Tag Archives: NTIA

ICANN and Governance

NTIA Revs up Rhetoric as IANA Transition Looms by Philip S. Corwin, Internet Commerce Association

Internet Commerce Association logoIt’s been almost six weeks since the NTIA announced “that the proposal developed by the global Internet multistakeholder community meets the criteria NTIA outlined in March 2014 when it stated its intent to transition the U.S. Government’s stewardship role for the Internet domain name system (DNS) technical functions, known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions”, and thereby signaled the start of the last lap of the IANA transition marathon.

In the interim since that announcement ICANN held a well-regarded, policy focused mid-year meeting in Helsinki that saw the ICANN community begin to engage on multiple Work Stream (WS) 2 accountability measures that, while deemed not to require resolution prior to the transition, are nonetheless very important matters – including remaining legal jurisdiction questions, heightened transparency tools and powers, human rights, and ICANN staff accountability.

Also, several DC think tanks recently held programs on the transition, at which some speakers advocated the “test drive” approach first broached at a May Senate Commerce Committee hearing. That soft transition concept would somehow provide for a period in which both the transition of IANA functions control and new community accountability powers could be tried out, but with the U.S positioned to intervene if significant problems arose or if the WS2 issues were not resolved satisfactorily.  But advocates have yet to advocate a practical means by which this setting ICANN free while retaining residual control could be accomplished, and the clock is steadily ticking down to the September 30th expiration of the current and likely last IANA contract between NTIA and ICANN.

NTIA had already rebuffed the soft transition concept as unnecessary, impractical, and counterproductive, but last week it upped the pressure for transition completion. In remarks delivered last Thursday at the IGF-USA conference in Washington, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling delivered a rousing defense of moving forward with the IANA transition, combined with a strong rebuke of transition critics, declaring:

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…

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…

Among the most persistent misconceptions is that we are giving away the Internet… 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….

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…

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.

To some extent Secretary Strickling was downplaying unresolved questions that could evolve into significant problems.  For example, there are clearly portions of the ICANN community who do not see the transition and accountability plans as a final resolution, but merely as a waystation to moving ICANN out of U.S. jurisdiction. When I advocated in Helsinki that ICANN’s U.S. incorporation be enshrined in a Fundamental Bylaw during the course of WS2 there was vigorous pushback from some quarters. As I wrote back in May:

[E]ven as the transition draws closer, ICANN’s continued status as a non-profit corporation subject to U.S. law — its jurisdictional locus — is rapidly replacing the IANA contract as the new focus for displeasure by those who would have ICANN relocate to another jurisdiction — or even be transformed into a multilateral international intergovernmental organization (IGO), an outcome specifically prohibited under NTIA’s approval criteria. The resolution of this extended debate will have profound ramifications for the future viability of the MSM of Internet Governance (IG), as well as for Internet speech free from governmental interference exercised from the top level of the domain name system (DNS). Until this matter is resolved with finality it will remain a scab to be constantly picked at, always threatening to become a festering sore on the body politic of IG.

Indeed, during the panel discussion that followed Secretary Strickling’s remarks, one speaker opined that if the IANA transition marked ICANN’s “Constitutional moment”, the unresolved corporate jurisdictional question could become for it what the unresolved issue of slavery became for the United States – a cause of eventual civil war.

Nonetheless, with the goal line is sight, NTIA is clearly pressing for transition completion on October 1st. The strong language of Secretary Strickling’s remarks may also be motivated by a sense that NTIA now has the upper hand, given that the likelihood of an extended appropriations freeze preventing a transition in fall 2016 is increasingly doubtful. Last week the Washington Post reported:

Any chance Congress had this year of smoothly completing work on its annual spending bills is now all but dead, leaving Republican leaders to grapple with how to avoid a contentious fight in the weeks before the election over how to avoid the threat of a government shutdown… Republicans are now debating how long a stop-gap spending bill they need to move before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 should last. Congress goes on a seven week recess after this week and will return after Labor Day.

That view was buttressed by a story in the Wall Street Journal:

Heading into this election year, Republican leaders pledged the GOP-controlled Congress would aim to do at least one thing: pass spending bills on time, without a lot of drama…But as Congress enters its last week in session before a seven-week break through Labor Day, the two chambers have yet to pass a single spending bill through both chambers….Congress will still have a few weeks in September to try to pass spending bills before the government’s current funding expires on Oct. 1. Most likely, lawmakers will be forced to pass a short-term spending bill keeping the government running through the election, likely until the end of the year or the first quarter of 2017.

This Congressional spending impasse is directly related to the fate of the IANA transition. The statutory language preventing NTIA from completing the transition expires at the end of FY 2016, which is one second before midnight on September 30th. One second later, at midnight on October 1st, NTIA will be free to hand off the IANA functions to ICANN, assuming that ICANN has completed its remaining pre-transfer obligations.

Prior to the summer recess the House passed a Department of Commerce appropriations bill extending the transition freeze for a year, but the Senate has not followed suit and the prospects for stand-alone DOC funding legislation now appear slim to none. In addition, the language of the FY 2016 freeze was written in a way that a simple FY 17 Continuing Resolution will not carry the freeze language forward into the new fiscal year; it would take an additional explicit provision being grafted on to the C.R. for the transition freeze to be extended. While that’s not impossible, it would be a heavier lift in a hyper-partisan Presidential election year.

Speaking of partisan politics, on July 12th it was reported that the 2016 draft GOP Platform blasts the Administration’s transition plans, stating,

The survival of the Internet as we know it is at risk… [President Obama] unilaterally announced America’s abandonment of the international Internet by surrendering U.S. control of the root zone of web names and addresses. He threw the Internet to the wolves, and they—Russia, China, Iran, and others—are ready to devour it… [Republicans] will therefore resist any effort to shift control away from the successful multi-stakeholder approach of Internet governance and toward governance by international or other intergovernmental organizations

The breakdown of the appropriations process and the failure of “test drive” proponents to provide a detailed blueprint for accomplishing a soft transition argue in favor of the IANA transition proceeding on October 1st. But when members of Congress return in September political passions will be running high, and opponents of the transition may well attempt a Hail Mary play — with NTIA ready to go all out to break it up and push the transition across the finish line. We’ll find out who prevails in late September.

This article by Philip Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association was sourced with permission from:
http://www.internetcommerce.org/ntia-revs-up-transition-rhetoric/

ICANN and Governance

ICANN: 90-day Root Zone Management System “Parallel Testing” Period Ends Successfully

ICANN logoICANN and Verisign today announce the successful completion of a 90-day parallel testing period of the Root Zone Management System (RZMS), which concluded on 6 July 2016.

During the testing period, zero unexplained differences were found between the production RZMS and the parallel test version of the RZMS, which has the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) authorization step removed. This result confirms that the production RZMS and parallel test system produce an identical output for every root zone file published, which was a key step to ensuring the continued security and stability of the Internet’s root zone post transition.

Daily comparison reports created during the testing period are available on Verisign’s website. Additionally, monthly progress reports for the testing period are available on ICANN‘s designated Root Zone Management System Parallel Testing webpage.

The authorization process step performed by NTIA will be removed upon the successful completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition, currently projected for 30 September 2016. Until then, the authoritative root zone file will continue to be produced by the production RZMS that contains the authorization step performed by NTIA.

For more information on ICANN‘s broader IANA Stewardship Transition implementation planning efforts, visit: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-14-en

ICANN and Governance

ICANN: Draft PTI Bylaws

ICANN logoBrief Overview

This public comment proceeding period seeks community input on the Draft PTI Bylaws. In order to reflect the recommendations contained in the proposals by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as provided to the ICANN Board and transmitted to NTIA on 10 March 2016, ICANN must incorporate an affiliate, referred to as PTI, for the performance of the naming-related IANA functions. ICANN also intends to subcontract the performance of the numbering- and protocol parameter-related IANA functions to PTI.

The draft PTI Articles of Incorporation, required for the incorporation of PTI is published for public comments at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en.

Once adopted, PTI’s governance requirements will be set out in its Bylaws, including issues such as the composition of the Board, conduct of Board meetings, the powers of the Board and PTI officers, and budgeting, planning and record keeping requirements. The Bylaws do not set out the detailed operational requirements of PTI. Those details will be set out in the contracts that ICANN will enter into with PTI, including the ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement, and the subcontracts for the performance of the protocol parameters- and numbering-related IANA functions.

The draft PTI Bylaws were developed to meet the recommendations of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal and to be consistent with the requirements in the revised ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-bylaws-27may16-en.pdf [PDF, 1.42 MB]).

Any interested party may review and provide feedback on the draft PTI Bylaws during the public comment period. The comments will be analyzed to ensure alignment with the ICG proposal and ICANN Bylaws, and incorporated for the PTI Board’s consideration and approval.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

The draft PTI Bylaws were drafted in order to reflect the recommendations of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal as provided to the ICANN Board and transmitted to NTIA on 10 March 2016. As part of that work, ICANN is required to incorporate an affiliate that will perform the naming-related IANA functions under contract with ICANN. That affiliate is currently referred to as PTI. ICANN also intends to subcontract the performance of the numbering- and protocol parameter-related IANA functions to PTI.

The proposed PTI Bylaws are one of the governance-related documents developed to put PTI into operation once incorporated. Other governance-related documents are the PTI Conflict of Interest Policy, Board Code of Conduct, and Expected Standard of Behavior, which are also out for 30-day public comment at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en.

The PTI Bylaws will house the highest-level of governance requirements for PTI, such as the composition of the Board, conduct of Board meetings, the powers of the Board and PTI officers, and budgeting, planning and record keeping requirements. The Bylaws do not set out the detailed operational requirements of PTI.

The specific operational details will be set out in the contracts that ICANN will enter into with PTI. Those include a contract between ICANN and PTI for PTI’s performance of the naming functions, and subcontracting agreements for PTI’s performance of the number and protocol parameter functions. In the coming weeks, ICANN will post for public comment a draft of the naming function contract.

The ICG proposal was developed through public processes, including multiple opportunities for public comment. All implementation planning efforts can be tracked at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation. The draft PTI Bylaws are incorporates the necessary recommendations in the ICG proposal as well as the relevant provisions from the ICANN Bylaws. Because this proposed PTI Bylaws are drafted to the publicly vetted proposal, this comment period is designed to solicit inputs from the broader community on how the proposal and ICANN Bylaws requirements were brought into the PTI Bylaws and if there are areas seen as inconsistent with the ICG proposal or ICANN Bylaws. Of note, the CWG-Stewardship and the independent counsel retained to advise the CWG have reviewed the PTI Bylaws and provided feedback, which has been incorporated into these draft Bylaws that are being published for public comment. This public comment period is not intended to be a forum for the reconsideration of those transition-related proposals.

The proposed PTI Bylaws posted today reflect inputs from the CWG-Stewardship addressing areas where the ICG Proposal did not include specific detail, some of which have impacts on PTI’s governance structure. Participants in the comment forum may wish to address some of these specific items in their comments:

  1. The CWG-Stewardship recommended that the Chair of the PTI Board should be selected from among the two Nominating Committee-nominated Directors elected to the PTI Board. The provision is supposed to be a suggestion of limitation of who can serve in the Chair role, though not a mandate. Concerns have been raised about the impact of this suggestion, and how searching for Director candidates that also have the skill set to chair a Board may impact the Nominating Committee process.
  2. The CWG-Stewardship also recommended that meetings of the PTI Board require that at least one of the ICANN-nominated Directors and one of the Nominating Committee-nominated Directors each be present, in addition to the requirement of a majority of Directors being present. This recommendation appears to strengthen the perceived legitimacy of any action of the PTI Board.
  3. The proposed PTI Bylaws specify a group of certain actions that require a higher threshold of Board approval (4/5) as opposed to the simple majority threshold that accompanies regular decisions. The CWG-Stewardship suggested that for these higher threshold decisions, that both of the Nominating Committee-nominated Directors on the PTI Board should have to approve. Because this suggested governance structure – where a single Director could hold up PTI from acting even where all other PTI Directors believed an action to be appropriate – was not included in the ICG Proposal or subjected to governance analysis, the proposed Bylaws rely only on the 4/5 threshold. Under any circumstance, that would require at least one of the Nominating Committee-nominated Directors to support the action.

Section II: Background

The IANA Stewardship Transition

For almost two decades, ICANN has performed the IANA functions under a zero-dollar contract with the U.S. Government, implementing policies developed by the multistakeholder community. The U.S. Government always envisioned its role as steward of the IANA functions as temporary, and, in March 2014, announced its intention to transition that stewardship to the global multistakeholder community. This transition will not affect how the identifiers are coordinated nor will it affect the functionality of the Internet or our ability to access it. In fact, the transition is nothing more than the final step in an 18-year process to privatize the management of the IANA functions.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) asked ICANN to convene an inclusive, global discussion that involved the full range of stakeholders to collectively develop a proposal for the transition. NTIA stated that the transition proposal must have broad community support and meet the following criteria:

  • Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
  • 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.

NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces NTIA‘s role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.

Developing the Community Proposals

Two sets of recommendations comprise the package provided to the ICANN Board for the IANA Stewardship Transition. One set of recommendations involved the proposal from the direct operational customers of the IANA functions. This proposal was prepared by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). The ICG, comprised of thirty individuals, representing the broad range of Internet stakeholder interests, were nominated by their respective communities. The ICG assembled input from three global multistakeholder communities with direct operational relationships with the IANA functions to develop a proposal to transition NTIA‘s stewardship of the IANA functions.

  • Read the final ICG proposal here [PDF, 2.31 MB].

The other set of recommendations related to enhancing ICANN Accountability in relation to the IANA Stewardship Transition. This proposal was prepared by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), made up of members from ICANN‘s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and over 200 participants, developed a separate proposal for enhancing ICANN‘s accountability in light of the changing historical relationship with the U.S. Government. Together with ICANN‘s existing structures, the group recommended mechanisms to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.

  • Read the final CCWG-Accountability proposal here [PDF, 6.02 MB].

Proposals Delivery and NTIA‘s Report

On March 10, 2016, the ICANN Board of Directors transmitted the IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Proposals to NTIA for its review and approval.

On 9 June, NTIA announced “that the proposal developed by the global Internet multistakeholder community meets the criteria NTIA outlined in March 2014 when it stated its intent to transition the U.S. Government’s stewardship role for the Internet domain name system (DNS) technical functions, known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.”

Other PTI related materials

On 01 July, ICANN published the proposed PTI Articles of Incorporations for a 30-day public comment period.

On 08 July, ICANN published the proposed PTI Conflict of Interest Policy, PTI Board Code of Conduct, and PTI Expected Standard of Behavior for a 30-day public comment period.

ICANN‘s implementation planning efforts based on requirements of the ICG and CCWG-Accountability proposals can be tracked at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation.

Section III: Relevant Resources

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en

ICANN and Governance

ICANN: Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation

Brief Overview

ICANN logoThis public comment proceeding seeks community input on the Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation. In order to reflect the recommendations contained in the proposals by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as provided to the ICANN Board and transmitted to NTIA on 10 March 2016, ICANN must incorporate an affiliate, referred to as PTI, for the performance of the naming-related IANA functions. ICANN also intends to subcontract the performance of the numbering- and protocol parameter-related IANA functions to PTI.

In order to incorporate an affiliate, which is a necessary step in ICANN‘s planning efforts for the implementation of the ICG Proposal, a first step is to file articles of incorporation. There are legal requirements for the content of articles of incorporation.

Keeping these requirements in mind, the proposed draft of the PTI Articles of Incorporation was developed to meet the recommendations of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal that a new legal entity be formed to perform the three IANA functions.

Any interested party may review and provide feedback on the draft PTI Articles during the public comment period. The comments will be analyzed against the legal requirements and incorporated for the ICANN Board consideration and approval of ICANN proceeding with the incorporation of PTI.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

The draft PTI Articles of Incorporation were drafted in order to reflect the recommendations of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal as provided to the ICANN Board and transmitted to NTIA on 10 March 2016. As part of that work, ICANN is required to incorporate an affiliate that will perform the naming-related IANA functions under contract with ICANN. That affiliate is currently referred to as PTI. ICANN also intends to subcontract the performance of the numbering- and protocol parameter-related IANA functions to PTI.

In order to incorporate an affiliate, which is a necessary step in ICANN‘s planning efforts for the implementation of the ICG Proposal, a first step is to file articles of incorporation. There are legal requirements for the content of articles of incorporation. Keeping these requirements in mind, the proposed draft of the PTI Articles of Incorporation was developed to meet the recommendations of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal that a new legal entity be formed to perform the three IANA functions.

The proposed Articles of Incorporation are the first of few governance documents that will be necessary for PTI to be put into operation. In the coming weeks, ICANN will also be posting for public comment proposed Bylaws for PTI, as well as a proposed PTI Conflict of Interest Policy and a PTI Board Code of Conduct. There will also be a contract between ICANN and PTI for PTI’s performance of the naming functions. A draft of that contract will be posted for comment after it is reviewed and considered with the Cross-Community Working Group to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions and the independent legal counsel engaged to assist the Working Group.

The ICG proposal was developed through public processes, including multiple opportunities for public comment. The draft PTI Articles are required to meet one of the recommendations in the ICG proposal: the formation of a new legal entity to perform the three IANA functions. All implementation planning efforts can be tracked at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation.

Because these draft PTI Articles are drafted to the publicly vetted proposal, this comment period is designed to solicit inputs from the broader community on how the proposal requirements were brought into the Articles and if there are areas seen as inconsistent with the ICG proposal. Of note, the CWG-Stewardship and its counsel have reviewed these Articles and provided feedback, which has been incorporated into these draft Articles that are being published for public comment. This public comment period is not intended to be a forum for the reconsideration of those transition-related proposals.

Section II: Background

The IANA Stewardship Transition

For almost two decades, ICANN has performed the IANA functions under a zero-dollar contract with the U.S. Government, implementing policies developed by the multistakeholder community. The U.S. Government always envisioned its role as steward of the IANA functions as temporary, and, in March 2014, announced its intention to transition that stewardship to the global multistakeholder community. This transition will not affect how the identifiers are coordinated nor will it affect the functionality of the Internet or our ability to access it. In fact, the transition is nothing more than the final step in an 18-year process to privatize the management of the IANA functions.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) asked ICANN to convene an inclusive, global discussion that involved the full range of stakeholders to collectively develop a proposal for the transition. NTIA stated that the transition proposal must have broad community support and meet the following criteria:

  • Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
  • 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.

NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces NTIA‘s role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.

Developing the Community Proposals

Two sets of recommendations comprise the package provided to the ICANN Board for the IANA Stewardship Transition. One set of recommendations involved the proposal from the direct operational customers of the IANA functions. This proposal was prepared by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). The ICG, comprised of thirty individuals, representing the broad range of Internet stakeholder interests, were nominated by their respective communities. The ICG assembled input from three global multistakeholder communities with direct operational relationships with the IANA functions to develop a proposal to transition NTIA‘s stewardship of the IANA functions.

  • Read the final ICG proposal here [PDF, 2.32 MB].

The other set of recommendations related to enhancing ICANN Accountability in relation to the IANA Stewardship Transition. This proposal was prepared by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), made up of members from ICANN‘s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and over 200 participants, developed a separate proposal for enhancing ICANN‘s accountability in light of the changing historical relationship with the U.S. Government. Together with ICANN‘s existing structures, the group recommended mechanisms to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.

  • Read the final CCWG-Accountability proposal here [PDF, 6.03 MB].

Proposals Delivery and NTIA‘s Report

On March 10, 2016, the ICANN Board of Directors transmitted the IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Proposals to NTIA for its review and approval.

On 9 June, NTIA announced “that the proposal developed by the global Internet multistakeholder community meets the criteria NTIA outlined in March 2014 when it stated its intent to transition the U.S. Government’s stewardship role for the Internet domain name system (DNS) technical functions, known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.”

ICANN‘s implementation planning efforts based on requirements of the ICG and CCWG-Accountability proposals can be tracked at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation.

Section III: Relevant Resources

Open Date: 1 Jul 2016 23:59 UTC

Close Date: 31 Jul 2016 23:59 UTC

Staff Report Due: 5 Aug 2016 23:59 UTC

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en

ICANN and Governance

Reflections on Internet Governance and Regulation with Special Consideration of the ICANN by Luís de Lima Pinheiro [Cyberlaw by CIJIC]

IANA logoAbstract: This article is focused on very general issues of Internet governance and regulation and on the potentialities of the adopted general conceptions with respect to the ICANN evolution. It advocates for an autonomous governance of the Internet, based upon a model of multistakeholder and globalized organizations.

This autonomous governance is connected with a co-regulation of the Internet, through a combination of the principle of autonomous regulation with public regulation in all areas where autonomous regulation is insufficient. This public regulation should be fundamentally of international source.

Regarding the evolution of ICANN, it is considered the very recent 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 and suggested the assumption by ICANN of the political role of a Non-Governmental Organization and the conclusion with the interested States and international organizations of standard quasi-treaties containing appropriate arbitration clauses.

This article is available for download from:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2796402

ICANN and Governance

U. S. Government Blasts China’s Draft Domain Regulations by Philip Corwin

Philip Corwin imageIn an unexpected move, the two top U.S. officials charged with the Obama Administration’s Internet policy have issued a joint statement severely criticizing draft Chinese domain policies. On May 16th, the State Department’s  Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda and NTIA’s Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling issued an official statement titled “China’s Internet Domain Name Measures and the Digital Economy”. In it, they charge that “ the Chinese government’s recent actions run contrary to China’s stated commitments toward global Internet governance processes as well as its stated goals for economic reform”.

The focus of their ire are new proposed rules issued in March by China’s  Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. The officials describe them as:

draft measures that would require all Internet domain names in China to be registered through government-licensed service providers that have established a domestic presence in the country and would impose additional stringent regulations on the provision of domain name services …The most controversial provision of China’s draft domain name measures – article 37 – has attracted considerable international concern, as some have interpreted the article to mean that all websites with domain names registered outside China will be blocked, thereby cutting off Chinese Internet users from the global Internet.  

The statement also throws down the gauntlet in regard to China’s recent efforts to push alternative, government-centric models of Internet governance. In this regard, it states:

China’s approach to DNS management within its borders could still contravene, undermine, and conflict with current policies for managing top level domains that emerge from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which follows a multistakeholder model in its community-based and consensus-driven policymaking approach.

While probably not affecting the content of the statement, the timing of its issuance may in part be to demonstrate a tough stance toward China’s DNS policy in advance of next Tuesday’s Senate Commerce Committee oversight hearing on the IANA transition and ICANN accountability. Committee member Ted Cruz has been peppering ICANN with questions regarding former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade’s participation in China’s World Internet Conference (WIC) last December, and his agreement to become Co-Chair of the Advisory Committee to the 2016 WIC meeting. Many speakers at the 2015 WIC meeting defended Internet censorship and heightened government control.

Adding gasoline to the fire, the statement also lashes Chinese Internet censorship, stating in that regard:

The regulations would also appear to formalize an explicit system of online censorship by forbidding the registration of websites containing any one of nine categories of prohibited content, broadly and vaguely defined, and creating a blacklist of “forbidden characters” in the registration of domain names, adding an extra layer of control to China’s Great Firewall… What we do not accept is the exercise of aggressive authority over people’s use of the Internet or the ability of a government to prevent the world from reaching its people.  Sadly, this is exactly what Chinese authorities, through these recent measures, are trying to do. 

While such views have likely been advanced in confidential meetings between Chinese and U.S. officials, it is highly unusual to see such bold charges levied against another nation in an official statement.

China has yet to respond to the U.S. allegations, and it remains to be seen if it will moderate its position regarding the draft rules – or whether it will react to this criticism by digging in and implementing them. It is also unclear what effect implementation might have on burgeoning purchases of domain names by Chinese registrants, who have flooded the secondary domain market over the past year through high-dollar purchase of short letter and number domains, and who reportedly also account for more than half the purchases of domains originating from ICANN’s new gTLD program. The draft rules could make many registries and domain names off-limits for Chinese purchasers.

The full text of the statement follows—   

 

China’s Internet Domain Name Measures and the Digital Economy

May 16, 2016 by Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda and Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling

Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda and Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling

May 16, 2016

This post was cross posted to the State Department’s blog: https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2016/05/16/china-s-internet-domain-name-measures-and-digital-economy [1]

China is a force in the global digital economy and an important player in global Internet policy discussions. Today, more than 700 million people have access to the Internet in China, more than any country in the world. Several of the most valuable Internet-based companies call China home.  Global innovators and service providers from around the world, including from the United States, are eager to enter its market.

That’s why it is incredibly important that China use its power and influence in a manner that supports the continued development of the global Internet and the prosperity of its domestic digital economy.

Both of our countries participate actively in a range of international organizations and processes that discuss the global development and deployment of the Internet.  We have both argued that the current processes, which rely on the cooperation of all stakeholders including government, industry, and civil society, are working effectively for the Internet’s future development and management.

However, the Chinese government’s recent actions run contrary to China’s stated commitments toward global Internet governance processes as well as its stated goals for economic reform.

In late March 2016, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued draft measures that would require all Internet domain names in China to be registered through government-licensed service providers that have established a domestic presence in the country and would impose additional stringent regulations on the provision of domain name services.

The regulations appear to create a barrier to access and force localization of data and domestic registration of domain names.  Whether driven by a motivation to increase control over Internet content in China or a desire to increase the quantity of Chinese-registered domain names, these regulations would contravene policies that have been established already at the global level by all Internet stakeholders (including Chinese).  If put into effect, these regulations would have potentially large and negative repercussions for everyone.

The regulations have led to expressions of concern in comments formally submitted by governments, including the United States, companies, and other stakeholders around the world that support an open and interoperable Internet.

The most controversial provision of China’s draft domain name measures – article 37 – has attracted considerable international concern, as some have interpreted the article to mean that all websites with domain names registered outside China will be blocked, thereby cutting off Chinese Internet users from the global Internet.  While Chinese authorities have clarified that the intent of the article would be to prohibit access to Chinese-registered domain names that are acquired from registries/registrars that are not in compliance with Chinese regulations, concerns remain that the language in its current form is vague and open to differing interpretations.  Even if applied to Chinese-registered domain names, China’s approach to DNS management within its borders could still contravene, undermine, and conflict with current policies for managing top level domains that emerge from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which follows a multistakeholder model in its community-based and consensus-driven policymaking approach.

Other concerns with the measures include requirements for forced data localization and real name verification for the registration of Internet addresses.  For instance, the draft measures appear to mandate that all Internet domain name registrars, registries, root server operators, and others, maintain zone files in China, thereby compelling firms to create a system for their China operations, which is entirely separate from their global operations.  This forced localization, though not unprecedented in China, would potentially create new barriers to the free flow of information and commerce across borders and consequently infringe upon internationally recognized commitments on free expression and trade.  The regulations would also appear to formalize an explicit system of online censorship by forbidding the registration of websites containing any one of nine categories of prohibited content, broadly and vaguely defined, and creating a blacklist of “forbidden characters” in the registration of domain names, adding an extra layer of control to China’s Great Firewall.

The United States supports the open global Internet as a platform for free expression and economic and human development worldwide, and we support the growth of China’s digital ecosystem within that context. We welcome the Chinese adoption and creation of Internet-based technologies and services.

What we do not accept is the exercise of aggressive authority over people’s use of the Internet or the ability of a government to prevent the world from reaching its people.  Sadly, this is exactly what Chinese authorities, through these recent measures, are trying to do.  Such efforts will not only create undue burdens and challenges for enterprises, both Chinese and foreign, operating in China, but they will also diminish the view of China as a constructive partner in the development of the global Internet.  Furthermore, they will hinder Chinese technology and services from achieving acceptance outside of China.

We have listened to company concerns, consulted with diplomatic partners, and shared our views directly with the Chinese government, while calling for China to continue dialogue with a broad group of stakeholders as its draft regulations are revised.

The digital economy has become one of the most powerful engines for global economic growth.  If left unchanged, China’s regulations would undermine some of the most fundamental aspects of the Internet – openness, reliability, and interoperability – within China.  By creating its own rules for domain name management, China is threatening to fragment the Internet, which would limit the Internet’s ability to operate as a global platform for human communication, commerce, and creativity.

Lawrence E. Strickling [2] serves as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda [3] serves as U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy at the U.S. Department of State.

Topics:

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
1401 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20230

commerce.gov | Privacy Policy | Web Policies | FOIA | Accessibility | usa.gov

Source URL: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/china-s-internet-domain-name-measures-and-digital-economy

Links:
[1] https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2016/05/16/china-s-internet-domain-name-measures-and-digital-economy
[2] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/about/bio_strickling.html
[3] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/bureau/209063.htm
[4] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/domain-name-system

This blog post by Philip Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association was sourced with permission from:
www.internetcommerce.org/u-s-blasts-chinas-draft-domain-regulations/

ICANN and Governance

ICANN: ICANN and Verisign Announce Start of 90-day Root Zone Management System “Parallel Testing” Period

ICANN logoAs scheduled and previously communicated, on 6 April 2016, ICANN and Verisign began a 90-day “parallel testing” period to verify the continued integrity of the data contained in the root zone file produced via the Root Zone Management System (RZMS) following the successful completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition.

This is a key step in ensuring the continued security and stability of the Internet’s root zone. The parallel testing period is part of the proposal that ICANN and Verisign submitted to NTIA in August 2015, at NTIA’s request, on how best to transition NTIA’s administrative role associated with root zone management to the global multistakeholder community in a manner that maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS).

The parallel testing period will be used to confirm that the production RZMS and the parallel test version of the RZMS (that has had the NTIA authorization step removed) produces identical output for every root zone file published. During the parallel testing period, and until the successful completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition, the authoritative root zone file will continue to be produced by the production RZMS that contains the authorization step performed by NTIA.

The parallel testing period is scheduled to be conducted for a continuous 90-day period  and will be considered successful as long as no unexplained differences in root zone files are identified between the production RZMS and the parallel test RZMS. In the event that any unexplained differences are found the issue(s) will be addressed and the 90-day parallel testing period will be restarted.

Verisign will be publishing daily comparison reports throughout the testing period, which will be made available on their website. ICANN will also be publishing monthly reports, which can be found on ICANN’s Stewardship Implementation webpage.

The RZMS parallel testing period is part of ICANN’s broader implementation planning efforts in response to the anticipated IANA Stewardship Transition. On 14 March 2014, NTIA announced its intent to transition its stewardship of the IANA functions to the multistakeholder community. The Root Zone Administrator (RZA) role currently performed by NTIA will be eliminated upon the successful completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition, currently projected for September 2016.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-08-en

ICANN and Governance

IANA Stewardship Transition Almost There

A plan developed by the international internet community that would see global stewardship of the key technical internet functions performed by the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) transitioned to the global multistakeholder community has been submitted to the US government for its approval, ICANN announced Thursday at the 55th ICANN public meeting being held in Marrakech, Morocco.”This plan is a testament to the hard work of the global internet community and the strength of the multistakeholder model,” said Board Chair Dr. Stephen D. Crocker, who transmitted the plan on behalf of the global community. “The plan has now been sent to the U.S. Government for its review, and assuming it meets the necessary criteria, we will have reached an historic moment in the history of the internet.”The plan provides a comprehensive package to transition the U.S. Government’s stewardship of these technical functions, called the IANA, which are critical to the internet’s smooth operation. It also proposes ways to enhance ICANN’s accountability as a fully independent organisation. The transition is the final step in the long-anticipated privatisation of the internet’s Domain Name System (DNS), first outlined when ICANN was incorporated in 1998.The ICANN Board received the package from the community during its 55th public meeting in Morocco, and today transmitted it to the U.S. National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA).On 14 March 2014, NTIA announced its desire to transition its stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. The package is the result of an inclusive, global discussion amongst representatives from government, large and small business, technical experts, civil society, researchers, academics and end users.”The internet community has exhibited remarkable dedication to the IANA stewardship transition because we know just how important it is to complete,” said Alissa Cooper, Chair of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) that coordinated the development of the transition proposal. “Internet users the world over stand to benefit from its stability, security, and accountability enhancements to internet governance once the proposal takes effect.”The global internet community has worked tirelessly to develop a plan that meets NTIA’s criteria, logging more than 600 meetings and calls, more than 32,000 mailing list exchanges and more than 800 working hours.It is expected it will take the US government around three months to evaluate the plan, and, if approved, “the transition of the IANA functions to the Internet community should occur on 30 September 2016,” writes Paul Wilson, APNIC Director General, on the APNIC blog.The only real stumbling block is that some conservative Republican senators including presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz are not happy with the proposal.The package combines the technical requirements of a transition coordinated by the IANA Stewardship Transition Group (ICG) and enhancements to ICANN’s accountability identified by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The two groups were composed of volunteers representing a broad range of interests from the wider multistakeholder internet community.”This plan enjoys the broadest possible support from this very diverse community and I’m confident it will meet NTIA’s criteria,” said Thomas Rickert, one of the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs. “The work of this group shows just how well the inclusive multistakeholder approach is working.”The U.S. Government will now review the package to ensure that it meets NTIA’s criteria. If approved, implementation of the plan is expected to be completed prior to the expiration of the contract between NTIA and ICANN in September 2016.

ICANN and Governance

Chehadé Announces Next Move In Life After ICANN As US Govt Extends ICANN IANA Contract

ICANN’s CEO And President Fadi Chehadé has announced that when he departs ICANN he will take up a position in what he describes in a post on the ICANN blog as a “portfolio of activities”, the main one being a Senior Advisor on Digital Strategy for ABRY Partners, a Boston-based private equity investment firm.The role will entail providing guidance to ABRY’s partners and their companies’ leaders on digital strategy. He is hoping this is just one of a number of roles he will undertake when he finishes with ICANN as he notes that he “expect[s] to add other roles to my portfolio and will update you all as appropriate.”But in the meantime he writes that “please be assured that until that time, I will remain focused on all the day to day duties within ICANN as we work toward a successful transition.”The main role Chehadé is working on until his departure is the transitioning of the NTIA’s “stewardship of the IANA functions to the global Internet community and, after countless meetings and revisions, we, as a community, are closer than ever to delivering on that commitment. We are in the final stages of submitting our proposal for the U.S. government, but there is more work to be done and I stand ready to finish the job I started with my friends and colleagues all those months ago.”But this is taking longer than expected. In An Update on the IANA Transition by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on 17 August, Strickling notes “it has become increasingly apparent over the last few months that the community needs time to complete its work, have the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government and then implement it if it is approved.”The new deadline is 30 September 2016 following consultation with stakeholders and with that in mind, the contract the US government has with ICANN to perform the IANA contract has been extended to this date. Beyond 2016, Strickling notes, the US government has options to extend the contract for up to three additional years if needed.”This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register notice, we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals.”In preparation for the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition, NTIA also asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to remove NTIA’s administrative role associated with root zone management, which the groups working on the transition were not asked to address. We asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to do this in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS.”The next months will be critical to our success and they will be challenging, but we are on the brink of something truly remarkable, the triumph of the multistakeholder model. I look forward to continuing my work toward this important goal with the dedicated community members who have worked so tirelessly to preserve one Internet for the world.As for Chehadé, Kieren McCarthy writes that he believes the ICANN CEO was “simply fed up with the job. It is a notoriously difficult one: the CEO is not only in charge of ICANN the corporation, but is also accountable to both the ICANN board – which is frequently criticized for its micromanagement – and the broader ICANN community, which can best be described as a loose conglomeration of warring tribes.””In addition, Chehade has seen a number of personal projects face repeated setbacks. Most notably, he was embarrassed and disappointed when his plan to create a new internet governance body called the NetMundial Initiative was roundly criticized by the internet and business communities.”It’s a similar view to that in espoused by Kevin Murphy in Domain Incite. “I’m drawn down the path of thinking that rather than finding the job of his dreams elsewhere, the dude is just suffering from ICANN burnout.”

ICANN and Governance

NTIA Wants Participation In IANA Transition to Multistakeholder Model

IANA logoA proposal has been released that will see the transition of the US government’s stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority’s (IANA) through ICANN to a multistakeholder model and the US government is encouraging comments and feedback.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration‘s Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling has asked those interested to give their feedback in a blog posting on the NTIA’s website.

The move is not without controversy with many US Republicans spreading fear of doomsday scenarios whereby countries such as China and Russia would be allowed to take control of the internet.

The proposal also has critics not spreading the doomsday scenarios but taking a more constructive approach such as former staffer and journalist Kieren McCarthy who writes a lengthy article in The Register, and is essential reading for those interested in the transition, that says in part:

“the near-final version is a hodgepodge of ideas and compromises that fails to address a key aspect of Uncle Sam’s role.

“In addition, the plan substitutes a complex set of unworkable process steps in place of the US Department of Commerce’s simple oversight of the internet. And it is reliant on a separate, unfinished process for improving accountability at the organization that will assume de facto control, ICANN.

“Most of the problems in the plan stem from political rather than technical issues, which means its main aspects are likely to remain even after a public comment period.

“In particular, the decision to award ICANN control of the IANA contract through a wholly controlled affiliate remains controversial, and there is some reason to believe that the process was distorted in order to arrive at a pre-decided outcome.”

Currently the role of the IANA is managed by ICANN through a contract with the US government. Discussions have been underway for over a year within the ICANN community and with other interested parties as to how best complete this transition.

According to Reuters, “the transition proposal recommends creating a separate subsidiary, with its own performance evaluation process, to actually operate the technical functions of managing the Internet’s name and address system under a contract with ICANN.”

“Similar to ICANN’s current process, a community could raise the alarm if IANA functions are not performed appropriately, according to Alissa Cooper, a U.S.-based network engineer who chairs the group coordinating the IANA transition.

“Because the proposal roots the accountability responsibility in the various stakeholder communities, that is one of the defences against capture by any single constituency,” Cooper told Reuters. “The proposal does a good job of maintaining the aspects of the current system that have been working well and carrying them forward to the future.”

“Under the proposal, ICANN would remain headquartered in California.

“The proposal suggests that the role played by the U.S. government be replaced by ICANN itself, an oversight committee and a review process involving many interested parties, none of which are governments or inter-governmental organisations.”

 

The transition is expected to be completed in mid-2016 after current CEO and President Fadi Chehadé, who has been driving the change following the US government announcement that it would happen, steps down.

The post by Strickling is as follows:

Nearly 17 months ago, NTIA kicked off activities to complete the privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS) as promised in 1998 by transitioning our stewardship role over  certain technical functions related to the DNS.

 

We have reached an important milestone in that process as the two working groups tasked with developing proposals related to the transition have released them for final comment.

These technical functions, known as the IANA functions, play an important but limited role in how the DNS and Internet operate. The DNS allows users to identify websites, mail servers, and other Internet destinations using easy-to-understand names (e.g., www.ntia.doc.gov) rather than the numeric network addresses (e.g., 170.110.225.163) necessary to retrieve information on the Internet.

The IANA transition will advance our commitment to ensuring that the Internet remains an engine for global economic growth, innovation and free speech.

Since March 2014, the Internet community – made up of technical experts, businesses and civil society – has spent hundreds of hours devising a transition proposal that aims to meet the principles we outlined, including preserving the openness, security and resiliency of the Internet.

The global Internet community also developed a proposal to enhance the accountability of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which currently performs the IANA functions under a contract with NTIA, in advance of NTIA transitioning its stewardship role.

In recent days both the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Enhancing ICANN Accountability have posted their proposals for review and final public comment.  Comments are due September 8, 2015, for the ICG’s proposal and September 12, 2015, for the CCWG’s proposal.

I urge all parties with an interest in the IANA transition to review these proposals and provide feedback to the working groups. This is the best way to make your voice heard and make a difference.  It is particularly important that stakeholders everywhere evaluate whether these plans meet the criteria that we have said must be part of the transition.

I greatly appreciate the time and effort the community has put into developing these proposals. With the participation of as many stakeholders as possible, I am confident that this transition will result in a stronger ICANN and an Internet that will continue to grow and thrive throughout the world.