[CWG-Stewardship] FYI / The latest from the US congress about the IANA transition.

[Robert Guerra]

Wanted to forward this to the list in case some of you haven’t seen 
John Laprise’s note to the ISOC Internet Policy list…

regards

Robert


> From: John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
> To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: [Internet Policy] The latest from the US congress about the 
> IANA transition.
> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 11:27:45 -0500
>
> This is provided courtesy of Steven Aftergood's fantastic work at the 
> FAS.
>
>
>
> http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf


The Future of Internet Governance: Should the U.S. Relinquish Its 
Authority Over ICANN?
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf

Summary

Currently, the U.S. government retains limited authority over the 
Internet’s domain name system,
primarily through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 
functions contract between
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 
and the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). By virtue of the 
IANA functions
contract, the NTIA exerts a legacy authority and stewardship over ICANN, 
and arguably has
more influence over ICANN and the domain name system (DNS) than other 
national
governments.

On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced the intention to transition its 
stewardship role and
procedural authority over key Internet domain name functions to the 
global Internet
multistakeholder community. To accomplish this transition, NTIA has 
asked ICANN to convene
interested global Internet stakeholders to develop a transition 
proposal. NTIA has stated that it
will not accept any transition proposal that would replace the NTIA role 
with a government-led or
an intergovernmental organization solution.

Currently, Internet stakeholders are engaged in a series of working 
groups to develop a transition
proposal. Their goal is to submit a final proposal to NTIA by summer 
2015. NTIA must approve
the proposal in order for it to relinquish its authority over the IANA 
functions contract. While the
IANA functions contract expires on September 30, 2015, NTIA has the 
flexibility to extend the
contract for any period through September 2019.

Concerns have risen in Congress over the proposed transition. Critics 
worry that relinquishing
U.S. authority over Internet domain names may offer opportunities for 
either hostile foreign
governments or intergovernmental organizations, such as the United 
Nations, to gain undue
influence over the Internet. On the other hand, supporters argue that 
this transition completes the
necessary evolution of Internet domain name governance towards the 
private sector, and will
ultimately support and strengthen the multistakeholder model of Internet 
governance.

Legislation has been introduced in the 113th and 114th Congresses which 
would prevent, delay, or
impose conditions or additional scrutiny on the transition. In the 113th 
Congress, a provision in
the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 
113-235) provides that
during FY2015, NTIA may not use any appropriated funds to relinquish its 
responsibility with
respect to Internet domain name system functions. In the 114th Congress, 
H.R. 805 (the
DOTCOM Act of 2015) would prohibit NTIA from relinquishing its authority 
over the Internet
domain name system until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
submits a report to
Congress examining the implications of the proposed transfer.

The proposed transition could have a significant impact on the future of 
Internet governance.
National governments are recognizing an increasing stake in ICANN and 
DNS policy decisions,
especially in cases where Internet DNS policy intersects with national 
laws and interests related
to issues such as intellectual property, cybersecurity, privacy, and 
Internet freedom. How ICANN
and the Internet domain name system are ultimately governed may set an 
important precedent in
future policy debates—both domestically and internationally—over how 
the Internet should be
governed, and what role governments and intergovernmental organizations 
should play