[ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 14:26:15 UTC 2015


I thought this would be of interest to the CCWG-IG.

Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:31 AM
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at
Internet2 Global Summit
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org


These may be of interest to the community

Paul



Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
<paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>





*From:* Joelle Tessler [mailto:JTessler at ntia.doc.gov]
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2015 5:07 PM
*To:* Joelle Tessler
*Subject:* Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global
Summit


Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit



*Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling*



*Assistant Secretary for Communications and InformationInternet2 Global
SummitWashington, D.C.April 28, 2015*

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit

*--As Prepared for Delivery--*

I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit.  Internet2
has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million
Recovery Act broadband grant.  With this grant, Internet2 has lit or
upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network.  This 100
gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community
anchor institutions through Internet 2’s partnership with regional research
and education networks.  Several of these networks also received NTIA
grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other
states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education
community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and
other institutions of learning.

However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband.  My topic today
is Internet governance.  This is an important and timely issue for everyone
who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2.
As your website states, “the commercial Internet we know today was shaped
by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2
community.”  Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement
of the academic community decades ago.

The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the
Internet evolved, were universities:  UCLA, Stanford, the University of
California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah.  The first message
ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford.  We know from history that this
first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed
and the rest is history.

New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related
to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders.
As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that
has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so,
specifically who should govern the Internet?  Who should make the decisions
that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like?  How can we
ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue
to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy
today?

The debate has focused on two very different choices.  One choice is that
governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the
Internet.  This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that
want to restrict the information available to their citizens.  The other
choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what
is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.

What do we mean by the multistakeholder model?  One expert defines the
multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an
equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles
and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation.[1]
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit#_ftn1>
”

>From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize:
participation and consensus decision-making.

Let me start with participation.  Internet policy issues draw a much larger
range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues.  One key
benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage
all interested parties.  Such parties can include industry, civil society,
government, technical and academic experts and even the general public.
The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through
the cooperation of many different parties.  Solving, or even meaningfully
discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different
parties.  Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested
parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative
problem solving.

The second key attribute is consensus decision-making.  It is important
that stakeholders come together on an equal footing.  The best way to
ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a
consensus basis.  Final decisions need to reflect the views of all
stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder
communities involved.

Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force
and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have
played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are
directly responsible for its success.  Within the Obama Administration, we
believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure
the continued growth and innovation of the Internet.

There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance.  Both Republican and Democratic administrations have
consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best
mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed.
Congress agrees.  Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate
Resolution 71, which states that the “United States remains committed to
the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private
sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and
technical experts in a consensus fashion.”

Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture.  We are continuing to oppose
efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision
making with a process limited only to governments.  This debate came to a
head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union’s World
Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.  At this
meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations
organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control
over the Internet.  A majority of countries there supported greater
governmental control.

However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the
multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing
countries.  Democracies in the developed world have long supported the
multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking.  The Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for
Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder
cooperation.  The OECD principles state, “multistakeholder processes have
been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to
address Internet policy challenges.”

What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing
countries.  A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference,
which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical
experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government
officials, all on an equal footing with each other.  At this meeting not
only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on
democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a
demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance
that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of
economic growth and innovation.

Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea
late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve
multistakeholder Internet governance.  The United States achieved all of
its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s work focused on its
current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity
issues.

This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time.
Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of
the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is
the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA
functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the
authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that
supports the routing of all traffic to websites.

The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical
DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector.  A year
ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to
develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the
U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community.
We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination
continues.  Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the
U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued
stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control
over how the Internet is governed.

When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions
that must be addressed before this transition takes place.  First, the
proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder
community and have broad community support.  More specifically, we will not
accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a
government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.  Second, the
proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
domain name system.  Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the
global customers and partners of the IANA services.  And finally, it must
maintain the openness of the Internet.

We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our
call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security
and openness of the Internet.  The community is in the process of
developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as
examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet
community.

I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out
these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and
will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable to the
customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.

Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder
discussions to design the transition plan.  Others of you are no doubt
wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake
for you.  The members of Internet2, such as universities and research
institutions, depend on the free flow of information.  Completing the
privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that
the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas,
commerce and social progress.

Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks
breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has
enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses.
Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American
companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries
respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case,
abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root.

The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s stakeholders and
must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the
multistakeholder community.  All of you can play a role to ensure a good
outcome.  First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning
process.  You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan
must hear from you as this transition progresses.  Second, stay informed on
the progress of the transition.  When the community completes its consensus
plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition.  We
all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an
open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the
academic community played a central role in the development of the
Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future.

Thank you for listening.





Joelle Tessler

Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

jtessler at ntia.doc.gov



_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150429/edc12a5f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list