[CCWG-ACCT] L. Gordon Crovitz in the WSJ: "Ted Cruz's Fight to Protect the Open Internet"
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 17:08:53 UTC 2015
This now seems to be outside the paywall, at:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruzs-fight-to-protect-the-open-internet-1438551531
Here's the full text:
Sen. Ted Cruz <http://topics.wsj.com/person/C/Ted-Cruz/7753> wants to
safeguard the open Internet from authoritarian regimes. You’d think that
would be an easy position to take, but it’s not. The Texas senator and
presidential candidate is bucking the leadership of his Republican Party to
push hard against the Obama administration plan to abandon America’s
protection of the Internet from political interference.
This became an issue in March 2014, when the Commerce Department announced
it would give up its Internet oversight by September 2015. Commerce
exercises oversight through its contract with the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, which keeps the engineers and network
operators who manage the Internet free from political interference. China,
Russia and other authoritarian regimes can censor websites only within
their own countries, not globally as they have long desired.
Congress used its budget power to block Commerce from giving up the Icann
contract during 2015, which should mean a two-year renewal into the next
presidency. The Obama administration ignored that timetable and set the new
date of July 2016 to give up control. Meanwhile, no alternative has emerged
to protect the open Internet.
The House passed the Dotcom Act (“Domain Openness Through Continued
Oversight Matters”) in June, which requires the Obama administration to
present such a plan to Congress. The Republican leadership supports the
bill, but Mr. Cruz put a hold on it in the Senate because of a fatal flaw:
U.S. protection for the Internet would automatically end 30 days after the
Obama administration presents its plan unless Congress votes against it.
Mr. Cruz instead wants to require congressional approval of any
administration plan.
“It’s a key issue that the U.S. not give away control of the Internet to a
body under the influence and possible control of foreign governments,” Mr.
Cruz told me last week. “U.S. leadership is still needed, and we should
defend freedom of speech and freedom on the Internet, not hand it over to
other countries with different priorities.”
Mr. Cruz argues that the Dotcom Act is bad policy and unconstitutional. He
cites the Constitution’s Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3), which
says Congress must pass legislation before government property can be
transferred. Under the contract between Commerce and Icann, “all
deliverables provided under this contract become the property of the U.S.
government.” The power to dispose of it, as Mr. Cruz says, belongs to
Congress, “not to an assistant secretary of the Commerce Department.”
The administration claims it won’t hand the Internet over to a body
controlled by governments. But in anticipation of the American abdication,
many governments are quietly finalizing the details of how they take over.
At an Icann meeting in Paris last month, several governments said they
would upgrade the current advisory role for governments within Icann as
soon as the U.S. gives up control. They would elevate governments above
Internet stakeholders—network operators, engineers and civil society
groups. China, Brazil and France define this as “enhanced” power for
governments.
A concerned participant shared with me internal Icann documents prepared
for the meeting. A survey Icann conducted on the future of Internet
governance highlights the dangers of an Obama surrender. Russia’s response
to the survey insists that governments get “a more meaningful role than an
advisory role . . . in all matters affecting public policy.” China wants
“independent status” for governments in controlling the Internet. Even
Switzerland wants more power for governments.
The Obama administration is conducting “stress tests” for what happens
without U.S. protection. What’s called “Stress Test No. 18” relates to how
governments could get control over Icann. Under current rules, governments
can press Icann on Internet policy issues only if no country objects—“any
formal objection” by just one country vetoes a power grab by governments at
the expense of the multistakeholder community.
The Obama plan for Icann if the U.S. contract ends now requires only a
“consensus” among governments to dictate Internet policy. That’s a far
lower standard than today’s requirement of unanimity and would further
sideline U.S. influence. The majority of authoritarian governments could
act together to politicize Icann. Instead of censoring
GayRightsInRussia.org or LiberateTibet.org only in their own countries,
Russia and China could forge a “consensus” to impose a global ban.
Protecting the open Internet was a bipartisan issue for many years and
should be one again. The Obama Internet giveaway invites a high-profile
campaign issue for politicians who oppose it. Considering the popularity of
the Internet, being for it is better politics than being against it.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Grec
> May you kindly share the article with us,
> If possible and cause no difficulties to you or those who can have access
> to that
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 4 Aug 2015, at 16:47, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > unfortunately the article is restricted to subscribers.
> >
> > And you'll perhaps are aware that references to ICP-1 in transition
> > proposals is quite unhelpful.
> >
> >
> > el
> >
> >> On 2015-08-04 02:17, Chris Disspain wrote:
> >> Thanks Greg.
> >>
> >> I think the key sentences from the article are:
> >>
> >> "The Obama administration is conducting “stress tests” for
> >> what happens without U.S. protection. What’s called “Stress
> >> Test No. 18” relates to how governments could get control over
> >> Icann. Under current rules, governments can press Icann on
> >> Internet policy issues only if no country objects—“any formal
> >> objection” by just one country vetoes a power grab by
> >> governments at the expense of the multistakeholder community. “
> >>
> >> It is clear to me that someone is briefing Crovitz. Not that
> >> there’s necessarily anything wrong with that - just important to
> >> note.
> >>
> >> The fact that this opinion piece is out indicates the importance
> >> of stress test 18 (core value 11) and the necessity to solve the
> >> current lack of consensus. If it is not dealt with there is a
> >> danger of the transition being derailed.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 4 Aug 2015, at 00:52 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This opinion piece (behind a paywall) appeared on The Wall Street
> >>> Journal's website yesterday.
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruzs-fight-to-protect-the-open-internet-1438551531
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what's more troubling; his embrace of Ted Cruz or
> >>> his misinterpretation of "consensus."
> >>>
> >>> Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wants to safeguard the open Internet
> >>> from authoritarian regimes. You’d think that would be an
> >>> easy position to take, but it’s not. The Texas senator and
> >>> presidential candidate is bucking the leadership of his
> >>> Republican Party to push hard against the Obama
> >>> Administration plan to abandon America’s protection of the
> >>> Internet from political interference. The Obama plan for
> >>> Icann if the US contract ends now requires only a
> >>> “consensus” among governments to dictate Internet policy.
> >>> That’s a far lower standard than today’s requirement of
> >>> unanimity and would further sideline US influence. The
> >>> majority of authoritarian governments could act together to
> >>> politicize Icann. Instead of censoring GayRightsInRussia.org
> >>> <http://GayRightsInRussia.org> or LiberateTibet.org
> >>> <http://LiberateTibet.org> only in their own countries,
> >>> Russia and China could forge a “consensus” to impose a
> >>> global ban. Protecting the open Internet was a bipartisan
> >>> issue for many years and should be one again. The Obama
> >>> Internet giveaway invites a high-profile campaign issue for
> >>> politicians who oppose it. Considering the popularity of the
> >>> Internet, being for it is better politics than being against
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if Crovitz (and Cruz) would see a bylaws commitment to
> >>> Human Rights as a way to "protect the open Internet" and combat
> >>> "political interference" from "authoritarian governments"? It
> >>> might be the first time they were Human Rights crusaders (other
> >>> than for things like the "right" to discriminate on the basis of
> >>> religious beliefs, e.g., regarding gay marriage)....
> >>>
> >>> Greg
> > [...]
> > --
> > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> > el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> > PO Box 8421 \ /
> > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> 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/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150804/34fc7294/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list