U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

90–781 2015

ENSURING THE SECURITY, STABILITY, RESILIENCE, 

AND FREEDOM OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 2, 2014 

Serial No. 113–134 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 8 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 106 

WITNESSES

Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, and Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Fadi Chehade, President and CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 

and Numbers ........................................................................................................ 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Ambassador David Gross, Partner, Wiley Rein, LLP ........................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Steve Delbianco, Executive Director, Netchoice .................................................... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Carolina Rossini, Project Director, New America Foundation Open Technology 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 83 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of The Internet Association, submitted by Mr. Walden ..................... 108 

Article entitled, ‘‘U.S. Plans to Give Up Oversight of Web Domain Manager,’’ 

The Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2014, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ............... 110 

Statement of Robert M. McDowell, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ............................... 113 

Letter of April 1, 2014, from NGOs to subcommittee, submitted by Ms. 

Eshoo ..................................................................................................................... 116 

Article entitled, ‘‘U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet,’’ 

The Washington Post, March 14, 2014, submitted by Ms. Eshoo .................... 118 

(1) 

ENSURING THE SECURITY, STABILITY, 

RESILIENCE, AND FREEDOM OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:36 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, 

Terry, Blackburn, Scalise, Lance, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Long, 

Ellmers, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Eshoo, Doyle, Matsui, Braley, 

Lujan and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Ray Baum, Senior 

Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Gene 

Fullano, Detailee, Telecom; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Telecom; 

Grace Koh, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, Legislative Coordinator; Tim Torres, Deputy IT Director; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Shawn Chang, Democratic Chief Counsel for 

Communications and Technology Subcommittee; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic Professional Staff Member; Ryan Skukowski, 

Democratic Staff Assistant; and Patrick Donovan, Democratic FCC 

Detailee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. OK, we’ll call to order the subcommittee on Communications and Technology. 

Good morning. I want to thank all of our witnesses today for 

clearing their schedules to come before our subcommittee on Communications and Technology to discuss the Obama Administration’s 

proposal to transfer to another entity oversight of the domain name 

system. 

I have read all of your testimony. I appreciate your counsel, and 

especially appreciate the thoughtful scenarios and stress tests 

noted in Mr. DelBianco’s testimony. Those are precisely the kinds 

of issues that certainly get our attention. I cannot overstate the importance of freedom of the Internet from government control, nor 

can I overstate the threat from foreign governments who seek to 

2 

control, tax, sensor and otherwise impose their own agendas on the 

Internet. That is why the House has unanimously passed both a 

resolution and legislation that affirm our policy that the United 

States should promote a global Internet free from government control, and I do hope the United States Senate will take up our latest 

measure with all due haste. 

Obviously, the Administration’s proposal has sparked furious debate, and brought together in opposition some interesting former 

combatants, ranging from Karl Rove to Bill Clinton and Newt 

Gingrich. 

I called today’s hearing to get answers to exactly what the 

Obama Administration is proposing and what it is not. Are the 

goals of security, stability, resilience and freedom of the Internet 

compatible with a multi-stakeholder-managed domain name system. The multi-stakeholder model is a key part of the success of 

the Internet with engineers, academics, public interest groups and 

users collaborating in a bottom-up, not government down approach. 

The decentralized management structure provides the flexibility to 

evolve, and disperses the risks posed by bad actors. However, once 

NTIA gives up its current role, who will fill the void. What assurance do Internet users have that such a change will not lead to foreign government mischief. If things do go astray, is there a path 

back for NTIA. The role that NTIA performs, though somewhat 

ministerial, has served as an important backstop. While I am 

heartened to see the criteria that NTIA set forth for any acceptable 

proposal included a prohibition on government-led or governmental 

organization taking control, I do remain concerned about how to 

prevent such a takeover in the future. What safeguards would be 

in place? We cannot allow institutions such as the United Nations 

or the International Telecommunications Union to insert themselves into the functioning of the domain name system now or as 

part of any successor solution. 

Make no mistake, threats to the openness and freedom of the 

Internet are real. Some authoritarian leaders such as Vladimir 

Putin have explicitly announced their desire to gain control of the 

Internet. In fact, just a year and a half ago, at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, a group of 

nations attempted to use a treaty on telephone networks and services as a backdoor to imposed policies that could have thwarted the 

robust and open nature of the Internet. 

I am sure the Administration understands why we are so concerned about any proposed changes now the Internet is governed. 

We need details on how the process will work, and the criteria for 

evaluating the proposals. Mr. Shimkus and Mrs. Blackburn have a 

bill they recently introduced, H.R. 4342, which I believe has been 

distributed to everyone here, that would have the GAO study the 

proposals and present a nonpartisan evaluation. This is a prudent 

idea and one we will move forward on very soon. 

[H.R. 4342 follows:] 

3 


90781.070
4 


90781.071
5 


90781.072
6 

Mr. WALDEN. Any plan must protect all participants in the Internet ecosystem, and demonstrate the successor’s technical ability to 

manage the IANA functions. If there are not sufficient safeguards 

in place to prevent foreign government intrusion, then this concept 

should go no further. 

Even with these guarantees, I remain concerned about the opportunities for abuse. When it comes to the core principles that NTIA 

and the State Department have put forward, I urge them to follow 

the admonition of Margaret Thatcher, and ‘‘Don’t go wobbly.’’ There 

is no putting this genie back in the bottle once the transition begins. 

So we are holding this hearing because far too much is at stake 

for any uncertainty or ambiguity as to our path forward. 

A little less than a year ago, the world was watching as we deliberated H.R. 1580, our unanimously-passed Bill supporting the 

multi-stakeholder process. The world, including those deeply concerned about government control of the Internet, is watching again 

today. This is the Administration’s opportunity to make its case 

and answer our questions, prove to us that you will conduct this 

proposed process in a way that leaves no room for error, and it will 

protect the free and open Internet we have all come to expect and 

rely upon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

I want to thank all of our witnesses today for clearing their schedules to come 

before our Communications and Technology Subcommittee to discuss the Obama administration’s proposal to transfer to another entity oversight of the Domain Name 

System. I’ve read all of your testimony and appreciate your counsel. I especially appreciated the thoughtful scenarios and stress tests noted in Mr. DelBianco’s testimony. Those are precisely the kinds of issues that get our attention. 

I cannot overstate the importance of freedom of the Internet from government 

control. Nor can I overstate the threat from foreign governments who seek to control, tax, censor, and otherwise impose their own agendas on the Internet. That’s 

why the House has unanimously passed both a resolution and legislation that affirm 

our policy that the United States should promote a global Internet, free from government control. I do hope the Senate takes up our latest measure with all due 

haste. 

Obviously, the administration’s proposal has sparked furious debate and brought 

together in opposition some interesting former combatants ranging from Karl Rove 

to Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. 

I called today’s hearing to get answers to exactly what the Obama administration 

is proposing and what it is not. Are the goals of security, stability, resilience and 

freedom of the Internet compatible with a multistakeholder managed Domain Name 

System? 

The multi-stakeholder model is a key part of the success of the Internet, with engineers, academics, public interest groups, and users collaborating in a bottom-up, 

non-governmental approach. The decentralized management structure provides the 

flexibility to evolve and disperses the risks posed by bad actors. However, once 

NTIA gives up its current role, who will fill the void? What assurance do Internet 

users have that such a change will not lead to foreign government mischief? If 

things go astray, is there a path back for NTIA? 

The role that NTIA performs, though somewhat ministerial, has served as an important backstop. While I am heartened to see the criteria that NTIA set forth for 

any acceptable proposal included a prohibition on a government-led or intergovernmental organization taking control, I remain concerned about how to prevent such 

a takeover in the future. What safeguards are in place? 

We cannot allow institutions such as the United Nations or the International 

Telecommunication Union to insert themselves into the functioning of the Domain 

Name System now, or as part of any successor solution. 

7 

Make no mistake; threats to the openness and freedom of the Internet are real. 

Leaders such as Vladimir Putin have explicitly announced their desire to gain control of the Internet. Just a year and a half ago, at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, a group of nations attempted to use a treaty 

on telephone networks and services as a backdoor to impose policies that could have 

thwarted the robust and open nature of the Internet. 

I’m sure the administration understands why I am so concerned about any proposed changes to how the Internet is governed. We need details on how the process 

will work and the criteria for evaluating proposals. Mr. Shimkus and Mrs. 

Blackburn have a bill they recently introduced—H.R. 4342—that would have the 

GAO study the proposals and present a non-partisan evaluation. This is a prudent 

idea. Any plan must protect all participants in the Internet ecosystem and demonstrate the successor’s technical ability to manage the IANA functions. If there are 

not sufficient safeguards in place to prevent foreign government intrusion, then this 

concept should go no further. Even with these guarantees, I remain concerned about 

the opportunities for abuse. 

When it comes to the core principles that NTIA and the State Department have 

put forward I urge them to follow the admonition of Margaret Thatcher and ‘‘Don’t 

Go Wobbly’’. There is no putting this genie back in the bottle once the transition 

begins. We are holding this hearing because far too much is at stake for any uncertainty or ambiguity as to our path forward. 

A little less than a year ago, the world was watching as we deliberated H.R. 1580, 

our unanimously passed bill supporting the multi-stakeholder model. The world, including those deeply concerned about government control of the Internet, is watching again today. This is the administration’s opportunity to make its case and answer our questions. Prove to us that you will conduct this proposed process in a way 

that leaves no room for error and that will protect the free and open Internet we 

have all come to expect and rely upon. 

Mr. WALDEN. With that, I will yield to the vice chair of the committee, Mr. Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you very much to our witnesses for testifying today. 

As the Chairman said, the Internet has developed into a robust 

and competitive frontier for free enterprise, innovation, job creation, and economic growth and prosperity. In our own democratic 

government, it serves as a tool for citizens to exercise their fundamental freedoms, and for those around the world, the Internet enables the exercise of basic human rights, as well as political advancement and reform. The preservation of the Internet’s openness 

and freedom is, and must continue to be, non-negotiable. 

As the NTIA prepares to relinquish its contractual oversight of 

the IANA functions of ICANN, any new oversight proposals that 

threaten to diminish the existing multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance must be rejected. Not doing so will jeopardize the 

economic prosperity we have achieved throughout the United 

States and the world, and may curtail the basic freedoms and 

human rights of millions, if not billions. 

I support calls to engage in rigorous and careful congressional 

oversight of NTIA’s proposed transition of its contract to ensure 

that no government or intergovernmental body takes control of domain name system responsibilities, and that the Internet remains 

as free and open as it is today. 

And again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. And before I recognize the 

gentlelady and the ranking member from California, I would like 

to ask unanimous consent to put a statement of support from the 

Internet Association, representing many of America’s great Internet successful companies including Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, 

8 

Yahoo, Netflix, and Google, and statements from AT&T, Verizon, 

Cisco, and the United States Chamber of Commerce, expressing 

support for a process to investigate a transition that precludes 

other governments from assuming the role the U.S. currently plays. 

I have all of those, and without objection, they will be entered 

into the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WALDEN. And with that, I will now turn to my friend and 

colleague from California, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, both for having this hearing and for our important witnesses that are here today. This is a 

very important discussion that we are going to have, and we look 

forward to your testimony. 

For more than 2 decades, there is no question that the Internet 

has flourished as a platform that enables the exchange of commerce, trade and information. Last year, the House passed legislation on a 413 to 0 vote, stating ‘‘It is the policy of the United States 

to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model 

that governs the Internet.’’ Now we are hearing the criticisms and 

even rejection of this model which has provided the underpinnings 

for innovation, openness, and economic prosperity around the 

world. 

I think history can be instructive to us here. In 1998, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce outlined a plan that would phase out its 

policy oversight role within 2 years. While this transition obviously 

took longer than it should, they operated more on government time 

than on real time, it is now time for the United States to finally 

walk the walk, and demonstrate to the world that while the Internet was a product of America’s genius, no government or intergovernmental organization should control its future. To ensure that 

the next 2 decades, and even beyond that, are just as successful, 

we need to think big about how we preserve the global Internet 

principles of openness, security, stability, and resiliency. 

In this context, NTIA’s announcement last month to transition 

key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community is an important step in the evolution of the 

Internet. It is what people voted for, 413 to zip. That is what was 

embedded in that resolution, and that resolution was more than 

noticed by countries around the world, because the United States 

of America was absolutely 1,000 percent united. The Executive 

Branch, the Senate, the House, all our representatives. There was 

no daylight between us. So I think it might be instructive to go 

back and see what members voted for. 

During the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications, WCIT, in Dubai, we saw firsthand that there are 

nations around the globe who do not share our vision for maintaining the free flow of information across the Internet. In practice, 

this has manifested itself in the blocking of popular social media 

sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, which are used daily by 

millions around the world to share their ideas, their news, and 

9 

their beliefs. I just headed up a resolution condemning Turkey for 

what it did in shutting all of these platforms down. And so I don’t 

think that there is an argument about that. I think there is some 

confusion about the understanding of what this represents. 

Independent of whether NTIA successfully transitions the domain name system, the DNS, to the multi-stakeholder community, 

these acts of censorship will continue unless we unite across the 

globe in support of a free and open Internet. I think that that is 

what we have to keep front and center here. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have significant work ahead of us. 

I hope this is the first of many conversations we have to not only 

examine ICANN’s role, but more broadly, how to expand the availability of broadband, enhance consumer privacy, ensure the security of communication networks, and protect intellectual property 

around the world. 

My thanks again to the witnesses. And I want to especially recognize Assistant Secretary Strickling for his leadership and vision 

to ensure that throughout this transition, the Internet remains 

open to ALL, in capital letters, to ALL, and that it remain a success story for generations to come. 

I would like to—I don’t know where the time clock is on this. 

Mr. WALDEN. Fourteen seconds. 

Ms. ESHOO. Fourteen seconds? Do you want to take 14 seconds, 

Doris, or—OK. Well, then I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The 

Chair recognizes the big Chair, Mr. Upton, from Michigan. Please 

go ahead. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, my friend. 

Today, our important work continues to protect the future of the 

Internet, a subject of great consequence for sure. This committee 

has been at the forefront of the effort to preserve the Internet 

openness and freedom. A non-regulatory, multi-stakeholder government model is essential to the continued success of the Internet, 

and has been critical to the development of this engine of economic, 

political and social engagement. 

We have affirmed our commitment to this principle more than 

once. First, with the passage of Congress Resolution 2012, and 

then, of course, with H.R. 1580, which all of us have talked about, 

which passed by a unanimous vote. 

We must do all that we can to keep the Internet free from the 

control of those who wish to use it for less than noble means. Keeping it out of the hands of nations like China, Iran, and Russia, who 

have demonstrated hostility towards the free market, the flowing, 

unfettered exchange of information is important. NTIA’s recent announcement of its intent to transition Internet oversight functions 

to a new structure should be met with a critical eye, especially 

when you take into account the Administration’s track record of 

saying one thing and doing yet another. 

This issue has united one-time opponents Bill Clinton and Newt 

Gingrich, who are fighting to protect the Internet as we know it. 

10 

Something as important as the future of the Internet demands 

a thoughtful and deliberative process, and I join my colleagues in 

supporting the DOTCOM Act, and I would commend Mr. Shimkus 

and Mrs. Blackburn for coauthoring that measure, as well as Mr. 

Latta, Ellmers and Barton for their early support, and we plan to 

announce a markup schedule very soon. This Act will stop—will 

step on the brakes until the GAO is able to analyze all the aspects 

and implications of the proposed shift in Internet oversight, including potential national security concerns. 

While I do not oppose a vigorous discussion of whether and how 

we could transition the domain name system out of the Commerce 

Department’s purview, we are a long way from seeing a proposal 

that I could support. As the world moves forward with this discussion, we will conduct vigorous oversight of the process, and hold 

NTIA to its word that it will not allow the Internet to fall victim 

to international government power grabs. Our work continues. 

I yield one minute each to Mr. Shimkus and Mrs. Blackburn. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today our important work continues to protect the future of the Internet—a subject of great consequence. This committee has been at the forefront of the effort to 

preserve Internet openness and freedom. A nonregulatory, multi-stakeholder governance model is essential to the continued success of the Internet and has been critical 

to the development of this engine of economic, political, and social engagement. We 

have affirmed our commitment to this principle more than once—first with the passage of a sense of the Congress resolution in 2012, and then with the unanimous 

House approval of H.R. 1580 in 2013. 

We must do all we can to keep the Internet free from the control of those who 

wish to use it for less than noble means, keeping it out of the hands of nations like 

China, Iran, or Russia who have demonstrated hostility toward the free flowing, unfettered exchange of information. 

NTIA’s recent announcement of its intent to transition Internet oversight functions away from the U.S. government should be met with a critical eye, especially 

when you take into account the administration’s track record of saying one thing 

and doing another. 

When deadlines have no meaning, red lines disappear, and projects like the Keystone XL pipeline are sidelined despite obvious economic benefit, skepticism that 

‘‘this time we mean it’’ is natural. Freedom of the Internet and the global implications of this transition are far too important to let slip away because of another broken promise. There is no going back one we relinquish our oversight. This issue has 

united one-time opponents Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich who are fighting to protect the Internet as we know it. 

Something as important as the future of the Internet demands a thoughtful and 

deliberate process, and I join my colleagues in supporting the DOTCOM Act. I commend Representative John Shimkus and full committee Vice Chairman Marsha 

Blackburn for co-authoring the measure, as well as Vice Chairman Latta, and Representatives Renee Ellmers and Joe Barton for their early support, and we plan to 

announce a markup schedule soon. 

The DOTCOM Act will step on the brakes until the Government Accountability 

Office is able to analyze all aspects and implications of the relinquishing of U.S. 

oversight, including potential national security concerns. 

While I do not oppose a vigorous discussion of whether and how we could transition the Domain Name System out of the Commerce Department’s purview, we are 

a long way from seeing a proposal that I could support. As the world moves forward 

with this discussion, we will conduct vigorous oversight of the process and hold 

NTIA to their word that it will not allow the Internet to fall victim to international 

government power grabs. Our work continues. 

11 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start 

with a clip of President Clinton and the founder of Wikipedia, 

Jimmy Wales, as part of my opening statement. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I echo their concerns. As you know, 

I drew up the DOTCOM Act with Marsha last week. The main critics of that Bill seem to be saying that Congress being informed 

about the proposals presented to NTIA, and the process of how this 

transition would occur would somehow embolden our enemies. I 

find it hard to believe that the most transparent Administration in 

the history of the universe would not want the Congress to be informed on how this process would work. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses, and hopefully 

we will get some clarity on how an open and transparent NTIA 

process—transfer process is beneficial to a free and open Internet. 

And I yield to Marsha. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for his work 

on the DOTCOM Act. 

Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you, I thought when you were 

quoting Margaret Thatcher, and I am sure Ms. Eshoo and Matsui 

join me in this, I thought you were going to say, since we are talking communications, if you want something said, ask a man; if you 

want something done, ask a woman, which was also one of Thatcher’s very famous quotes. 

We all know that the Internet has had a revolutionary impact. 

Part of this is due to its bottom-up government, and its open-ecosystem. And like many of my colleagues, I support a free market, 

multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. In a perfect world, 

ICANN and IANA would be fully privatized and free from any government influence or control, however, realistically, we know that 

China, Russia, maybe other bad actors, have a different viewpoint. 

Their end goal is to have ICANN and IANA functions migrate to 

the U.N.’s ITU. That solution is one that I will never stand for or 

allow to occur. If the Commerce Department is going to relinquish 

control of its contractual authority over the IANA contract, and 

move control of DNS into a global multi-stakeholder community, 

the timing and architecture must be perfect. If this Administration 

wants to prove to Congress and the international community that 

they are serious about this process, they must immediately begin 

to end Net neutrality proceedings. 

Telling Congress and the international community that they are 

serious about relinquishing control, while working to promote Net 

neutrality, is disingenuous. 

I thank the Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentlelady’s comments. Now turn to the 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Chairman Walden, for holding this 

timely hearing on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s recent announcement to begin the process of 

12 

transitioning key Internet domain name functions to the global 

multi-stakeholder community. 

I want to welcome back Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, and 

Ambassador David Gross. Your past testimony has greatly enhanced the committee’s deliberations on issues related to Internet 

governance, and I want to thank Mr. Chehade for traveling half 

way around the world to take the time to testify before our subcommittee. 

This distinguished panel of witnesses highlights just how important this upcoming transition will be. This is a critical opportunity 

to reaffirm the United States’ commitment to a multi-stakeholder 

approach to Internet governance and policy-making. Since the late 

1990s, the U.S. Government, under both Democratic and Republican Administrations, has consistently embraced the vision that a 

global Internet should be governed through a decentralized, bottom-up approach, with no single government or intergovernmental 

entity exercising control over its decision-making process. 

That commitment remains true today. The United States continues to stand up for the multi-stakeholder model time and again 

in international forums, while pushing back against countries that 

have sought an expansion of governmental control. Congress has 

also spoken unanimously in support of this multi-stakeholder vision, first to a bipartisan, bicameral resolution last Congress, then 

through legislation that passed the House last year that would 

make it the official policy of the United States to ‘‘preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the 

Internet.’’ 

I agree it is now time for the U.S. Government to take additional 

steps to fulfill this vision. For over 15 years, NTIA has played a 

limited procedural role in the administration of the domain name 

system. This responsibility, while ministerial, is associated with 

the perception that the United States serves as a steward of the 

Internet. I share NTIA’s belief that this temporary stewardship 

should come to an end in the near future. The multi-stakeholder 

system has matured and gained legitimacy over the past decade. I 

am confident that the non-governmental Internet community will 

act as capable and responsible stewards of the Internet and fill the 

role left by NTIA, but the upcoming transition in no way suggests 

that the United States plans to relinquish control of the Internet 

to authoritarian states. President Clinton. To the contrary, our efforts should be seen as a vote of confidence that the successful bottom-up decentralized model will continue to preserve and protect 

the Internet as a free and open platform for commerce, innovation, 

and self-expression. NTIA has outlined key principles to guide the 

transition process, including a commitment not to accept any proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization like the ITU. 

Going forward, I hope the NTIA and ICANN will institute an 

open, transparent process for the consideration of transition proposals submitted by stakeholders. A period of notice and comment 

should be provided so that the decisionmakers have a comprehensive record to consider the merits of the proposals. This committee 

should monitor NTIA’s and ICANN’s effort closely, but we must resist the calls for reactionary legislation that would needlessly tie 

13 

the hands of the Agency. Not only are these efforts inconsistent 

with Congress’ longstanding and bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model, they also send a dangerous signal to the rest of 

the world that we lack faith in the existing multi-stakeholder system. That is why I hope it will work closely with our witnesses 

today throughout this transition process. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I 

think that covers all the opening statements we are allowed to do, 

so with this, we will go to our distinguished panel. 

And we will start with Mr. Larry Strickling, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Administration, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. That 

has to be one of the longer titles in the communication world, 

Larry. Thank you for being with us. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF LAWRENCE STRICKLING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, AND 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 

INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION; FADI CHEHADE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED 

NAMES AND NUMBERS; AND AMBASSADOR DAVID GROSS, 

PARTNER, WILEY REIN, LLP 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE STRICKLING 

Mr. STRICKLING. Thank you, Chairman Walden, and Ranking 

Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. 

I am pleased to be here to testify about NTIA’s role working with 

ICANN and the domain name system, as well as our March 14 release announcing our intent to transition key Internet domain 

name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community. 

I am pleased to be joined today by Fadi Chehade, the CEO of 

ICANN, and Ambassador David Gross, who was involved in these 

issues when he served as the State Department coordinator for 

international communications and information policy during the 

Bush Administration. 

For 16 years, it has been the clear and unquestioned policy of the 

United States Government that the private sector should lead the 

management of the domain name system. In its 1998 policy statement, the Department of Commerce stated that the U.S. Government is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector 

to take leadership for DNS management. 

Since then, the Department, through NTIA, has entered into a 

series of agreements with ICANN under which it performs what 

are known as the IANA functions. These include assigning Internet 

protocol numbers to regional registries, who then assign them to 

Internet service providers. Another function is the maintenance 

and updating of the root zone file of top level domain names, the 

so-called address book for the Internet that is necessary for the 

routing of Internet communications. ICANN performs these tasks 

at no cost to the U.S. Government. 

14 

Our role in this process is simply to verify changes and updates 

proposed by ICANN to the root zone file before passing these 

changes on to Verisign, which actually maintains and updates the 

root zone file. 

ICANN, along with other Internet technical organizations such 

as the Internet Engineering Task Force, developed their policies 

through bottom-up, multi-stakeholder processes. These efforts are 

open to all stakeholders, whether they are businesses, civil society 

organizations, technical experts or governments who work in concert to reach consensus agreements on Internet policies. And I 

want to emphasize because I heard a number of references to U.S. 

control of policy-making at ICANN, and that is not the case. We 

do not exercise any control or oversight over policy-making. That 

is performed today by the global multi-stakeholder community, 

working at ICANN or at the IETF. 

Now, the U.S. Government has been a vigorous supporter of the 

multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance from the start, 

however, we are not the only ones. As Congresswoman Eshoo 

pointed out, in 2012, both Houses of Congress unanimously passed 

resolutions stating that it was the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control, and preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today. 

In furtherance of this clear congressional statement, on March 

14, NTIA announced the final phase of the privatization of the domain name system by asking ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played 

by NTIA and the coordination of the domain name system. In making this announcement, we stated that the transition proposal must 

have broad community support, and must address 4 principles. It 

must support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model, it must 

maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet domain name system, it must meet the needs and expectations of the 

global customers and partners of the IANA services, and it must 

maintain the openness of the Internet. And we also made crystal 

clear that we will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role 

with a government-led or intergovernmental solution. 

We asked ICANN, as the current IANA functions contractor, to 

convene the multi-stakeholder process to develop the transition 

plan. We informed ICANN that we expected it to work collaboratively with the other Internet technical organizations, including 

the Internet Society, the IETF, the Internet Architecture Board, 

and the Regional Internet Registries. Last week, at its meeting in 

Singapore, ICANN, working with these organizations, convened 

two public sessions to obtain stakeholder input on how to design 

the process to develop the transition plan, collecting several hours 

of public comment which will help craft a proposal for the process 

going forward. 

Stakeholders have responded to our announcement with strong 

statements of support. Among the business community, Microsoft 

hailed the announcement as a significant and welcome development. Cisco stated that it has long supported an open and innovative multi-stakeholder Internet governance process in this next 

step in its evolution. From civil society, just yesterday, a group of 

15 

Internet freedom and human rights organizations, including Freedom House, Public Knowledge, Human Rights Watch, and the New 

America Foundation, welcomed NTIA’s announcement stating that 

it would facilitate the exercise of human rights online. 

Our announcement in the process that is now underway to develop a transition plan benefits American interests. We depend on 

a growing and innovative Internet, and despite the symbolic role 

the U.S. Government has played over the years, the fact is that no 

country controls the Internet. Its continued growth and innovation 

depends on building trust among all users worldwide, and 

strengthening the engagement of all stakeholders. Taking this 

measure—taking this action is the best measure to prevent authoritarian regimes from expanding their restrictive policies beyond 

their own borders. 

I am confident that the global Internet community will work diligently to develop a plan that has the support of the community, 

and meets the four conditions. I want to assure all Members that 

before any transition takes place, the businesses civil society organizations and technical experts of the Internet must present a plan 

that ensures the uninterrupted, stable functioning of the Internet, 

and preserves its openness. Until such time, there will be no 

change in our current role. 

I also want to assure all members that even as the United States 

looks to transition out of this clerical role we play, we will remain 

strong and vigorous advocates for Internet freedom, growth and innovation. We will continue to play a major role on ICANN’s governmental advisory committee, where governments develop consensus 

advice to ICANN on public policy matters, and we will continue in 

our role to enhance the accountability and transparency of ICANN 

through our participation in the accountability and transparency 

review teams established by the Affirmation of Commitments we 

signed with ICANN in 2009. 

I pledge to keep this subcommittee informed of the progress of 

the community’s efforts to develop the transition plan, and to that 

end, I look forward to answering your questions this morning. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickling follows:] 

16 


90781.014
17 


90781.015
18 


90781.016
19 


90781.017
20 


90781.018
21 


90781.019
22 


90781.020
23 


90781.021
24 


90781.022
25 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Strickling, thank you very much for your testimony and for always working closely with this subcommittee. We 

do appreciate that. 

Now, next up is the president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Mr. Fadi Chehade. 

Mr. Chehade, thank you very much for rearranging your schedule to be here before this subcommittee. I think you can tell there 

is a lot of interest in what is being proposed. 

So the microphone is yours, sir. 

STATEMENT OF FADI CHEHADE 

Mr. CHEHADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

Members of the subcommittee. It is truly a pleasure for me to be 

standing before you today to testify. 

I was 18 when I came to this country alone, escaping an oppressive regime, and I came with one thing in my hand, because I had 

no money and I didn’t speak English. I came with the belief in this 

open system, in this system that includes everyone, in a system 

that is truly bottom-up. My first boss at AT&T, I, of course, was 

addressing him as Mr. Green, and he kept saying, no, just call me 

Bob. 

I wrote a long letter to my parents about this. This only happens 

here, and it is these same values of openness, of inclusivity, of belief in the bottom-up, that it is from there that the best ideas come. 

It is that belief that makes me stand in front of you today. I am 

here because of that. 

And it is these same values that—multi-stakeholder of openness, 

inclusivity, bottom-up participation. It is a phenomenal invention of 

America. It is even as phenomenal as the Internet itself, that we 

bring everyone together to the table to decide how we govern 

things together. It is remarkable and it has also worked very well. 

That is what we should remember. We have now a $4 trillion digital economy in the G–20 countries. This is all because of people, 

some of them in this room that I want to recognize, my own Chairman, Dr. Crocker, who, as kids in Van Nuys High School, decided 

to give it to the world, to build something that was distributed, 

powerful and enabled everyone to participate equally. We governed 

the Internet in the same way it works, and that should not change. 

That inclusivity and that openness guarantees that no one captures the system, in the same way the Internet is architected, and 

I am an engineer, I can tell you that the architecture works this 

way, and the governance should work this way. No one should capture it. And I agree with President Clinton that people will try to 

capture it, but they haven’t. For 15 years, ICANN has operated 

without government—one government, or any government, capturing the decision-making. Private sector users, civil society, engineers, academia, all sit together and participate in the process of 

governing the Internet. It has worked remarkably well. Let us keep 

it this way. 

And I want today to thank you personally because I was at the 

WCIT when this body’s resolution came to us as a strong lightning 

rod, showing America’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder 

model. We trusted it then, we should continue trusting it. It works. 

26 

And we thank you for that. We thank you for that support. The 

world thanks you for that support and I do too. 

NTIA’s announcement on March 14 is truly the culmination of 15 

years of progressive efforts by this Administration, by prior Administrations, to hand the stewardship of the Internet to the people 

who built it. We are not going to squander this responsibility. This 

is an important one. We, along with so many companies, welcomed 

that announcement. I think Assistant Secretary Strickling mentioned the many companies that have come out publicly, the many 

organizations from all walks of life, businesses, civil society supporting that announcement. They have looked at it and they have 

supported it, and we support it as well. 

This announcement shows the world America’s values again. 

Who else would do that? What nation would have the vision, the 

magnanimity, the consistency to do what we are doing here. We 

are handing the world back what we promised them we would. Bottom-up, multi-stakeholder management of this great human resource, this great economic resource. 

I stand in front of you today with a firm commitment that we 

will run and open transparent process. We will keep it calm and 

wise. We have no rush. There is absolutely no rush. It is more important to get it right than to rush it. That is my commitment to 

you. 

We started the process in Singapore, thousands of people there, 

and at the heart of this proposal is the commitment for security, 

stability of the Internet. That is our number one job. We will not 

relent on that. We haven’t for 15 years, we are not about to start 

that. That is our commitment. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chehade follows:] 

27 


90781.023
28 


90781.024
29 


90781.025
30 


90781.026
31 


90781.027
32 


90781.028
33 


90781.029
34 


90781.030
35 


90781.031
36 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your testimony. 

Now for our final witness on this panel, we have Ambassador 

David Gross, partner at Wiley Rein. Ambassador Gross, good to 

have you back before our subcommittee. Thanks for your counsel. 

Please go ahead with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GROSS 

Mr. GROSS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Eshoo, members of the subcommittee. It is a great pleasure to be back before you again today. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may ask, I have a written testimony that I 

would like to have made a part of the record, if that is—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

Mr. GROSS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the Internet Governance Coalition, which is a group of global companies and stakeholders that, 

as all of us are, are important players and stakeholders in the future of the Internet. 

Our primary focus, as you will see in our prepared testimony and 

my statement today, is our firm belief that a thriving Internet depends upon a governance structure that is open, transparent and 

representative of all stakeholders. 

I just returned yesterday from Dubai where I was a member of 

the U.S. Delegation to the ITU’s World Telecommunications and 

Development Conference, part of the ITU’s every-4-year conference. 

I come with a message that you will find similar to the messages 

that I have brought before you in the past, which is that the world 

is watching, the world is watching what NTIA announced back on 

March 14, the world is watching the U.S. reaction to that announcement, and the world is watching what here Congress does. 

It is important that the world understand the bipartisan and 

unanimous and uniform views of the American people, as expressed 

by this Congress. As you know, your role at the World Summit of 

the Information Society back in 2003, and most importantly in 

2005, the role you played in the run-up to the WCIT just in 2012 

was decisionally significant, the world watches. The world watches 

carefully, and the world understands when America acts in a 

united fashion. 

We believe very strongly that the process that was begun by 

NTIA back on March 14 is a good and important process. As has 

been discussed by all of you, as well as my co-panelists, that process is the beginning of a process, it is not an answer. The answer 

will come from the Internet community as requested by NTIA. It 

seems to me, based on my experience, that no one can predict what 

the specifics of that will be today, but I take great comfort, we take 

great comfort, in the four principles that were announced by Assistant Secretary Strickling, and importantly, as has been noted repeatedly, that NTIA, on behalf of the U.S. Government, will not accept a proposal that replaces NTIA’s role with a government-led or 

intergovernmental organization solution. 

I had a boss when I was in the private sector who used to say 

and remind all of us of a very important saying, promises made, 

promises kept. That is what is expected of all of us. That is what 

we will be working hard to ensure, that the promises made by 

37 

NTIA are promises kept by all of us, to ensure that that standard, 

that test, that high bar that was established in the March 14 statement is one that is met by all, and, as my co-panelists have indicated, if for some reason, to our great surprise, it cannot be met, 

we should start over. It should not be rushed. It needs to meet that 

high test. We are all in agreement on that. 

The key going forward is to ensure the extraordinary benefits of 

the Internet not only for the American people, but for people 

around the world. It is truly one of the great historic achievements 

of our generation. It is something to be maintained, it is something 

to be encouraged, and our view is that the process that has been 

begun is designed to do that. 

The time will come in the future to discuss in detail what substantive proposals are brought forward, and their nature and 

whether or not they are in the public interest or not, but at this 

stage, we are very comfortable, very, very comfortable, that the 

process that has begun is an important one, it is a real one, it is 

one that all of us who are optimistic believe it will result in a better Internet, a better Internet governance situation, and one that 

would include the fact that promises made by the American people 

back beginning in 1998 are promises kept by all of us. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gross follows:] 

38 


90781.032
39 


90781.033
40 


90781.034
41 


90781.035
42 


90781.036
43 


90781.037
44 


90781.038
45 


90781.039
46 


90781.040
47 


90781.041
48 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Ambassador, and thanks to all of our 

witnesses on this first panel. I appreciate your counsel and your 

testimony. 

So, Mr. Strickling, thank you again for being here. Thanks for 

briefing us ahead of time before the announcement. 

How will NTIA ultimately decide whether a proposed transition 

plan for IANA developed by global stakeholders is acceptable, and 

what factors will you use to determine if such a proposal supports 

and enhances the multi-stakeholder process, maintain security, stability, resilience, in the Internet domain name system, and meets 

the needs and expectations of global customers and partners of the 

IANA services, and maintains the openness? So what—describe for 

us, what is that process, and once you—what authority do you have 

to hand this off and back away? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, you have asked a number of questions 

there. Let me take up the last one initially, which is that our role 

in this historically derives from the decision made in the late 1990s 

to privatize this, and at that time, NTIA was directed to find an 

organization to perform those roles. So we don’t do this under any 

statutory mandate to perform this role. It was done as part of the 

efforts of the government back in the late 1990s to privatize. So 

other—— 

Mr. WALDEN. But you do have a contract with—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. ICANN—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. That is renewable for two, 2-year additions, right? 

Mr. STRICKLING. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. So the last contract that we did with them in 2012 has an expiration date of September 30, 2015, but we have within that contract the ability to extend it for up to 2—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. Two-year terms beyond that. So as 

Ambassador Gross said, we have plenty of time to work through 

these issues. We have certainly teed-up the September 2015 as a 

date that the community might want to use as a target. That is 18 

months. Should give the community ample time to work on this, 

but there is no cliff. If—at—when we reach that time, we don’t 

have a proposal presented to us. 

Mr. WALDEN. But if you have that proposal presented to you, and 

I want you to get to what the criteria would be, you would go 

through, and I think you have highlighted some of that in your 

statement, but is it in effect saying I am done with the contract 

with ICANN? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. I think if we get to a point, and when we 

get to the point where there has been an appropriate transition 

plan presented that satisfies all the criteria, the idea would be that 

that — whatever is in that plan would then be put into effect, and 

we would then be able to just allow our contract with ICANN to 

expire. 

Mr. WALDEN. And then is there ever any getting that contractual 

relationship back to NTIA, or is that it for the U.S. in terms of any 

contractual role with ICANN? Are they on their own then? 

49 

Mr. STRICKLING. It depends, I think, on what comes back to us 

in the transition plan, but we do not envision that we would then 

come back and ever contract for the IANA functions at any point 

in the future. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Again, the whole point of this in the late ’90s 

was to identify someone who could take this over and—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Sure. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. Manage it. Again, it is—— 

Mr. WALDEN. No, I understand that. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. At that point in time, it was viewed 

that this transition would have been complete by the year 2000, as 

Congresswoman Eshoo pointed out. So some might ask what has 

taken us so long—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Sure. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. But—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Now, in Mr. DelBianco’s stress test scenarios in his 

testimony, I assume you have had a chance to read through them. 

Mr. STRICKLING. I have. 

Mr. WALDEN. He raises some questions that I think are valid to 

raise. What happens if ICANN decides to reconstitute itself overseas rather than California, out from under the laws, what happens if they go their separate way and things—start doing things 

that Mr. Chehade would never agree to, but he might be gone 

someday. So—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. So we have a separate document that we signed 

with ICANN called the Affirmation of Commitment. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. STRICKLING. And I think we have been up here and have testified on that in the past. We have not in any way implicated that 

agreement in any of what we are proposing now. It is under that 

document that ICANN has committed to keep its headquarters in 

the State of California, or in—within the United States. 

Mr. WALDEN. But that can be canceled by either party, correct? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes, there is a—— 

Mr. WALDEN. With 120 days notice. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. Provision under which it can be 

canceled, and you can certainly inquire of the CEO, his intentions 

with that—in regard to that. Our understanding is that they are 

quite comfortable maintaining a California office, and intend to do 

so for the foreseeable future, but he can answer—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, and I am looking like beyond all of us, you 

know, what happens—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Right. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. Twenty years from now. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Let me come back to the—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Sure. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. Point you started with, which were 

the questions that are raised by Mr. DelBianco we think are important ones, and they really deal, I think, with the symbolic nature 

of our relationship with the ICANN. I think reflected in many of 

the comments we heard this morning, that people, I think, assume 

we have much more control over this than, in fact, we do, and it 

is largely symbolic, and I do think it is important as we work 

50 

through this transition to focus not just on the technical issue of 

who is going to check the accuracy of root zone file updates, but 

to also look at the question of how does ICANN continue to perform 

in an accountable and transparent way, the belief being that we always were there, in effect, to backstop that—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. In some fashion. I think that is a 

very important set of questions that need to be answered in this 

process. We intend to participate vigorously in that because we and 

other American business and civil society interests have a stake in 

that as well—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. And that is part of the process. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I have overshot my time. Thank you very 

much. 

Now turn to the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go to my colleagues, 

and I can go last. So I don’t know who was here first. Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. DOYLE. We were both here together. 

Ms. ESHOO. OK. Well, whomever—Mr. Doyle and then—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Are you asking them—— 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. And then—— 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. Or yielding? 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes—no, I will yield my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. You are passing. You are yielding or—— 

Ms. ESHOO. No, I will pass—whatever is the best, how is that? 

I—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I would assume you want to just defer to Mr. Doyle 

and not give up your time. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes, I will—— 

I will question last, how is that? 

Mr. WALDEN. That is fine. 

Ms. ESHOO. OK. 

Mr. WALDEN. The Chair would now recognize Mr. Doyle for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And—wow, are we getting that same—thank you for your testimony today. I think just 

your testimony has gone a long way in clearing up, I think, some 

of the misconceptions that have come from this announcement. 

Mr. Strickling, I—you know, when you talk about stakeholders, 

tell us, who are the stakeholders? I mean name—give us some of 

the names of the people in this multi-stakeholder process we are 

talking about. Who are we really talking about? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So at the broadest level, it is anyone interested 

in these issues, and, in fact, that is large American companies as 

well as small and medium-sized—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Like AT&T, Verizon—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE [continuing]. Comcast—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes, all of those. 

Mr. DOYLE [continuing]. Google, Facebook, Yahoo? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right? This is what—these are—this is what we are 

talking about. 

51 

Mr. STRICKLING. Right. 

Mr. DOYLE. And who else is in this stakeholder process? 

Mr. STRICKLING. The civil society organizations who are so focused on Internet freedom and free flow of information are part of 

this process. Again, you will hear from a representative of them in 

the second panel, and they have issued statements of support in 

that regard. Technical experts have been at the core of this from 

the beginning. Folks like Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, Steve Crocker, who 

is in the audience today. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. So what we are talking about really is an evolution of transitioning this to the private sector, right? I mean this 

is like a—I don’t believe NTIA controls ICANN. I think that is 

pretty clear, that you have an administerial role, you don’t control 

the process, but I would think my colleagues over here would love 

the notion that the government is transferring something over to 

the private sector—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Would the gentleman yield for just—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Sure, I will yield, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. For clarification, because I think also 

part of ICANN, there is a government influence as well, right, on 

your board? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes, there is a government—— 

Mr. WALDEN. But nobody controls ICANN. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. 

Mr. WALDEN. So, to the point, yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. So we don’t—it is not like we are giving up control 

of something. We don’t control it. So I—that is the point I wanted 

to make. And the stakeholders we are talking about are private 

companies, and civil society and civil—right? I mean that—I just 

think that needs to be said publicly because you used that word 

stakeholders, and a lot of people don’t seem to understand what we 

are talking about. 

Let me ask you something else, Mr. Strickling. When you were 

proceeding with this announcement, did you consult with other 

branches of the Federal Government, like the State Department, 

the Department of Defense, intelligence agencies and other agencies with a stake in U.S. national security and foreign policy? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. And when you did that, did any of these branches 

of government object to your announcement on the basis that it 

would have a negative impact on U.S. foreign policy or national security? 

Mr. STRICKLING. No. 

Mr. DOYLE. So, Ambassador Gross, let me ask you. After the 

United States transitions the IANA contract, what will be the 

means for our government to participate in the multi-stakeholder 

process? 

Mr. GROSS. Well, I think there are two pieces to answer to that 

important question. One is, as has been indicated, the U.S. Government has participated in the GAC, which is the Government Advisory Committee, which is a committee of ICANN, and based on the 

testimony and, of course, our understanding that will continue as 

it has in the past. The second part though I think has yet to be 

determined, that is, the question is on the IANA functions themVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Jun 12, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-134 CHRIS
52 

selves, and the relationship between the U.S. Government and 

those functions, it has been asked by NTIA of the Internet community, asking ICANN to be the convener, for the specifics of what a 

proposal would look like. I think it is premature for any of us to 

know the true answer to your important question until we see 

what that proposal actually looks like. 

Mr. DOYLE. And just one last question. How can Internet governance bodies like ICANN and IGF and others preserve a free and 

open expression on the Internet, and push back against some of 

these governments that are restricting speech online by blocking 

citizens’ access to services like Wikipedia and YouTube and Twitter 

and others? What can we do to push back against that? 

Mr. GROSS. Well, first and foremost, we need to ensure that 

ICANN continues as it has in the past to be committed, as Mr. 

Chehade has indicated today, its commitment to making sure that 

the Internet continues to be open? NTIA importantly said that that 

is one of the primary criteria that it will be looking at as it evaluates whatever proposal comes forward from the Internet community. And also if I may suggest that the United States Government, 

writ large, all branches of the Government, need to continue to do 

what they have been doing for years now, which is to speak loudly, 

speak clearly, and speak to this issue on an ongoing basis, both 

with friends and with foes. It is important to be consistent. I am 

pleased at how consistent the U.S. Government has been. It should 

continue to be so. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is almost over. Maybe, 

Mr. Strickling, do you want to react to that question too in the last 

10 seconds? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I think the ultimate end of this has to be to continue to build and support stakeholders throughout the world, because what—the strongest push against these kinds of restrictive 

policies in these countries is to have a citizenry and a community 

in those countries that push back from within, and ultimately that 

is what it is going to take to end these policies. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentleman. 

We now turn to the vice chair of the subcommittee, , Mr. Latta, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

again, thanks very much to our witnesses for being here today. It 

is very, very important to the folks in this room and across the 

country. 

Mr. Strickling, if I could just ask you a couple of questions right 

off the bat. You know, Ohio is very fortunate to have the Cleveland 

Clinic in our state, and it is, you know, it is not only nationally 

known but worldwide renowned for what it does. And Cleveland 

Clinics applied to operate a .med top level domain name. Are you 

familiar with that? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. For the record, Cleveland Clinic’s application 

was rejected, and has since been filed—has filed a request for reconsideration. 

Mr. STRICKLING. That is correct. 

53 

Mr. LATTA. OK, and we are concerned, you know, across the state 

about the transparency and predictability of ICANN’s current process regarding the request for reconsideration, and how this transition of NTIA’s oversight responsibilities might further impede the 

process. Are there any assurances that NTIA can provide that the 

transition of ICANN’s IANA functions will not negatively impact 

the status of the current applicants’ filings being reviewed by 

ICANN? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Right. It will have no impact on that. 

Mr. LATTA. So right now, so the folks that have got applications 

out there, you can say there is no impact at all then, is that correct? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Not on the basis of this announcement, no. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, and then without the NTIA oversight, will NTIA 

ensure that any multi-stakeholder proposal accepts include rigorous transparency and openness standards for ICANN processes 

going forward? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Absolutely, and not just that, but we expect to 

see that same level of transparency throughout the process to develop a plan. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Chehade, if I could—and I hope I said that correctly, are 

there current policies in place at ICANN to promote that transparency and openness in its processes, and again, as you have 

heard from the testimony this morning and also from your attendance at the WCIT, you know, we had hearings last year when we 

heard about different countries that wanted to go beyond what was 

supposed to be proposed at that meeting, and so you are looking 

at some of the countries looking at trying to use the guise of cyber 

security and things like that to really get at the Internet and the 

censorship of the Internet. You know, how can we really make sure 

that we can tell our constituents and people across the country 

that, you know, as we go forward, that there is going to be that 

transparency and openness in the process? 

Mr. CHEHADE. I think the commitment of ICANN to transparency is enshrined in our affirmations. We should live by these, 

and I can assure you that since I have arrived, I have put additional resources and effort to ensure that we adhere to our transparency mechanisms, we continue to keep every process we make 

open, we make sure it is inclusive, that anyone can participate. We 

now translate everything we do in all the U.N. languages, plus Portuguese. Ensure that people can participate in all of our meetings 

remotely, even when they can’t be there. Transparency is at the 

center and the heart of what we do. 

Mr. LATTA. If we can just follow up. You said that there would 

be additional resources that you would be committing. What are 

those additional resources? 

Mr. CHEHADE. So these are people that are engaged in making 

sure that all of these processes are recorded, are made available 

openly, that people can participate when they need to, and ensure 

that no one can say that we did some process quietly, quickly or 

without full availability of participation for everyone. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, thank you. And then also is there more that 

ICANN can be doing to improve upon those policies and ensure 

54 

that the applicants for domain names are fully informed and aware 

of the organization and structure of the ICANN processes? 

Mr. CHEHADE. There is always more we can do, and since we 

have arrived, this ICANN Administration has added systems for 

managing the stakeholders’ relations, we have more than tripled 

now the size of the team that is supporting applicants. We have 

made sure that that team is available globally, 24 hours a day, 5 

days a week, so there is a series of things we have done to actually 

enhance the service to the applicants and ensure that they are well 

informed of what we are doing. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I will 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Matsui, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Ranking 

Member. 

I really am very much involved and interested in governance because I think governance is key to everything, whether it is a government, whether it is a non-profit organization, city council or 

whatever, and I believe that, in particular, this is a huge undertaking. And I know we have kind of marched through this for 15 

years, but I think now in particular, the Internet is at a different 

place, obviously, and the participants in the Internet are huge, it 

is global. So my sense is that, in the governance model, it is unlike 

many others in the sense that, as we move along giving more and 

more voices or stakeholders to be addressed. So my sense is that 

I am glad that you are taking your time because I think that is 

really very important, because as more and more information goes 

forward, I think that you will have more and more stakeholders. 

I am really pleased that the Administration, Mr. Strickling, has 

really committed to support no proposal that really does not support a free and open Internet. I think that is really very important 

as a principle moving forward. And I do recall, since I was in the 

Clinton Administration, how this process moved forward, and I 

don’t think any of us really envisioned quite where it would be 

today as far as even the users of the Internet. However, having 

said that, it is really huge in the sense of where we are today, and 

this is not about creating headlines at all. It is real, and it is about 

ensuring that the Internet governance transition moving forward is 

responsible to Americans and the whole digital economy. 

And so I want to know something about this in a sense because, 

Mr. Strickling, do you think there are any other processes or procedures that should be put in place to ensure ICANN reviews the 

proposals by stakeholders in an open and transparent way? 

Mr. STRICKLING. We have not asked ICANN to be a reviewer of 

proposals. We have asked them to convene the process by which 

the community will develop a proposal to submit to us. We expect 

that we will get a proposal that is—has the support of the community and meets the criteria we have laid out for it. So there is no 

process by which there is some judge over at ICANN who is going 

to be a decision-maker on this, it is what emerges from the community discussions in the form of a community proposal to us. 

55 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, well, thank you. And, Mr. Chehade, you were 

very eloquent in your testimony. It really does indicate to us why 

this Internet and ICANN is so important moving forward. 

So, therefore, Mr. Chehade, can you commit to a—I mean we are 

saying this over and over again, but I think it is really important, 

an open and transparent process for the deliberation of any transition proposal that will provide an opportunity for notice and comment, not only to organize civil society and well-financed stakeholders, but also now, you know, to the general public, because we 

have participants that are worldwide here. 

Mr. CHEHADE. Absolutely. If we do not do that, the process 

should not be accepted by NTIA, in our opinion. In other words, we 

are expected to do this. We will do it. Without it, this process is 

not legitimate. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. 

Mr. CHEHADE. And not only are we going to do it within the 

ICANN community which is growing and vast now globally, we will 

reach out to other communities, we will hold public consultations 

at the IETF, we will hold public consultations with the regional 

Internet registries, we will hold public consultations with the Internet society globally. We already announced an extensive schedule 

of listening and bringing to consensus all the communities towards 

a proposal that will be acceptable to NTIA. 

Ms. MATSUI. Will this also include other communities like academic communities and, generally speaking, a broader community 

which generally isn’t part of the so-called Internet organizations? 

Mr. CHEHADE. The answer is yes. In fact, I—we are in discussions right now with the Harvard Berkman Center and the NYU 

Governance Lab in New York to actually—along with multiple universities around the world, start the process to have the academic 

community participate in the future of where we are heading here. 

So absolutely. 

Ms. MATSUI. And also too, I am wondering whether, you know, 

think about governance, are you also consulting with people who 

deal with governance, and what works and what doesn’t work? 

Now, this is a whole new, I think, level of governance, so to speak, 

because we are dealing with something, in a sense, that touches 

every sector of society, every sector of business, every sector, and 

we don’t know yet what is going to be happening down the road. 

So I think it is important to understand what could happen and 

may not happen, and—— 

Mr. CHEHADE. Yes. The answer is absolutely yes. We have to be 

using the same innovation that led us to the Internet in the process of designing that process. 

Ms. MATSUI. Yes. 

Mr. CHEHADE. So we met—I met with Professor Joseph Nye, we 

are meeting with Professor Beth Noveck at NYU, many, many academics around the world who understand how to innovate and governance to make them part of the process. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Well, thank you very much. 

Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn, for 5 minutes. 

56 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will note for 

the committee and those present that Mr. Rekeda, who worked 

with us on the DOTCOM Act, walked back with me from Budget 

Committee where I am splitting my time today so that he could be 

a part of our hearing. 

Mr. Strickling, first to you. Getting ready for the hearing, I went 

back and looked at some of the WCIT–12 comments, Ambassador 

Verveer had made a quote, and I wanted to ask you if you agree 

with this. He says, ‘‘Discussions with figures in various governments around the world, there is a very significant reoccupation 

with respect to what we are proposing with respect to broadband, 

and especially with respect to Net neutrality. The proceeding is one 

that could be employed by regimes that don’t agree with our perspectives about essentially avoiding regulation of the Internet, and 

trying to be sure not to do anything to damage its dynamism and 

its organic development. It could be employed as a pretext, he is 

talking about Net neutrality, or as an excuse for undertaking public policy activities that we would disagree with pretty profoundly.’’ 

You agree with that statement? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I guess I neither agree nor disagree because I 

don’t know the context in which it was stated. I think it is a statement from a few years ago. I can state that it has not been put 

into the record by governments in the fashion that it sounds like 

Ambassador Verveer feared at the time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, do you think that the U.S. could set a 

better example about Internet governance and a multi-stakeholder 

approach to Internet government by stopping the push for Net neutrality? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I think the best example the United States can 

set is to proceed with the proposal that we made on March the 

14th. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yesterday, Michael O’Rielly, who is one of the 

FCC commissioners, issued this statement. At this pivotal moment 

for Internet freedom, the FCC’s Net neutrality proceeding could severely contradict and underestimate the U.S. Government’s international position. 

So how can the U.S. Government tell the world to accept a multistakeholder model, while at the same time the FCC is working 

with the White House’s approval to impose greater control of the 

Internet through Net neutrality? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Your question? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. How can the U.S. Government tell the world 

that they want them to accept a multi-stakeholder process when, 

within our government, the FCC is pushing forward to implement 

Net neutrality rules? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, I think we are comparing apples and oranges. 

When we are talking about international Internet governance, 

we are talking about governments acting collectively—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Sir, I think that a lot—— 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. In this space—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN [continuing]. Of innovators had conflated the 

two, and I think that that is truly a problem with us, that there 

57 

has been a conflating, and we are not setting a good example on 

that. 

You referenced the affirmation document, .8 of that, which would 

mean that the governance for the Internet—for ICANN would stay 

domiciled in the United States. Do you expect that to hold? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I do, but you have the CEO right next to 

me—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And I plan—— 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. You might ask him directly. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN [continuing]. To ask him. I am going to go directly to him with that question. 

So, Mr. Chehade, to you, would you expect that to hold? 

Mr. CHEHADE. I do. It has worked very well for us. It has worked 

very well for the world, so I think before any change—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. What would keep it from changing? 

Mr. CHEHADE [continuing]. We should be conscious of that. Pardon? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. What would keep it from changing? 

Mr. CHEHADE. To keep the model that is working to the world, 

working well, by supporting the model that works. The more we try 

to exert one government’s influence on the model, the more people 

will want to move it elsewhere. The more we show them that we 

support the multi-stakeholder model, the more they will say this 

works. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, then—and I want to say I appreciate the 

conversation that I have had with you, and I know that you have 

a difficult task in front of you because there is such a low level of 

trust with this Administration. And I would just ask you, sir, when 

we look at a multi-stakeholder model that is free from government 

control, what kind of message is this Administration sending if the 

FCC continues to push forward with regulation of the Internet and 

Net neutrality standards? 

Mr. CHEHADE. Again, from my perspective, the best example I 

can continue giving the world is that the U.S. Government is 

united behind the multi-stakeholder model that enabled the Internet and ICANN. And I will continue seeking your support for that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Would your job be easier if the FCC stopped 

being an activist agency and trying to force Net neutrality? 

Mr. CHEHADE. I am making my job easier by clarifying to people 

that what ICANN does have nothing to do with content. We are 

just managing names and numbers, and we will do it well, and I 

hope that the success of our work in this area spreads in the world, 

not just in the U.S., but in the world. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. 

Lujan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I know, 

although we are here to talk on a specific topic, it seems that the 

hearing has turned towards Net neutrality as well. 

And as we talk about the basic structure associated with the 

United States and the FCC, making sure that they are inserting 

themselves into this conversation, I think lends to what we are 

58 

talking about today; keeping things open, making sure that everyone can access, that—and I appreciate this from our staff as well, 

Mr. Chairman, on the minority side, open Internet rules are not 

government regulation of the Internet. Net neutrality is about ensuring the broadband service providers that control the onramps to 

the Internet don’t become the gatekeepers with the power to favor 

their own content, troublesome applications or block consumers’ access to information. And I think that is an example to the rest of 

the world, as we talked about this, not a hindrance to the rest of 

the world. So I hope that we are able to find some agreement there 

as well. 

Mr. Chairman, my questions today center a bit around the Affirmation of Commitments, to talk a little bit about that, but I think 

that, you know, I agree with some of my colleagues on this committee that we need to send a strong message to the world that the 

Internet has thrived under a decentralized, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance model, and that we should all commit ourselves 

to the free market, multi-stakeholder Internet governance model 

that has worked so well in the past. And those are quotes from 

2012 and 2013 by one of my colleagues as well, and I wholeheartedly agree with her, and hope that we can find a way to work 

together in this area as well, but in the area with the Affirmation 

of Commitments, specifically from a response from NTIA that the 

affirmation is an agreement that includes multi-stakeholder oversight mechanisms to address accountability, transparency in 

ICANN’s decision-making, the security, stability and resiliency of 

the Internet DNS, as well as promote competition, consumer trust 

and consumer choice. 

How do you envision the Affirmation of Commitments will function after the management of the DNS is completely privatized? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So we haven’t, in our announcement, done anything to suggest it needed to change at all. We recognize though 

that as the community starts to address the questions of ICANN 

accountability, that the matters covered in the affirmation which 

you just summarized may well come into that discussion, and we 

certainly have no problem with that being the case. In the meantime, we will continue to press for increased accountability and 

transparency, although I will say, from my own experience of having served on 2 of the accountability and transparency review 

teams, the 2 that have happened so far, ICANN is about the most 

accountable and transparent organization I have dealt with. That 

is not to say it can’t be improved, and indeed, out of the last team 

we presented I think more than a dozen recommendations of additional steps ICANN can take. And that will always be the case. We 

will always be able to find things they can do to improve, but the 

progress that they have made over the last 4 years in this area has 

been quite substantive, and was part of the factors leading us to 

make the announcement we made 2 weeks ago, that it was now 

time to proceed with the final phase of the privatization. 

Mr. LUJAN. I would just add that I hope that the Affirmation of 

Commitments becomes and will always be a staple associated with 

the transition, as well as the permanency associated with this conversation. 

59 

And another question that I have is, what is Verisign’s role and 

responsibility? I know that when we go to Web sites, you see the 

Verisign there, and it is to encourage trust to individuals, but what 

exactly does that Verisign mean? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So Verisign is a large company involved in a 

number of different places in the Internet. So, for example, most 

people know them through the registry from DOTCOM, which is 

the largest of the top level domain names. With respect to the 

IANA functions, the specific role they perform is that after ICANN, 

through its policy-making process, sends to us a change for the root 

zone file, we verify its accuracy, we pass it on to Verisign who actually performs the updating of the 13 authoritative root zone servers 

with that information. So that is the specific role they play with 

respect to IANA. 

Mr. LUJAN. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I—as my time runs 

out, I think what that translates to is Verisign—or is saying that 

this Web site is coming from where. It says that it is coming from, 

but I hope that the committee would entertain a conversation down 

the road with trust, with best practices, that we as consumers can 

also use down the road, which is not a topic for today, but one I 

think that we can explore to help consumers down the road to 

make sure that when they are seeing information, they know exactly what it means, as opposed to seeing Verisign, as some constituents have reached out to me and said, they completely trust 

the content, and those that are behind what is being moved, as opposed to the DNS being tied to where the IP protocol is coming 

from. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hearing today. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, and thanks for your input. 

I think that is a very good point. 

We will go now to the former chairman of the committee, the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me say to Mr. Chehade we rarely have testimony 

that is inspirational, but yours was. I mean I wish we had a copy 

of that to show school children what America is all about. That 

really was moving to me. 

So I will ask you the first question. 

Have you ever heard of the phrase, if it is not broke, don’t fix 

it? Well, when I was listening to you, and I am at this point neutral but suspicious of this proposal, it dawned on me, everything 

you said, I agree with. If it is working, what is so wrong with the 

current system that we want to change it? 

Mr. CHEHADE. Thank you, Congressman. 

I do believe that there is a confusion as to what NTIA has announced. What is working will not change. ICANN’s work to administer these functions is already with us, has been with us, and 

we have managed it well for 15 years. That is not about to change, 

and I think the stability of that is important. It sends the right 

message to the world. 

What is changing is the accountability mechanisms, really the 

stewardship that the U.S. Government has kept over our activity. 

Today, that is shared between the U.S. Government and our community. In fact, it is not just the U.S. Government that ensures we 

60 

do what we say we need to do. We go through reviews with the engineers at the IETF who meet me every quarter, check on my performance. So there are other mechanisms already in place to make 

sure we do what we do. 

The role that the U.S. played progressively became smaller over 

the years, and has now become largely symbolic. By letting the 

multi-stakeholder model take that role and strengthen our existing 

mechanisms to make sure we are accountable, we are sending a 

message to the world that we trust the multi-stakeholder model. 

They need to hear that. And today more than ever, we need the 

world to hear that because other issues of Internet governance are 

coming up in the world. We want them to look at ICANN and say 

this is working, and the multi-stakeholder model works. 

Mr. BARTON. It is a little bit of a stretch, but, after World War 

II, we put U.S. troops in Japan, we put U.S. troops in Germany. 

Seventy years later, sixty years later, the world has changed but 

we still have some U.S. troops in Germany and some U.S. troops 

in Japan. The Internet got started in the United States, and to the 

credit of lots of people, we have tried to decentralize and have the 

government step back and assume more of an administerial or just 

a kind of an oversight role, but what gives the world community 

faith in the Internet is that they know they have the full faith and 

credit of the U.S. Government behind it. And our ideals as established in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are for openness and transparency. If ICANN were to decide 

to move its headquarters to North Korea, that might not hold true. 

So I read your little booklet here, which is very informational. You 

give the Department of Defense a run for their money on acronyms, 

I will tell you that, but what people like me, I am a free market 

guy, and I can intellectually understand what you are attempting 

to do, but there is just at the back of my mind there is that old 

Reagan phrase, trust but verify. And that is what we don’t want 

to give up. I have no problem with this multi-stakeholder community, and I looked at all your organizations and all that, but people 

like me are a little bit afraid that if NTIA steps back, and we just 

get—so there is not that real kind of FDIC guarantee, so to speak, 

to use a banking analogy, that the next government that might 

want to try to do something, the Chinese, the Russians, who 

knows, they might not take the same attitude as the U.S. Government. That is what people like me are concerned about. 

And my last question, and my time has expired, is there any 

country that is not a part of ICANN? 

Mr. CHEHADE. Yes. We have 133 countries represented now, over 

the attendance, beyond government representatives is now covering 

almost all countries in the world. 

And I want to say if I could, Mr. Barton, that I actually 100 percent agree with you that we must have the right belts and suspenders on the proposal we give back to the U.S. Government. And, 

frankly, if it doesn’t, I will be the first one to not submit that proposal. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Well, that is my concern. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy and 

I yield back. 

61 

Mr. WALDEN. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Barton. Thank you, 

Mr. Chehade. 

We will now turn to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Doyle, for 5 minutes. Mr. Doyle, you already went? I am sorry, 

then I would be delighted to go to Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Maybe we should note that it is a first for a Ranking 

Member—the last shall be first, how is that? That is a great quote 

from scripture. 

Well, I want to thank each one of you because I think that this 

is really one of the best panels we have had before the subcommittee. Each one of you has been outstanding. You are rooted 

in very broad and deep experience, and we are very grateful to you. 

And, Mr. Chehade, I think that you make the case this morning 

in such an elegant and eloquent way, that immigration is the lifeblood of our nation. You wouldn’t be before us if that were not the 

case. And I wouldn’t be here as a first generation, none of us 

would, if that wasn’t one of the great, great values of our country. 

So thank you to each one of you for your testimony. 

It seems to me that we are all saying the same thing, except 

there is kind of a hairball in this thing. I would think that multistakeholder, all the companies and corporations, the private sector 

that have weighed on a multi-stakeholder model, would be so embraced by every single colleague here, but we have fear of moving 

away from U.S. Government-perceived control, to the control of 

some bad actor countries. Now, that is a huge leapfrog when we 

go from NTIA to North Korea, but really that is what the fear is 

on this side of the aisle. What I am concerned about is, and Ambassador Gross underscored this, is that everything we say, everything 

we do is being measured, especially by the countries that do not 

agree with our principles, our Democratic principles that are built 

into the Internet. 

So can someone give the assurance to this notion that, regardless 

of how the Congress voted, 413 to zip, with all of the principles 

that were in it, that somehow we are weakening the path forward 

and that the bad guys, the bad actors in the world, will be able to 

snatch this away from us and do to the Internet what they do to 

their own people, because I really think that is the central question 

that is here, because that is the fear, and fear is—if you list human 

emotions, it is the top one. 

So who would like to go at that and perhaps develop some comfort level here with my colleagues? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So I will start, but I think this is a good question for everyone on the panel. 

So first off, I understand the concern, but it is not going to happen, partly because one of our key conditions is we will not accept 

a proposal that turns this over to a government-led or intergovernmental organization, so it is off the table. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Frankly, I am not sure we needed to say that, 

and—because I don’t think there was ever any prospect we were 

going to get a proposal like that. The multi-stakeholder community, 

again, formed by civil society organizations and large, small, medium-sized corporations, would never have brought a proposal like 

that back to us. 

62 

I am not sure what people see is the possible mechanism by 

which an authoritarian regime would seize control of the domain 

name system. I think it is an unlikely thing to occur, but one way 

to prevent it from ever occurring is to make sure we have strong 

multi-stakeholder groups in countries such as in the developing 

world who would have to be part of any process to try to—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes, but I just want to interrupt. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. Move U.N. control. 

Ms. ESHOO. You know what happens around here though is that 

someone or a group makes a statement and then it becomes a fact. 

And more than anything else, I think that is what has happened, 

and there are some outside of this institution that—I am not going 

to go there because it is not worth it, but I would just like both 

Mr. Chehade and Ambassador Gross to go at this. I only have 19 

seconds, and I would also like to ask unanimous consent to place 

in the record statements of support from really the father of the 

Internet, Vint Cerf, the former FCC Commissioner, McDowell, the 

Internet Association, Cisco, and a letter from 6 NGOs. So with 

what I have—well, I have—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. CHEHADE. Well, I will simply say that—to Mr. Strickling, if 

he had not put that condition, I would have made sure it is put. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. CHEHADE. So this is an important condition, and I understand Mr. Strickling’s comment that it wouldn’t have happened, 

but it is good for the world to understand that this is impossible 

to happen. It will not happen, and I believe we will come back with 

a proposal that allays all these fears. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. GROSS. And the only thing I can add is we have a commitment from people to my right that no proposal that will allow that 

will go forward. We have a commitment from the U.S. Government 

that no such proposal could be accepted. And on behalf of our constituents, we will be watching. 

Ms. ESHOO. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

to the witnesses. Just an outstanding panel. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentlelady for her comments. 

And now we will go to Mr. Shimkus from Illinois for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Strickling, as you know, I introduced the DOTCOM Act last 

week with several of my colleagues as co-sponsors. Is NTIA opposed to the Government Accountability Office providing to Congress prior to a transition of IANA functions, are you opposed to 

a Government Accountability Office review to ensure what you 

have testified today is true? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, Congressman, as I understand it, you can 

request a GAO study—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, my question is—— 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. When you—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. My question is do you oppose us asking for a Government Accountability Office review to ensure your testimony 

today, that we have comfort in that? 

63 

Mr. STRICKLING. I see—it doesn’t really matter what I think. You 

can request that study. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I—you are here—I am—do you oppose or do 

you say it is not a big deal, go ahead? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am in favor of full discussion of these issues. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am happy to talk to you—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But you agree? So you support a Government Accountability Office review, you—it could be helpful? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I neither support nor oppose it. I am simply telling you—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I wish Mr. Dingell was here. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. That—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If I was—if I am Mr. Dingell, yes or no, would you 

support a Government Accountability review of this transition? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Again, I have no problem full airing in discussion of these issues. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So I guess I am going to take that as a yes. 

Mr. Chehade? 

Mr. CHEHADE. I do not have a view on a particular—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You all made great promises. 

Mr. CHEHADE. But having said that, I will commit to you, as I 

did yesterday, that everything we were asked to do, we will do in 

full transparency to you and to the world. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So a Government Accountability Office review of 

this proposal should not be a challenge or a risk to you? 

Mr. CHEHADE. I think reviews by anyone, and there will be many 

around the world of our accountability in that process—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So I guess I can assume that as—— 

Mr. CHEHADE [continuing]. Making—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. As a yes. 

Mr. CHEHADE. Well, again, as I told you yesterday, ICANN is a 

global organization. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No—I have only got 2 minutes—I have like 3 questions, and if I have time, I would be happy to. Ambassador Gross. 

Mr. GROSS. I would like to associate myself with the prior comments—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You know—— 

Mr. GROSS [continuing]. But I will say that more information is 

better. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank—— 

Mr. GROSS. The process should be open, should be transparent, 

more information is always helpful. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And we understand the GAO is the Government 

Accountability Office. It is our arm, it is nonpartisan, it looks, it 

evaluates to ensure that things that we are concerned with, we 

have another look, which is what you all are saying. I am actually 

kind of shocked at the frustration of this because I think it would 

help bring more education, more transparency, and maybe resolve 

some of the fear. 

Ambassador Gross, what is to prevent a multi-stakeholder model 

from then choosing to transition to a government-led ITU model of 

Internet governance? 

64 

Mr. GROSS. I think you have gone to the very core of what will 

be required of any proposal going forward. The problem we all 

have, and I include myself in this, is that at the moment we are 

at the beginning of a process. To answer your question, your important question, we have to know the answer at the end. We don’t 

know that. The question now becomes one for the community, the 

Internet community, to come up with a creative, important and 

belt-and-suspenders answers so that the question you asked if fully 

answered. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and don’t you think we have a right to ask 

these questions? 

Mr. GROSS. I think—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And—— 

Mr. GROSS [continuing]. Absolutely so. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And the government to do the investigation to find 

out some of these answers? 

Mr. GROSS. I think that it is completely up to all of you—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. GROSS [continuing]. To be able to figure out what your comfort level is. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chehade, I have been involved in eastern European issues 

my whole career up here. What is the current Internet country 

code for the Crimea region of Ukraine? Is it .RU or is it .UA? 

Mr. CHEHADE. Again, we follow what the U.N., in terms of country codes, we follow the U.N. coding. So even when south Sudan 

was created, we had to wait for the U.N. to issue the actual code, 

and then that is when we—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you don’t know right now of any plans to 

change that? 

Mr. CHEHADE. No. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

I am going to end there. I just want to highlight to my friends 

here on both sides, we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We take that 

seriously. I don’t pledge to some international organizations or governments. Due diligence by the Legislative Branch of this Government is not harmful to this process; in fact, I would argue that it 

could be very, very helpful, and I appreciate your testimony in support of that. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, and I think everyone has the same 

theme, and, in a way, it is kind of asking the same questions, but 

I want to use a different terminology, at least. 

We talk about you won’t accept, Mr. Strickling, the proposal and 

you wouldn’t accept as the CEO the proposal. I think a lot of our, 

not just trust but questions, are what happens after the proposal 

is accepted. 

I think all of us in this room have probably experienced some 

bait and switch at some point in time, whether it was a meaningful 

fraud, or things just, OK, you have this new governance and it deVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Jun 12, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-134 CHRIS
65 

velops its own personality, and over time they expand their abilities and what they can cover, or what they determine provides certainty within the system. And so I want to ask the whole panel, 

what happens when a scenario occurs where they start expanding 

the power, for example, saying, geez, if that Web site is going to 

use too much band width, where—you have to put up so much 

money, or there has to be some conditions tied to that. How do we 

prevent that from occurring, and a new stakeholder group accepting that, when there is no NTIA to verify, hey, that is not within 

your jurisdiction, because it sounds like once they develop the new 

governing body of ICANN, that there is no more check left. And, 

frankly, and we have heard it, we don’t trust Russia or China when 

they are sitting on there, or Iran or now Turkey, to make policy 

decisions. And I know we are only talking about domain names, 

but they can sit there and say this is tied to a domain name, because we are not going to issue you a domain name or a root because. Mr. Strickling? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, again, I think that this apprehends what 

we do today. The policy-making in ICANN today is performed by 

the multi-stakeholder community. 

The United States participates in that process, not through the 

IANA functions contract, but through our participation in the Governmental Advisory Committee. That is not changing. We are not 

going away. As I said in my opening statement, we will remain vigorous advocates for a free and open Internet through the Government Advisory Committee, and we will be joined in that by a number of other likeminded governments participating in that. So—— 

Mr. TERRY. All right, help me work through that because that is 

somewhat confusing to me. So now today, as I understand, like if 

France, on a root file, ICANN approves it but then it comes to you 

for just the double check verification. 

Mr. STRICKLING. In terms of—— 

Mr. TERRY. There is no entity, once the proposal is accepted, 

there is no entity then other than just the ICANN Board. So if they 

make a mistake, there is no one there to verify it now. Is that correct? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, our role doesn’t even necessarily look back 

at the Board process. What we look at is kind of the technical accuracy, and it is kind of a checklist to make sure that what is being 

sent through followed all the appropriate procedures to come 

through, and we verify its accuracy. 

First off, the policies probably aren’t going to be as specific as 

your example in terms of some specific request—— 

Mr. TERRY. But we don’t know. 

Mr. STRICKLING [continuing]. From France. What? 

Mr. TERRY. We don’t know that. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, but it would still be based on the overall 

policy for top-level domains established by the constituency organizations within ICANN. So if your example is dealing with .FR, the 

country code, that is one supporting organization at ICANN. If 

France, the government, is dealing with generic top-level domain, 

that goes to a separate supporting organization. So that is here the 

policy-making is done, and in those sessions you have the people 

who are involved in those different communities participating in 

66 

answering those questions. So that, today, happens through a 

multi-stakeholder process, and then the Governmental Advisory 

Committee sits separately to resolve public policy issues that may 

emerge out of the policy-making that is happening in these other 

organizations, and it is there that, through consensus policies, the 

governments can speak to particular issues. 

Mr. TERRY. Anyone else? 

Mr. CHEHADE. Well, I could add, Congressman, that, as part of 

our proposal our community is going to be very alert to put these 

belts and suspenders in that proposal to avert the potential down 

the line of things going awry. We don’t know what this will look 

like, as Ambassador Gross said. We need to get the community involved in designing that process, but you heard today mention by 

one of the panelists on a panel coming up that there are ideas for 

testing various models to test this. I am sure our community that 

doesn’t let me change the brand of coffee in my cafeteria, I have 

thousands of people watching everything we do, will be on top of 

that, and will make sure that the proposal comes back with the 

right guarantees as best we can that this thing does not go the 

wrong way. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back balance of his time. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate you having 

this hearing. Appreciate our panelists for being here as well. This 

is an issue that I know a lot of us are real concerned about as we 

look at all the questions, and potential ramifications that are involved in the NTIU making any changes to the ICANN process and 

the multi-stakeholder process that works so well. I have been a 

strong supporter of an open and free Internet, and especially free 

from governments that have an interest in taxing, restricting, censoring the Internet and the ability of its people to use it, and all 

the power that people have been empowered with to do the things 

that they have done because of it. So I know I support Congressman Shimkus’ bill that he is going to be bringing forward, the 

DOTCOM Act, that puts some of those belts and suspenders that 

you are talking about in place to slow this thing down and say let 

us get a real clear picture of what we are looking at, because there 

are a lot of unanswered questions when we look at the ramifications of this. I don’t find it often where I can quote the Heritage 

Foundation and Bill Clinton in the same sentence, both in support 

of the same thing, but just last week I think you may have heard 

Bill Clinton express concerns about this, as did the Heritage Foundation, and even the Washington Post, and the concern was that 

giving up ICANN could ‘‘open the door’’ to nations that don’t value 

an open and free Internet. And just to go one step further, this is 

an actual quote from former President Clinton, ‘‘A lot of people 

have been trying to take this authority away from the U.S. for the 

sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom, and limiting it 

and having government protect their backsides instead of empowering their people.’’ These are serious concerns being raise by, 

again, people that don’t always see eye to eye, but share a lot of 

the concerns that I and many of our colleagues have expressed. 

67 

So first, I would like each of the panelists to just real briefly, if 

you can, touch on those concerns that are being expressed by people that aren’t always on the same page. 

I guess we will start with you, Mr. Strickling. 

Mr. STRICKLING. So I will refer back to my statement at the 

opening, which is we won’t let that happen, number one. 

Mr. SCALISE. What is an assurance of that? I mean it is good to 

say we won’t let that happen. 

That is nice to hear it, but nobody knows what is going to happen. You can’t tell me what is going to happen. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, but I am—— 

Mr. SCALISE. How do you know you won’t let it happen? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am saying that we will not accept a proposal 

that has that as its outcome, period, end of story. So it won’t happen. Secondly, no one has yet explained to me the mechanism by 

which any of these individual governments could somehow seize 

control over the Internet as a whole. 

Mr. SCALISE. You really don’t think that Russia—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Explain—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Look, Russia and China have made it very clear 

what they want to do to suppress Internet freedom. They have 

made it very clear. 

Mr. STRICKLING. And they do it within their own country. 

Mr. SCALISE. And you don’t think—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. There is nothing we can do to stop that. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. That they are going to be working— 

whatever rules you come up with, at the end of the day, you all 

would come up with some sort of process if you are going to transfer away, and I say if, capital I, capital F, if you transferred away, 

because you would come up with some sort of process. Do you really not think that Vladimir Putin, with all the other things he is 

busy with right now, isn’t going to try to figure out some way to 

get control, it won’t be through the Russian government directly, 

necessarily, but China and Russia have proven very resourceful at 

trying to figure out what that process is so that they can manipulate it. And you can do all the things you want to stop that from 

happening, but at the end of the day it comes out to where those 

countries have figured out a way, like they have figured out a lot 

of other ways too, to do something subversive that goes against all 

of the intentions that we have. You can’t stop that. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, Congressman, what is it that you think 

they could do that they can’t do today? 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, do you really think—look at Putin is doing 

right now. I know the President just doesn’t seem to take this seriously what he is doing through eastern Europe. I mean he is trying 

to rebuild—get the old band back together, get the Soviet Union 

back together right now, before our very eyes. 

I mean Secretary of State Kerry says, oh, the international community won’t accept this. They are doing it. They don’t care what 

the international community thinks. And they are talking about invade—they are invading a country, you know, so I mean what 

would they do to get control of the Internet if you threw something 

out there? Again, I mean these are real concerns that are being expressed. If the other two panelists can touch on this as well. 

68 

Mr. CHEHADE. Thank you, Congressman. 

Let me be clear that at ICANN, it is impossible for them today 

to do so. They have been trying for 15 years. 

Mr. SCALISE. Exactly. Which is why—— 

Mr. CHEHADE. They have not. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Why it is working. 

Mr. CHEHADE. But it is not because the U.S. actually has the 

current stewardship role, it is because of the multi-stakeholder 

model. It stops them. Now, where they will try to do what you are 

suggesting is in the international, intergovernmental organizations. 

Mr. SCALISE. Yes. 

Mr. CHEHADE. They have been trying to do that there. So we 

want to take away from them any argument that they can still go 

to the U.N. and try to take over what ICANN does, by making sure 

ICANN is free of one government control, to show them that 

ICANN believes in the multi-stakeholder model, and this great 

country that created that model trusts it. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thanks. And, Mr. Gross, real quick because I know 

I am almost out of time. The Administration right now is getting 

ready to participate in the 2014 Internet Governance Forum in 

Istanbul, Turkey, a country that, as we speak, is blocking its citizens from access to Twitter. Why are we even participating in a 

sham like this? 

Mr. GROSS. Well, I think it is important to recognize that the 

Internet Governance Forum is a non-decision-making, multi-stakeholder process. It has no authority to do anything. 

Mr. SCALISE. Why would we validate—— 

Mr. GROSS. Even—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Why would we validate the things that they are 

doing, that I would hope the Administration is opposed to, by attending that conference? 

Mr. GROSS. I would take a different approach. I would recommend taking a different approach, is that those who believe in 

the free flow of information ought to attend and speak loudly about 

the importance of free flow of information. It is the people of Turkey, among other places, that need to hear it and feel supported, 

not ignored. So it seems to me it is an opportunity for us to be 

strong in our beliefs there, and not shy away from it. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, I would appreciate if you all would look at the 

legislation that Mr. Shimkus is bringing forward because I think 

it does go back to putting those protections in place that we all 

ought to be concerned about with people that don’t have good intentions, that will try to figure out how to get around this. 

So thank you. Thank the panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here. And, Secretary Strickling, thanks. We worked on spectrum 

together. I appreciate that. 

And I would just like to say, Mr. Chehade, you just said that 

they would try to work the international organizations. I know this 

isn’t really on the subject I wanted to go, but I know when Mr. 

69 

Shimkus asked about whether Ukraine was going to be RU 

versus—.RU versus dot, whatever Ukraine, you said that is up to— 

you would follow the U.N. on that. So is there a little inconsistency 

there? I mean I just have a question. And real quick because I really want to get to my—— 

Mr. CHEHADE. No, country codes in many ways are set by standards—ISO standards that come out, so that we don’t make up 

countries, we follow the country code model that is in place. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And Mr. Scalise quoted President Clinton and the 

Heritage Foundation. Ms. Eshoo, my friend from California, said 

the issue over here and she put over here on us is that our concern 

was the countries could take over, countries we don’t want taking 

over the Internet take over use of the Internet. And I understand 

Secretary Strickling said it can’t happen, and there is really not a 

mechanism for that to happen, will not happen, will not accept it. 

I know that you had a great presentation, Mr. Chehade, on American values, American exceptionalism, as I would say, and so when 

we go into these negotiations, we always want everybody to say we 

want to do this because America—this is what America does, we 

create multi—but not every other country does that. 

And so I will get to my question. You said there is really no 

mechanism, Mr. Strickling, for that to happen. You say we won’t 

accept, so make it what Mr. Shimkus asked but in this way, you 

say we won’t accept any plan from Mr. Chehade or any group that 

is not accountable and transparent. So what parameters or what 

will you be looking for in terms of accountability and transparency? 

And I think Mr. Gross kind of answered that in saying, well, we 

don’t even know what it is because they haven’t developed it yet, 

but we need to go in, at least, knowing what we know and knowing 

what we are looking for. And what would you be looking for in an 

accountable and transparent program? 

Mr. STRICKLING. We need to see, and again, ICANN has made 

great strides in this over the last several years, the fact that the 

multi-stakeholder community feels that the decisions that they are 

making, the policies that they are developing, are being executed 

as they have directed them. And so we look to how ICANN actually 

performs in that respect, we look at what the mechanisms are that 

are in place to ensure that ICANN performs in that fashion. And 

again, this has been the subject of 2 accountability and transparency review teams that I have personally participated on in 

2010 and 2013, and we will continue to push for those sorts of improvements throughout the next period of time while this plan is 

being put together, and beyond, because as I said earlier, the organization can always find ways to improve in that regard. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. But when you look for something transparent, is 

there something specific going in that you are—I want to see that 

they are able to allow us to have annual public audits, they—or 

what—or, Mr. Chehade, what would you offer up as these are going 

to show that the ICANN organization that you chair would be 

transparent in a way that is a solid plan to know not only that it 

can’t happen now, but that concerns what happens when we are all 

gone, to get to Mr. Shimkus’ model, the—I think Mr. Yeltsin signed 

the Budapest Memorandum. Well, Putin didn’t get the memorandum. And so how do we kind of ensure this going further, and 

70 

those are the—kind of the concerns we have, and they are real concerns. 

Mr. CHEHADE. Yes, and they are real concerns and they are ones 

we take seriously. I want to assure you of that. We do not belittle 

the possibility of us going into the wrong mode, so we have to be 

alert, we have to be vigilant. We need all these companies that 

supported this move to remain engaged, because they have been for 

15 years, and to watch what we do. 

From my side, operationally, I need to make sure that every part 

of this process is open, is transparent, is inclusive, that we don’t 

simply do it in a suburb, hiding in a room, and people around the 

world can’t see what is happening. They need to participate. We 

have remote participation at these meetings, multiple translation. 

Meaning inclusivity, openness and transparency have to underpin 

this process or it is not legitimate to this government or to anybody 

in the world. And that is our commitment. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And let me just say in my last 20 seconds, so when 

we are speaking and speaking from our role in the government, we 

do know that we are exceptional, and Americans expect freedom 

and opportunity and things that are forward, and we also know 

that other governments don’t have that, and it is internal, their 

governments are doing it now. What we are doing now is not preventing them from doing it. We understand that, but that is what 

people understand, so we have got to be very careful and very 

transparent, very accountable if this process moves forward so people can be confident that we are going to have the same opportunities that we have without relinquishing our American 

exceptionalism, or our American ideals to other—an international 

body. 

Thanks. I have just ran out of time. I appreciate it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from New 

Jersey. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, and good morning to the distinguished panel. 

I would like the panel to know that I have received a good deal 

of correspondence on this issue, and certainly those in the district 

I serve are concerned about the situation, and I want to work to 

the greatest extent possible to allay the concerns of the constituents whom I represent. And the district is a well-educated district 

and certainly wants access to the greatest extent possible across 

the globe. 

I support Mr. Shimkus’ legislation. To you, Secretary Strickling, 

if the legislation were to pass both Houses of Congress and reach 

the President, I know you have indicated, sir, that you are neither 

for it nor against it, would you at the least not oppose it if it were 

to reach the President’s desk? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, Congressman, I think, as you know, Administration positions on legislation are developed through a process that hasn’t happened yet on this bill, so I couldn’t speak to 

that. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Certainly, Mr. Shimkus doesn’t need me 

to lobby for his legislation, but I do support his legislation, and I 

71 

would hope that the Administration might work in a cordial fashion with Mr. Shimkus as the situation moves forward. 

Mr. STRICKLING. So as I told the Congressman, and I will repeat 

to you and to the other members, we are committed to keeping this 

committee advised and informed of the process as we work our way 

through it. We expect to be up here on a regular basis, perhaps not 

with all of our friends and neighbors, but we will do what we can 

to keep you advised and informed of the process as it moves forward. 

Mr. LANCE. Thanks, Secretary. To that end, I do have a question, 

and perhaps you have just answered it. You are willing to advise 

Congress of the proposals submitted for the transition and commit, 

I would hope, to delay action until you have briefed Congress on 

the consequences of accepting any of the proposals? 

Mr. STRICKLING. We will keep you fully informed, yes, sir. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

To the other distinguished members of the panel, I want to reiterate the concerns of my constituents, and I would like to work in 

a fashion where we are effective to make sure that this be as open 

a process as possible. And, obviously, it is the unanimous view of 

members of this subcommittee, I would presume of members of the 

House and Senate, that we want an open and transparent process, 

recognizing that freedom across the globe is essential as we move 

forward in this area. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LATTA [presiding]. Well, thanks very much. The gentleman 

yields back the balance of his time. 

And seeing no other members here to ask questions, I want to 

thank, on behalf of Chairman Walden, our distinguished panel for 

being here today. Appreciate it. And we are now on our second 

panel. Thank you. 

Well, thank you very much. We will convene the second panel at 

this time. And the Chair would first like to recognize Steve 

DelBianco, the Executive Director of NetChoice. And we appreciate 

you being here, and the mic is yours for 5 minutes. Thank you very 

much. 

STATEMENTS OF STEVE DELBIANCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NETCHOICE; AND CAROLINA ROSSINI, PROJECT DIRECTOR, 

NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION OPEN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE 

STATEMENT OF STEVE DELBIANCO 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

If you look back across 16 years and three different Administrations, I think you will see that our government has protected 

ICANN and helped it to mature. You might also see that the U.S. 

cannot retain that unique role forever, and you might also admit 

that politics today are forcing a discussion to begin on the transition. 

You have heard complicated concepts and acronyms all morning 

long, so how about a simply analogy? Think of a car and a driver. 

So the top-level domain table, think of it as a car. It was designed 

72 

and built here in the U.S.A. in 1990, and the license plate on this 

car reads I–A-N–A, IANA. In 1998, we asked for a designated driver on this car, and we created ICANN to fulfill that role. Then we 

handed the car keys to ICANN, and giving them the authority to 

make policies while driving that car, but we monitored what they 

did in the care of the car. Then in 2009, we figured ICANN was 

mature enough to be given some independence, and we did that 

under the Affirmation of Commitments, but all along, the U.S. Government retained the title to that car. The IANA car was kept by 

the U.S. That became leverage for us to hold ICANN accountable 

for the symbolic powers that Secretary Strickling mentioned earlier. 

NTIA’s announcement that you are debating today doesn’t say 

what happens to the title for IANA. It doesn’t say it at all. It is 

possible that the community proposal would have NTIA sign the 

title over to ICANN, but that is not a foregone conclusion. It might 

be that we sign the title over to an independent multi-stakeholder 

entity that could then hold ICANN accountable the way NTIA has 

for 16 years. 

Now, NTIA’s principles for the transition are great as far as they 

go, but to hold ICANN accountable and to prevent government capture after we sign over the title, we need more than just principles. 

We have to ask how any proposed mechanism would respond to potential scenarios or stress tests. 

So back to the car-and-driver analogy. We can tell our teenagers 

about the good principles of driving carefully in the winter, but it 

is the stress tests to have them respond to having the car spin sideways on a snow-covered road. In today’s testimony, I suggested several stress tests and used case scenarios, and our task is to develop 

accountability mechanisms that could answer to those tests at least 

as effectively as the mechanism we have today, the NTIA oversight. 

So I mentioned stress tests in there, like what if ICANN lacked 

the financial or technical capability to actually execute its obligations, who would rescue the root in that case. I gave richer examples in there, like example scenarios six and seven on Internet censorship. Today, censorship happens at the edge of the Internet 

where governments can block a domestic access to a Web site. As 

you know, Turkey is blocking Twitter inside the country, even 

though the rest of the world can see Twitter.com. But consider a 

stress test where censorship migrates from the edge of the Internet 

to the core of the Internet, which is the root table that we are talking about here, that is used by the entire world. ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee, or GAC you heard today, they can 

change their operating procedures at any time. They can change 

from the consensus they have today to majority voting, which is 

what they are used to at the United Nations. There were only 61 

governments who showed up at the ICANN Singapore meeting, so 

31 governments would have been enough for a majority. So let us 

say that those governments advise ICANN that the new 

TLD.corrupt, the .corrupt top-level domain, must get government 

permission for any domain that matches the name of a government 

official. After all, top-level domains already need that kind of permission for city and territory names in new top-level domains, so 

73 

it seems like a relatively easy matter for them to approve a brand 

new policy on permission. 

The question is what would ICANN’s Board do in that stress 

test. If the future Board felt very seriously threatened by the ITU 

and U.N., as Ms. Rossini will warn you in a moment, then it might 

not have the guts to reject that kind of advice coming from governments. So how could our new mechanism resist that pressure? It 

should be at least as strong as the present arrangement where a 

government with First Amendment in its DNA would reject censorship in the DNS. 

So I will conclude by saying most of the questions you have 

asked today probably can’t be answered today. So we have to continue the process of developing proposals, and then we can ask how 

each of those proposals would answer the stress tests and questions. We can design a new accountability mechanism for ICANN, 

possibly with independent and external safeguards, and above all, 

let us be realists about the risks as we head down this road, but 

let us begin as optimists that we can arrive safely. 

And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DelBianco follows:] 

74 


90781.042
75 


90781.043
76 


90781.044
77 


90781.045
78 


90781.046
79 


90781.047
80 


90781.048
81 


90781.049
82 


90781.050
83 


90781.051
84 


90781.052
85 


90781.053
86 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for your testimony today. And 

the Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes Carolina Rossini, Project 

Director of the Internet Governments and Human Rights Program 

at the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CAROLINA ROSSINI 

Ms. ROSSINI. OK. Members of the subcommittee, sirs and madams in the audience, I am very pleased to testify before you today. 

The views I share with you today are those of the Open Technology Institute at New America Foundation, but are also of Public 

Knowledge. Although I speak only for OTI and PK, I am also a 

member of a broader U.S.-based coalition of public interest nonprofits brought together to advocate for Internet governance systems that preserves the open, free, generative and global Internet, 

organizations that have a vested interest in promoting the free flow 

of information online. This coalition is guided by human rights 

principles, and evolves based on processes that are democratic, inclusive, open, transparent and consensus-based, what we often call 

multi-stakeholder processes. We share concerns that in this transition, the Internet must continue to be an open platform for the free 

exercise of human rights online, and we believe this move could 

help hinder government overreach in Internet governance, which 

would have harmful implications for human rights worldwide. This 

is a critical step in the history of the global network of networks. 

Three are my main key points today. First, we welcome the Department of Commerce proposal transfer of oversight of key Internet domain name function to the global multi-stakeholder community which we are part of. This represents a fulfillment of many 

years of U.S. promises to the private sector, technical experts and 

international community at large. We have cleared that the NTIA 

will not accept a proposal that replaces its role with governmentled or any intergovernmental organizations schemes, and we commend NTIA to not forego its contract with ICANN if a set of four 

principles previously mentioned and explained is not met by the 

final proposal. 

A transition on this set of terms would be fully consistent with 

prior bipartisan unanimous policy by the Congress that has sought 

to preserve and advance the multi-stakeholder governance model 

under which the Internet has thrived. Those resolutions were an 

act of U.S. leadership, and I stress that, international leadership, 

in the advance of the WCIT conference a couple of years ago. 

Second, we encourage the subcommittee to view the oversight of 

the DNS system through the lens of human rights. Freedom of expression and the spread of democratic ideals around the globe. Yesterday resolution offered by members of the subcommittee calling 

for Internet freedom in Turkey is a proof that we are on the same 

page. And today, we call for that vision to be spread and applied 

to all of the layers of the Internet. 

Third, we believe that if proposed transfers do not go through, 

the—political outcomes can be disastrous. For stalling the transferring of the IANA functions to the global multi-stakeholder community could further empower critics who favor a government—a governance model, a governmental or intergovernmental model of 

87 

Internet governance, whether implemented through the ITU or 

some other government-dominated no multi-stakeholder body. In 

this current international context, the DOTCOM Act may actually 

place into the hands of those who use the Internet as an instrument of political control. 

My final remarks. The pragmatic truth is that the United States 

cannot afford to maintain the symbolic control indefinitely. A 

change is going to come. The question is what change and in what 

form. We at the OTI and PK supported by a broad coalition of U.S. 

and international public interest nonprofits welcome the Department of Commerce plans, and we watch closely and engage deeply 

in all the venues of engagement, ensuring that the transition 

meets, as we all hope, the standards of inclusiveness, openness, 

transparency and accountability. In the meantime, we welcome the 

subcommittee interest in this complex issue, and look forward to 

working with its members to ensure the security, stability, reliance 

and freedom of the global Internet. As Ambassador Gross mentioned, the world is watching. 

Thank you so much for your time and for your trust. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rossini follows:] 

88 


90781.054
89 


90781.055
90 


90781.056
91 


90781.057
92 


90781.058
93 


90781.059
94 


90781.060
95 


90781.061
96 


90781.062
97 


90781.063
98 


90781.064
99 


90781.065
100 


90781.066
101 


90781.067
102 


90781.068
103 


90781.069
104 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much for your testimony today. 

We appreciate it. 

And I will start with my 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. Rossini, you appear to be claiming in your testimony that if 

the transfer does not occur, the near-term geopolitical outcome will 

be a transfer of functions away to a specialized agency of the 

United Nations, subject to political control. If this is, in fact, the 

case, doesn’t that inform us of the dire necessity of making sure 

that the process that the Administration is about to undertake is 

a sound one, and that safeguards are in place to protect against 

that outcome after the transition is complete? 

Ms. ROSSINI. Yes, I agree with that statement. 

Mr. LATTA. OK—— 

Ms. ROSSINI. But I do believe—— 

Mr. LATTA. I am sorry, go ahead. 

Ms. ROSSINI. I do believe though that we have to understand the 

timing, and if any actions—that transition can cause in terms of 

the symbolic movement of U.S. 

Mr. LATTA. Did you want to make a comment on that, Mr. 

DelBianco? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The mechanism for what Ms. Rossini is talking about would have 

been instructive on the previous panel; this notion that the United 

Nations might adopt a resolution, indicating that it has got an 

agency that should take over. In today’s world, since we do hold the 

title, we do hold control of the root, any attempt to do that is a 

nonstarter in today’s world. It is the post-transition world where 

we no longer hold that title, that the entities we charge with it 

have to be strong enough to resist that. 

So the mechanisms of takeover, I give you one with respect to 

the governments changing the way they vote within ICANN, within 

the institution of ICANN. Ms. Rossini has talked about threats 

from without, outside of ICANN, and again, both cases call for us 

to create stress tests that can resist that. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. DelBianco, if I could follow up with another question then 

to you. If the NTIA role in overseeing the IANA contract is 

administerial, minor and has no real impact on day-to-day operations of ICANN or the Internet, as Mr. Chehade stated, what impacts would this transition really have? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To call it symbolic, it does not mean that it doesn’t exist. Symbolic just means we have to ask another question about what it 

means. 

In 2010 after the Affirmation of Commitments was signed, the 

then-chairman of ICANN told a group in Europe that he viewed 

the Affirmation of Commitments as a temporary document that he 

would like to terminate. So, frankly, it is the fact that we hold the 

title, the fact that NTIA’s supervision is there, that keeps ICANN 

from leaving the Affirmation of Commitments, it keeps ICANN 

honoring the obligations they have under the Affirmation. And I 

am reassured when the president of ICANN today says that we 

will live by the Affirmation, we won’t quit it because it is working 

well, and I agree, but he won’t be the president of ICANN forever. 

105 

There is an ebb and flow with powers and pressures in a geopolitical environment. The question is what holds ICANN to live 

within the Affirmation? That is a symbolic value. You could call it 

that, but it is quite real and has an effect right now, because the 

Affirmation of Commitments was cited by everyone on the previous 

panel as the real constitution that keeps ICANN truly accountable 

and transparent to the world. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, let me follow up with another question to you 

then. 

What role can the nonpartisan research entities like GAO and 

CRS play in this process? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Mr. Chairman, a GAO review, similar to what 

I saw in the Shimkus-Blackburn Bill, could explore what these four 

principles mean, explore what the words multi-stakeholder and 

open of the Internet, that would be very helpful to get an explanation of flushing out those terms as we, the community, design 

these processes. And a GAO might, or Congress might also, help 

to devise these stress tests that I delineated in my testimony. I 

only put eight of them in there. We may need a few more. And as 

the stress tests are put together, the community can then use those 

to figure out whether the proposals are going to work. 

I think Chairman Upton said—he characterized these Bills as 

something of—in terms of hitting the brakes. I would characterize 

it differently. It would be better if GAO helped us to design a crash 

test for the vehicles that we have to test, as opposed to hitting the 

brakes on the process. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Ms. Rossini, what role do you think that public interest and civil 

society groups such as yours play in this transition, and how can 

you encourage a good outcome in that transition process? 

Ms. ROSSINI. Since many years, Mr. Chairman, civil society has 

engaged, actually, since the very first creation of ICANN, members 

of the Berkman Center that then went on to public interest organizations, helped form ICANN, helped inform its bylaws. So historically, we are deeply involved. We are also deeply involved to committees of representation that are driven by consensus building— 

and we are also informed by the bylaws when we participate on 

those. We can also inform decisions through participation in IJET, 

which is non-decision-making, but it is important for how to set the 

rules on how we are talking about concepts and so on, and we can 

also engage in—even in multilateral—informing the countries on 

those. So there are many avenues for engagement, participating in 

a more decisive decision at the end. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. 

And my time has expired, and I now recognize for 5 minutes the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your testimony today. It seems that a lot of my 

colleagues here that have expressed concern is that some future 

Board of ICANN 20 years from now, or somewhere in the future 

be, that would be influenced by some repressive government to 

somehow restrict access to the Internet. And, you know, I was 

reading an article here from Weekly Standard that really questions 

really how powerful ICANN is, and I just want to read from the 

106 

statement. It says contrary to dark speculations by various conservative commentators, ICANN can’t really facilitate Internet censorship in China and Iran to please those governments. ICANN 

can’t stop them from that doing that now. Nor is there any plausible scenario in which ICANN imposes censorship on U.S. Web 

sites. Actual Web sites operate through 13 root servers, some still 

directly run by U.S. Government agencies, some by U.S. universities, and some by U.S. private companies. It would be no technical challenge for them to bypass ICANN and coordinate amongst 

themselves. Politically, it is really unimaginable that they would 

all bow to Chinese pressure for censorship because ICANN told 

them to do so. 

How do you react to a statement like that? And you—I mean if 

the root servers are controlled by mostly American governments, 

private companies and universities, what can ICANN really do to 

force them to somehow censor the Internet in the United States? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. What the root servers contain, Representative, 

is a set of the top-level domains, the .com, .net, .mil, .org., and 200 

brand new ones that have just come along, as well as the country 

code, and we are still having 800 or 1,100 more coming in the next 

year. Each of those new top-level domains was approved by 

ICANN, and the ICANN Government Advisory Committee, and we 

call it the GAC here, came up with a disapproval of a few. For instance, they said that .Islam should not go into the root. So that 

means it doesn’t go into the main root, and it doesn’t go into any 

of those root servers, wherever they are controlled. So the top-level 

domains that are approved, that responsibility lies with ICANN, 

and then ICANN hands it over and puts it in the root. And as I 

mentioned earlier, that root—the U.S. Government has custody of 

that through IANA, and that is what we are transitioning to some 

other body. 

So it—the censorship that we are speaking of is whether labels, 

like the top-level domain of a government official’s name, .corrupt, 

would still be allowed to exist. And there are pernicious ways in 

which to achieve that. One can attach rules, and I mentioned in my 

testimony that the—ICANN makes the rules, and today, you cannot light up Washington. any top-level domain without the permission of that city, that country or that territory name. So those are 

the kind of rules that allow governments to expand their control of 

the labels that are used for Web sites, and I know they do so in 

their own countries today. The question is how do we prevent that, 

and we can, we can prevent that, from sneaking its way into controlling the root at the top level. 

Mr. DOYLE. But there is no way that ICANN has no power to 

force any of these root servers to do what it says. I mean they could 

easily just bypass ICANN and coordinate amongst themselves. Is 

that not true? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. That is an interesting proposal. That might be 

one of the proposals that comes back. The root server operators are 

an independent group of technology companies. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. They may well suggest a proposal for they taking title to the root, as opposed to giving it to ICANN. We will wait 

and see, but the questions you ask are hypotheticals that might be 

107 

answered by a proposal, and I think those hypothetical questions 

are exactly what we need in terms of stress tests. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Let me ask another—Mr. Shimkus’ legislation, I don’t know whether the panelists have been provided a 

copy of Mr. Shimkus’ legislation to read it but one of the concerns 

I have, I have no problems with the GAO doing a study, I do have 

a problem with the fact that it delays the process for a year, or it 

could delay the process for up to a year, is written in it. 

What impact do you think that would have if this process could 

be delayed up to a year while the GAO conducts a study? Ms. Rossini? 

Ms. ROSSINI. Mr. DelBianco asked me to go first. So I think that 

this year we see a couple of very important milestones in this process. We have the—coming in Brazil end of this month, and we also 

have the ITU coming later in November. So you are going to have 

two very important meetings in this moment where we are trying 

to define the principles of the Internet governance ecosystem, and 

if that announcement, if that symbolic announcement that actually 

has a lot of—is not made clear, and is not a real commitment of 

U.S., we can have a very difficult outcome, some very difficult outcomes from these meetings. The ITU meeting coming out, you are 

going to have them, the voices of those governments that are 

known democratic governments, that can speak much loud than 

they would be able to speak here or even in—which will be a multistakeholder government. And we have civil society, we have a 

range of actors acting from protestors in the street, to—strategy, 

to—advisory. I am part, actually, of the Global Commission on 

Internet Governance that was announced in the Web, so we have 

a lot of ways to engage to be sure that the results of those meetings 

are well received, and also in agreement with the open Internet. So 

the announcement—we need your help to make those meetings 

work for an open Internet. So—— 

Mr. DOYLE. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

indulgence. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 

back. And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate following my friend from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Chehade had said in his written testimony he mentioned 

that the importance of not rushing this process. That is his testimony. So I think it is important for us to get it right, and I think 

we have got to have comfort with this, and I understand the international push, but we have done numerous things in this government rushing, and then being embarrassed by the results of rushing through the process. So the Government Accountability Office, 

as I said, is the Inspector General for us. I think it is—really the 

least, we should at least do is have another pair of eyes on this 

process, answering a lot of the questions that Mr. DelBianco had 

mentioned. 

Ms. Rossini, thank you for coming. First two questions are kind 

of part of your written testimony. In your testimony, you say that 

my Bill, the DOTCOM Act, seeks to block the transition in the 

108 

name of human rights. Can you cite the part of the Bill that says 

that? 

Ms. ROSSINI. Can you repeat the question? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. In your written testimony, you say that the 

DOTCOM Act seeks to block the transition in the name of human 

rights. Your—you say—— 

Ms. ROSSINI. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. This bill is really an antihuman rights 

bill, I think. 

Ms. ROSSINI. Well, thank you, Mr. Representative, first, for reading my complete written testimony, and I think that is not my understanding what I have written there. 

My concern is that if we wait one year, if we block the transition 

now and wait one year until we have a report, that is the risk and 

that is the risk that we are going to have for known democratic 

governments to actually make their voices even louder, and manipulate the narrative both in—and in November. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And if I may, because I have another question I 

want to follow up, so I appreciate that because that was kind of 

maybe an answer I was expecting from the first panel, but, in essence, they didn’t give me that. 

Ms. ROSSINI. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They basically said we support, you know, we support another look, transparency, good review, fortunately for us I 

think they, in essence, endorse the bill. Because they could have 

responded a different way, which—— 

Ms. ROSSINI. And one thing I would do—I am sorry. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, go ahead. Go ahead. 

Ms. ROSSINI. One thing that I actually would add to that is that 

if U.S. had supported through bipartisan, unanimous consensus, 

the resolutions that foster multi-stakeholder, this statement, this 

report could come—has one stakeholder input not to hold the process back. So you are going to have a voice. U.S. has a strong voice. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But you understand that doing a review by the 

Government Accountability Office would take some time. If we believe—you heard the concerns out here, and I think some of them 

are—as the Internet has changed over the decades so has the world 

community. I think the people would credibly argue that the world 

is a more dangerous place today, not a safer place today. 

Ms. ROSSINI. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, these aren’t crazy things to ask and review. 

Let me turn to Mr. DelBianco to address that concern, and the 

concern about another government look. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Congressman, the members of NetChoice are 

concerned that we send the wrong signal by simply hitting the 

brakes or having a delay, and yet we think you are sending the 

right signal by asking questions about defining the terms and the 

four principles. What does the term mean, multi-stakeholder, meeting the needs and expectations, what does openness mean, and 

more importantly, what are the risks to those four principles, and 

the risk of government influence associated with new proposals. So 

that is exactly how I believe we can channel the kind of energy 

that you and Congresswoman Blackburn have brought here, channel that energy into having GAO begin now in articulating what 

109 

they think definitions that are appropriate for accountability, and 

the risks, because that will allow us in the community who are designing proposals to test those proposals against the risks that 

Congress and the GAO have identified. Those should begin in parallel because we started last week in Singapore to design multiple 

proposals, and you wouldn’t believe the email traffic that has already gone on since we left Singapore. Thousands of email messages with different groups, not all ICANN, different groups coming up with proposals, in over 18 months plus potentially two 2- 

year extensions, we will have the opportunity to narrow that down 

to a short list of proposals. I would benefit from having your work, 

the work of GAO or anybody in the U.S. Government in articulating the risks we want to avoid. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I would just end, Joe Barton stole the phrase 

I was going to use from Ronald Reagan, trust but verify. And all 

this is is a verification of what everybody says is going to happen 

is actually going to happen. 

Yield back my time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, could I just add one brief thing for 

the record—— 

Mr. LATTA. Yes, it is—— 

Mr. DOYLE [continuing]. It will take 3 seconds? 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

I just want to state for the record that I did not hear any of the 

panelists in the first panel endorse Mr. Shimkus’ legislation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And then—— 

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Shimkus? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If I may? I would say I would hope my colleague 

was at the first panel, and they definitely did not oppose the Bill. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK, but they didn’t endorse it either. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is debatable. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. 

I want to thank the—on behalf of Chairman Walden for your testimony today. We greatly appreciate you being here and testifying 

before us today. 

And seeing no other business come before the subcommittee this 

afternoon, the committee will stand adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON

Last year, the House unanimously passed H.R. 1580 declaring it the policy of the 

United States to preserve and advance the multi-stakeholder model that governs the 

Internet. While I may have supported this measure, I have a number of questions 

regarding the process of relinquishing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) role with the Internet Corporation for Assigned 

Names and Numbers (ICANN). 

I believe that transparency is imperative during this process, and I am happy to 

be an original cosponsor of the DOTCOM Act of 2014. This bill requires the GAO 

to release a report on every proposal given to NTIA for consideration by ICANN, 

and I strongly believe that Congress should have an oversight role regarding this 

process. Because NTIA has clearly indicated that it will not approve a proposal that 

does not maintain the openness of the Internet and allow for the governments of 

other countries to control the Internet, it is my expectation that the Administration 

will adhere to their promises. The last thing I want is for some other governmental 

110 

body in another country having a greater influence over how our Internet works 

today. 

With this said, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and learning more 

about ICANN’s vision of advancing the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance. 

111 


90781.001
112 


90781.002
113 


90781.003
114 


90781.004
115 


90781.005
116 


90781.006
117 


90781.007
118 


90781.008
119 


90781.009
120 


90781.010
121 


90781.011
122 


90781.012
123 

Æ 


90781.013