additionally, ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation already
state that ICANN “is organized under California Nonprofit Public
Benefit Corporation Law.” Changes to the Articles of Incorporation now
require support of a 75 percent majority of the empowered community.
ICANN is a California corporation and will remain so.
Other claims keep popping up and I do not have time today to correct
every misstatement being made about the transition. For example, after
living for two years under an appropriations restriction that
prohibits us from using appropriated funds to relinquish our
responsibility for the domain name system, it is now asserted that
this restriction prevents us even from reviewing the transition plan.
Yet this claim ignores the fact that at the same time Congress
approved the restriction, it also directed NTIA "to conduct a thorough
review and analysis of any proposed transition" and to provide
quarterly reports on the process to Congress.
In the last couple of weeks, I have heard new concerns about the
possible antitrust liability of a post-transition ICANN. However, this
concern ignores the fact that ICANN in its policymaking activities has
always been and will continue to be subject to antitrust laws.
I could go on but let me close with some observations on the
multistakeholder process. There is no question that within ICANN, the
last two years have strengthened the multistakeholder model as it is
practiced there. Moreover, the accomplishments of the process at ICANN
are serving as a powerful example to governments and other
stakeholders of how to use the process to reach consensus on the
solutions to complex and difficult issues. However, as we work toward
completing the transition, we must recognize that the multistakeholder
model will continue to face challenges. It is important that we remain
dedicated to demonstrating our support and respect for the
multistakeholder approach in all the venues where it is used.
We do not show respect for the multistakeholder process when we wait
until the process is over and the community has reached consensus and
then propose a two-year trial of the plan without ever asking the
community to consider such an option. We do not show respect for the
multistakeholder process when we do not participate for two years and
then afterwards say we preferred an option that the community
considered and rejected.
Closer to home, here at the IGF-USA, we need to respect the process by
working to expand participation beyond the Beltway and to support the
inclusion of new stakeholders on a nationwide basis in an open,
transparent, and inclusive manner. This kind of growth requires a
strong foundation, which is why NTIA supports the work of the
IGF-USA’s new Sustainability Working Group. This group is working to
develop a governance structure to guide the organizational process and
to ensure that there is diverse, inclusive and multistakeholder
engagement.
In closing, thanks to all of you for your interest and involvement in
IGF-USA and in the IANA transition. I want to particularly thank those
of you here today who actually contributed your time, effort, and
creativity to reaching consensus on the IANA transition plan. Your
hard work and dedication has been truly inspiring.
Thank you for listening.



-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254733206359
Skype: barrack.otieno
PGP ID: 0x2611D86A