<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'd be interested to know what our distinguished guest, Ira Magaziner, quoted here in support of the theory behind the letter, thinks of this....</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nigel Roberts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I doubt that.<br>
<br>
I think the situation is either that the Senator from Alberta does not understand or its a deliberate ploy for political advantage.<br>
<br>
(That is an .OR. not an .XOR. operation)<br>
<br>
I do have doubt as to the legality of the transition, but they do not extend as far as its constitutionality.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Nigel<span class=""><br>
<br>
On 28/09/15 18:54, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
The below from Senator Cruz is self-explanatory. I have no doubt it<br>
will make Dr. Lisse very happy.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><span class=""><br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
<br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
<br>
Link to my PGP Key<br></span>
<<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9</a>><span class=""><br>
<br>
ICYMI- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), along with Senate Judiciary<br>
Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), House Judiciary Committee<br>
Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and Rep. Darrell Issa<br>
(R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts,<br>
Intellectual Property, and the Internet, sent a letter to the Government<br>
Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an affirmative determination of<br>
whether the Obama Administration’s plan to transfer U.S. oversight of<br>
the Internet violates the Constitution.<br>
<br></span>
/The Wall Street Journal'/s columnist L. Gordon Crovitz reported on the<span class=""><br>
letter today in his Information Age column, “Not Obama’s to Give Away.”<br></span>
<<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/not-obamas-to-give-away-1443386189" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.wsj.com/articles/not-obamas-to-give-away-1443386189</a>><br>
<br>
*From:*Press, Cruz (Cruz)<br>
*Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2015 11:54 AM<br>
*Subject:* RELEASE: Sen. Cruz Leads Bicameral Letter Asking GAO to<span class=""><br>
Determine Whether Obama Administration Has Power to Give Away the Internet<br>
<br></span>
*UNITED STATES SENATE*<br>
<br>
*Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office*<br>
<br>
**<br>
<br>
*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*<br>
<br>
*Cruz Press Office: <a href="tel:202-228-7561" value="+12022287561" target="_blank">202-228-7561</a>*<br>
<br>
Phil Novack: <a href="mailto:phil_novack@cruz.senate.gov" target="_blank">phil_novack@cruz.senate.gov</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:phil_novack@cruz.senate.gov" target="_blank">phil_novack@cruz.senate.gov</a>><br>
<br>
September 28, 2015<br>
<br>
*Sen. Cruz Leads Bicameral Letter Asking GAO to Determine Whether Obama<br>
Administration Has Power to Give Away the Internet*<br>
<br>
/Judiciary Chairmen Grassley and Goodlatte, with Rep. Issa, join Cruz to<br>
get answers on whether Administration’s plan violates the Constitution/<br>
<br>
//<span class=""><br>
<br>
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), along with Senate<br>
Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), House Judiciary<br>
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and Rep. Darrell Issa<br>
(R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts,<br>
Intellectual Property, and the Internet, sent a letter to the Government<br>
Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an affirmative determination of<br>
whether the Obama Administration’s plan to transfer U.S. oversight of<br>
the Internet violates the Constitution.<br>
<br></span>
/The Wall Street Journal'/s columnist L. Gordon Crovitz reported on the<span class=""><br>
letter today in his Information Age column, “Not Obama’s to Give Away.”<br></span>
<<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/not-obamas-to-give-away-1443386189" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.wsj.com/articles/not-obamas-to-give-away-1443386189</a>><span class=""><br>
<br>
Sen. Cruz said: “Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution,<br>
Congress has the exclusive power ‘to dispose of and make all needful<br>
rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property<br>
belonging to the United States.’ If the contract governing U.S.<br>
oversight of the Internet is indeed government property, the<br>
Administration’s intention to cede control to the ‘global stakeholder<br>
community’ -- including nations like Iran, Russia and China that do not<br>
value free speech and in fact seek to stifle it -- is in violation of<br>
the Constitution and should be stopped.”<br>
<br>
The letter is being sent at a time when efforts by both the<br>
Administration and Congress, via the DOTCOM Act, are underway to<br>
facilitate the transition of U.S. control over the Internet without an<br>
affirmative vote from Congress. In another action to protect U.S.<br>
control of the Internet, Sen. Cruz recently filed the DOTCOM Act<br></span>
<<a href="http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2402" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2402</a>> as an amendment to<span class=""><br>
the highway reauthorization bill the Senate considered in July. Cruz's<br>
amendment is identical to the original version of the DOTCOM Act being<br>
considered by the Senate with one exception: it would require Congress<br>
to have an affirmative up or down vote on the Obama Administration's<br>
plan to give away the Internet.<br>
<br>
Read the full text of the Cruz-Grassley-Goodlatte-Issa letter here<br></span>
<<a href="http://cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20150922%20Grassley%20Cruz%20Goodlatte%20Issa%20GAO%20Request%20ICANN.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20150922%20Grassley%20Cruz%20Goodlatte%20Issa%20GAO%20Request%20ICANN.pdf</a>> and<div><div class="h5"><br>
below:<br>
<br>
September 22, 2015<br>
<br>
Mr. Gene Dodaro<br>
<br>
Comptroller General<br>
<br>
U.S. Government Accountability Office<br>
<br>
441 G Street, N.W.<br>
<br>
Washington, DC 20548<br>
<br>
Dear Mr. Dodaro:<br>
<br>
On March 14, 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information<br>
Administration (“NTIA”) announced its intent to relinquish oversight of<br>
Internet domain name functions to the “global stakeholder community.”<br>
This proposed transition raises questions about NTIA’s authority to<br>
transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet’s<br>
infrastructure to a third party.<br>
<br>
The Internet as we know it has evolved from a network infrastructure<br>
first created by Department of Defense researchers. One key component of<br>
that infrastructure is the root zone file, which the federal government<br>
currently designates as a “national IT asset.”[1] Creation of the root<br>
zone file was funded by the American taxpayer and coordinated by the<br>
Department of Defense, and the file has remained under United States<br>
control ever since.<br>
<br>
Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the<br>
exclusive power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and<br>
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the<br>
United States.” One question arising from NTIA’s decision to transfer<br>
its Internet oversight functions to a third party is whether NTIA may<br>
relinquish possession and control of the root zone file—or any other<br>
similar component of the Internet that was financed and developed by the<br>
United States—without authorization from Congress. This concern was<br>
raised in 2000 by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), which<br>
questioned whether NTIA could relinquish authority over the root zone<br>
file and concluded that it was “unclear whether such a transition would<br>
involve a transfer of government property to a private entity.”[2] The<br>
2000 GAO report further detailed that the Department of Commerce advised<br>
the GAO at the time that “we have not devoted the possibly substantial<br>
staff resources that would be necessary to develop a legal opinion as to<br>
whether legislation would be necessary” to authorize transfer of the<br>
root zone file. Congress should be made aware of the legal status of the<br>
root zone file—or any other potential government property—before it<br>
makes any final decisions about whether to transfer the government’s<br>
Internet oversight functions to a third party.<br>
<br>
Some observers and parties involved in the proposed transfer have<br>
asserted that the termination of NTIA’s contract with ICANN would not<br>
result in the transfer of United States Government property.[3] Others<br>
believe that termination of this contract would result in government<br>
property being transferred to ICANN and point to a number of factors<br>
that would indicate that the root zone file and other contractual<br>
deliverables are property of the United States. Supporters of this<br>
position point to the fact that the United States acquired title to the<br>
root zone file because it was invented pursuant to Department of Defense<br>
contracts.[4] In addition, the United States has long claimed ownership<br>
or control over the root zone file. For example, President Clinton’s<br>
Internet “czar” Ira Magaziner asserted United States ownership of the<br>
entire Domain Name System because “[t]he United States paid for the<br>
Internet, the Net was created under its auspices, and most importantly<br>
everything [researchers] did was pursuant to government contracts.”[5]<br>
Additionally the Commerce Department’s contract with ICANN explicitly<br>
declares that “[a]ll deliverables provided under this contract,”<br>
including the “automated root zone,” are “the property of the U.S.<br>
government.”[6] And Verisign and ICANN contracts make clear that changes<br>
to the root zone file cannot be made without approval of the Department<br>
of Commerce.[7] Congress has also been actively engaged in managing the<br>
root zone file. Recently, it enacted the Consolidated and Further<br>
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which explicitly prohibited the<br>
Commerce Department from using federal funds to relinquish stewardship<br>
of the domain name system, “including responsibility with respect to the<br>
authoritative root zone file.”[8]<br>
<br>
Given this history, we are concerned that NTIA might potentially<br>
relinquish ownership of some form of United States property. To inform<br>
the Congress so that it may take any necessary and appropriate steps<br>
regarding NTIA’s planned transition of the IANA functions, we would like<br>
the GAO to conduct a review to address a number of specific questions.<br>
<br>
1. Would the termination of the NTIA’s contract with ICANN cause<br>
Government property, of any kind, to be transferred to ICANN?<br>
<br>
2. Is the authoritative root zone file, or other related or similar<br>
materials or information, United States government property?<br>
<br>
3. If so, does the NTIA have the authority to transfer the root zone<br>
file or, other related materials or information to a non-federal entity?<br>
<br>
Please include in this report a description and analysis of the relevant<br>
legal authorities and case law dealing with the transfer of United<br>
States Government property. We understand that to perform this work, GAO<br>
will need to conduct both significant audit work and complex legal analysis.<br>
<br>
Please contact Jonathan Nabavi (Chairman Grassley), Sean McLean (Senator<br>
Cruz), Vishal Amin (Chairman Goodlatte), and Veronica Wong (Congressman<br>
Issa) of our staffs if there are questions regarding this request.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
______________________ _________________________<br>
<br>
Charles E.<br>
Grassley<br>
Ted Cruz<br>
<br>
Chairman<br>
United States Senator<br>
<br>
Senate Committee on the Judiciary<br>
<br>
_______________________<br>
__________________________<br>
<br>
Bob<br>
Goodlatte<br>
Darrell Issa<br>
<br>
Chairman<br>
Member of<br>
Congress<br>
<br>
House Committee on the Judiciary<br>
<br>
[1]See, Verisign Company Information:<br>
<a href="http://www.verisign.com/en_US/company-information/index.xhtml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.verisign.com/en_US/company-information/index.xhtml</a><br>
<br>
[2]U.S. Government Accountability Office., GAO-B-284206, Department of<br>
Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names<br>
and Numbers (2000)<br>
<br>
[3]Letter from Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Sec’y for Commc’ns and<br>
Info., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, to Representative Sean Duffy &<br>
Representative James Sensenbrenner, U.S. House of Representatives (June<br>
11, 2015)<br>
<br>
[4]U.S. Congressional Research Service. Internet Governance and the<br>
Domain Name System: Issues for Congress (R42351; August 18, 2015), by<br>
Lennard G. Kruger<br>
<br>
[5]Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a<br>
Borderless World 41 (2006)<br>
<br>
[6]Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions Contract between U.S.<br>
Department of Commerce and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and<br>
Numbers. Contract Number SA1301-12-CN-0035. October 1, 2012.<br>
<br>
[7]See, Amendment 11 of the Cooperative Agreement NCR-9218742 between<br>
the U.S. Department of Commerce and Verisign, Inc. Also see, Internet<br>
Assigned Numbers Authority Functions Contract between U.S. Department of<br>
Commerce and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.<br>
Contract Number SA1301-12-CN-0035. October 1, 2012.<br>
<br>
[8]Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L.<br>
No 113-235, § 540, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (Dec. 16, 2014)<br>
<br>
###<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>