U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

87–498 PDF 2014

SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RELINQUISH DIRECT OVERSIGHT OVER ICANN? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 10, 2014 

Serial No. 113–106 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

HEATHER SAWYER, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 10, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, Vice-Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 5 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 6 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, United States Department of Commerce 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

Paul Rosenzweig, Visiting Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Principal, Red 

Branch Consulting, PLLC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

Fadi Chehade ́, President and Chief Executive Officer, Internet Corporation 

for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 60 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 61 

Steven J. Metalitz, Partner, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, on behalf 

of the Coalition for Online Accountability 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 65 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 67 

Daniel Castro, Senior Analyst, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 84 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 85 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 9 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ........................................... 29 

Material submitted by the Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, Vice-Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ................................................ 97 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ........................................... 101 
Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from human rights and free expression organizations ............................. 118 

WSJ Governments Grab for the Web ..................................................................... 122 

Prepared Statement of Josh Bourne, President, Coalition Against Domain 

Name Abuse (CADNA) ........................................................................................ 124 

Letter from Michael Beckerman, President and CEO, The Internet Association (IA) ................................................................................................................. 126 
(1) 

SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RELINQUISH DIRECT OVERSIGHT 

OVER ICANN? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Tom Marino 

(Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Marino, Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, 

Holding, Collins, Nadler, Conyers, Chu, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, 

DelBene, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen. 

Staff Present: (Majority) David Whitney, Counsel; Olivia Lee, 

Clerk; (Minority) Stephanie Moore, Minority Counsel; Jason Everett, Counsel; Heather Sawyer, Counsel. 

Mr. MARINO. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, 

and the Internet will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the Subcommittee at any time. And we welcome all the witnesses 

today. 

This is going to be a unique series of strategy today. We have 

three series of votes. We have two panels of distinguished experts. 

So we are going to be manipulating this testimony as best we can 

so the witnesses are not sitting around waiting for us. We will get 

to the floor and vote and then we will shoot back. Okay? Just a 

warning. 

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the House Judiciary 

Committee. 

This morning, the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet will commence aggressive oversight over an 

extraordinarily significant matter, the future of the Internet. 

Throughout the world, there are competing visions for what the 

Internet is and what it will become. The path we choose to follow 

will impact not only the course of our own individual lives and fortunes, but, also, those of future generations in the U.S. and abroad. 
2 

The proper course to follow must be determined after a very judicious process in which we rationally discuss the details with all the 

stakeholders in the community, including the users. 

Our focus in this initial hearing is a topic that may sound like 

an arcane subject, the relationship between the U.S. Department 

of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers, otherwise known as ICANN, which, among other things, 

manages certain key functions of the Internet under a longstanding 

contractual relationship with the Department. 

However, this relationship is key to ensuring the Internet continues to be free and open for years to come. According to a published report in The Hill on February 8, ICANN betrayed broader 

ambitions last year when it endorsed a statement calling for the 

globalization of ICANN and other domain name technical work 

that is currently managed by the United States. 

The report continued—and I quote—′′The statement, which was 

issued with nine other Internet infrastructure organizations, suggested that the domain work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, known as IANA, be handed over to ICANN.’’ The report 

went on to note, ‘‘Those duties are now contracted out by the Commerce Department.’’ 

Further, the report stated some of the tech industry saw the 

statement as a direct challenge to the U.S. role in Internet governance, which is already being called into question after the revelation about global snooping at the National Security Agency, or the 

NSA. 

Less than 5 weeks later, late on the afternoon of Friday, March 

14, a shocking announcement from the Department of Commerce’s 

National Telecommunication and Information Administration, 

NTIA, which is charged with oversight over the IANA contract, was 

issued. 

The former CEO of ICANN, Rod Beckstrom, described the release by stating—and I quote—′′Last Friday the U.S. Government 

effectively surrendered its historic authority over the Internet with 

its surprise announcement of its intention to pass this responsibility to the global multi-stakeholder community.’’ 

Beckstrom continued, ‘‘Why did the U.S. Government do this 

now? Because they face the serious risk of losing even more at the 

upcoming Net Mundial conference on Internet governance in 

Brazil, a conference that it is reportedly organized in substantial 

part by ICANN itself. 

Beckstrom opined—and I quote—′′With the suddenness of the announcement, we are entering a new risky and chaotic process without a clear plan, and nothing less than the future of the Internet 

is at stake.’’ 

Those who are paying attention will no doubt agree with 

Beckstrom’s last point. The sudden and surprise nature of the 

NTIA’s announcement on March 14 stunned many. The fact it was 

timed for release when Members of Congress were traveling back 

to their districts for a work period is undoubtedly not a coincidence. 

The future of the Internet is at stake and this Administration 

and the NTIA are attempting to take matters into their own hands 

without consultation with Congress. 
3 

When asked about the sudden change in policy and asked to justify their decisions and processes, they point to unrelated resolutions that do not address oversight over the IANA functions. 

They ignore congressional resolve that explicitly provides that 

the Secretary of Commerce should continue to exercise oversight 

over ICANN, and they attempt to cite papers from the late 1990’s 

to justify the reversal of course today. 

Even our liberal friend, President Bill Clinton, has made it clear 

that he disagrees with the decision of the NTIA and those that 

could pose significant dangers to the free and open Internet. 

While he noted he understood the arguments being made for the 

multi-stakeholder process, he stated, ‘‘A lot of these so-called multistakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and 

restrict access to the Internet.’’ 

Given that Mr. Clinton was the executive under whose authority 

these department papers were created, I believe we should give 

considerable credence to his opinions on the subject. 

There is a lot of ground to cover today, and I have barely 

scratched the surface. Nevertheless, I am pleased that today we 

have with us an outstanding panel of witnesses who can direct our 

attention to the relationship between the Department of Commerce 

and NTIA and, also, help educate us on matters that pertain to 

this decision to surrender control of the IANA function to ICANN 

in as soon as 18 months. 

I welcome our witnesses, our audience today. And, with that, I 

recognize the Subcommittee Ranking Member, the distinguished 

gentleman, Representative Nadler of New York, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last month the Department of Commerce announced that it will 

begin a process for transitioning key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community. 

This announcement continues the privatization process first 

started in 1998, continued through the Bush Administration, and 

that has been supported by various Congresses. Despite this, some 

of my Republican colleagues have now accused the Obama Administration of wanting to surrender control of the Internet to foreigners. 

This type of alarmist assertion misunderstands a core fact. There 

is not now nor will there ever be one party, whether government 

or private sector, that controls the Internet. The Internet is and 

will remain a decentralized network of networks that run smoothly 

only through the voluntary cooperation and coordination of all its 

participants. 

Ensuring effective private-sector management of these networks 

and transitioning functions served by the United States Government has been a goal shared by Republicans and Democrats alike 

for the past 16 years. 

And, frankly, I am surprised that some of my Republican colleagues now seem to oppose the next step in the ongoing privatization process. It cannot be that Republicans support private industry and oppose government control in everything except this. So 

why the outrage now? 
4 

I am hopeful that behind some of the overheated rhetoric surrounding NTIA’s announcement there is a sincere desire to take a 

clear look at the facts. 

There is, of course, a need to ensure that the transition process 

and the model developed through that process produces a management structure that supports a secure, open, and truly global Internet. 

NTIA has established criteria to help ensure that this occurs, 

and I am confident that NTIA and ICANN will agree to update us 

periodically as this process progresses. 

We need not pass legislation that further complicates this process, and there is no reason to make this a partisan battle now. 

Today’s Internet has its origins in the network developed by the 

United States Department of Defense and other Federal agencies 

to connect universities and research labs conducting projects for 

the government. 

Since then, the Internet has become a remarkable platform for 

commerce, social discourse, and innovation across the globe. 

Since the late 1990’s, of course, Democratic and Republican administrations and with the full support of various Congresses, including a 413 to nothing vote only 2 years ago, our government has 

embraced the principle that core Internet domain name systems 

functions should be managed by the private sector, not by this or 

any other government. 

Private-sector interests formed ICANN in the late 1990’s for this 

purpose, and NTIA has been working with ICANN since that time 

to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector. 

NTIA’s recent announcement that it would begin the process for 

transitioning its oversight of the technical functions necessary to 

assign numbers and registered domain names, known as the Internet Assigned Number Authority, or IANA, to ICANN in the multistakeholder model that has been developed into the technical coordination represents the final step in a 16-year transition process 

and, far from being a surprise, was an expected announcement, the 

only question being the timing. 

The IANA functions include management of the DNS root zone 

top-level domain names and coordination of the allocation of IP addresses. 

For the last 2 decades, the IANA functions have been performed 

under successive contracts between the Department of Commerce 

and ICANN. 

During that time, the U.S. Government has simultaneously exercised oversight over ICANN through the IANA contract while remaining steadfast in its commitment to turn over DNS management to the multi-stakeholder private sector model. 

Congress has long supported this commitment, often doing so in 

response to other governments around the world, urging intergovernmental control of the Internet through, for example, proposals 

for control by the United Nations International Telecommunications Union, the ITU. 

Just last Congress we responded to this possibility by passing a 

bipartisan, bicameral resolution providing that, ‘‘It is the policy of 

the United States to preserve and advance the successful multi- 
5 

stakeholder model that governs the Internet.’’ H.Con.Resolution 

127 passed the House by a unanimous 413 to nothing vote. 

This latest announcement by IANA—I am sorry—by NTIA follows in that tradition and was warmly welcomed, was warmly welcomed, by American corporations such as AT&T, Cisco, Google, 

Microsoft, Neustar, and Verizon, as well as by the Chamber of 

Commerce, the Internet technical community, and our global allies. 

By inviting the multi-stakeholder community to present proposals for administration of IANA functions that have brought support and that preserve the security, stability, resiliency, and openness of the Internet, NTIA has reinforced our longstanding dedication to transitioning to private-sector management in a responsible 

and successful manner. 

Exactly how we accomplish this is yet to be determined through 

the process initiated by NTIA’s announcement, but the time to initiate the process for that transition has come. 

Congress, together with the world community, should now focus 

on developing plans that ensure transparency, accountability, and 

robust safeguards to enable the continued efficient operation of the 

Internet. 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for their testimony and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Nadler. 

I would now like to recognize the full Committee Chairman, the 

distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, the title of today’s hearing vastly understates its 

importance. All hyperbole aside, this hearing is about nothing less 

than the future of the Internet and, significantly, who has the 

right, the ability, and the authority to determine it. 

Should it be decided by a few people in Washington, Beijing, 

Moscow, Sao Paolo, or even Silicon Valley, or should it be determined by those who use and stand to benefit from it? 

In determining the United States’ role, should we have a process 

where a few officials in the Administration make decisions in a 

bubble without consulting or seeking meaningful input from the 

American people and their elected representatives, or should we 

have an open, transparent, and accountable process before decisions are made that impact all our futures? 

To be clear, the process and the manner in which the Obama Administration and, specifically, the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, or NTIA, arrived at and announced their decision to transition oversight over the critical 

Internet Assigned Names and Numbers authority function in as 

early as 18 months has not been fully transparent. 

For example, NTIA announced its decision late on a Friday afternoon as Americans were beginning their weekends and Members 

were returning to their districts. NTIA implied that the House and 

Senate passage of resolutions in 2012 in support of a multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance somehow provided an advanced endorsement, but, in truth, those resolutions nowhere mention the IANA contract. 
6 

Furthermore, to assert that, in the late 1990’s, the Department 

of Commerce stated its intent to phase out its oversight role and, 

thus, no one has a right now to question why the Obama Administration has decided to do this is sophistry. Indeed, it is an attempt 

to shut down discussion. 

As a result, an enormous number of questions have been raised 

that the American people and this Subcommittee deserve to have 

answered publicly in a responsible, professional, honest and forthright manner. 

There are good reasons why the United States has maintained 

oversight over the IANA function contract. Indeed, in 2005, the 

House passed a resolution that explicitly stated that it is the sense 

of Congress that the Secretary of Commerce shall maintain oversight of ICANN so that ICANN can continue to manage the dayto-day operation of the Internet’s domain name and addressing system well, remain responsive to all Internet stakeholders worldwide, 

and otherwise fulfill its core technical mission. 

The Obama Administration should bear the burden of proof for 

why it wants to make this significant public policy change and 

whether it is in the best interests of U.S. citizens and Internet 

users around the globe. 

One of the reasons given by many for relinquishing this contract 

is to improve the U.S. image internationally. As a result of the public revelation of certain U.S. intelligence-gathering practices, it is 

true that U.S.-based companies are under enormous pressure to 

place operations overseas in order to do business there and are facing increased competition from their foreign competitors. 

This is because the President and his team have failed to effectively engage and inspire confidence among those countries and 

citizens who traditionally viewed Americans as allies. 

We must address this concern, but the most direct way to do so 

is by reforming our Nation’s surveillance laws to better protect civil 

liberties. 

While I see both sides of the proposal to ultimately transfer the 

IANA function to the private sector, it is clear that the U.S. has 

served as a critical and responsible backstop against censorship 

and as a promoter of openness and free speech on the Internet. 

The reality is that, once we surrender our unique position, it will 

be impossible to take it back if something goes awry. This is an important point that needs to be seriously discussed as we determine 

our future role. 

All this leads back to today’s hearing. With all due respect to our 

Administration witness, many Americans are past the point of 

being satisfied with vague assurances when hard answers, evidence, and sober judgment are needed. 

I look forward to a robust discussion today about this important 

issue, and I yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would now like to recognize the full Committee Ranking Member, the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Conyers, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee and our distinguished witness. 
7 

What we are doing this morning is examining the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s recent announcement of their intent to transition key Internet domain name 

functions to the global multi-stakeholder community. So I want to 

try to allay some of the alarm and fears that seem to be moving 

around this issue. 

I would try to administer some medicine that doesn’t require a 

prescription or some other tactic other than the usual arguments 

that we will put up, but I want you to understand and I think we 

should agree on that this move will not lead to control of the Internet by foreign governments. I suppose that is always a concern that 

a lot of people have. 

But opponents of this transition have raised concerns about 

whether there is sufficient safeguards in place to prevent foreign 

government intrusion during the transition. The criticism has also 

included inaccurate statements about concerns about threats from 

foreign governments who seek control or tax or censor the Internet. 

These concerns are misplaced because this transition reaffirms 

the United States’ commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach, 

which will work to improve the security and stability of the Internet. 

And NTIA has fully confirmed that it will not transition to any 

management model that is government led. So I hope we will begin 

to feel better as this discussion unfolds with our distinguished witnesses. 

Now, with this proposed transition, NTIA is putting into place 

the final phase of privatization, which the United States has long 

supported and which I trust our conservative colleagues are in support of, and this will be accomplished by transitioning key Internet 

domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community. 

There have also been a concern or two raised about whether the 

multi-stakeholder model is an appropriate approach. 

Congress itself has expressly stated its support of the private 

multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance by passing bipartisan resolutions in both the House and the Senate during the last 

Congress. Last session we passed Concurrent Resolution 127, 

which supported the multi-stakeholder model for governance of the 

Internet by an overwhelming unanimous vote, 414 to 0. 

Now, the NTIA has developed core principles to guide this process. Some argue that there are no core principles that will guide 

this process, but NTIA has put in place core principles to assure 

successful transition and the long-term viability of this plan. 

Indeed, any proposal for transition of the domain name system 

must meet certain core principles before it can be approved and finalized by NTIA. 

If the proposal does not meet fully these criteria, the NTIA may 

seek additional time to work through the process to develop an acceptable transition proposal. 

These principles, which must be met, ensure that the United 

States will succeed in maintaining freedom, openness, security, and 

stability of the network. 

And in addition to specific criteria that must be met, NTIA has 

also confirmed that any transition cannot be controlled by a government entity. 
8 

The transition must maintain security and stability of Internet 

DNS, support the multi-stakeholder process, meet global needs and 

demands, and maintain an open interest. 

And I believe that there is sufficient time for stakeholders to 

work through the process to develop an acceptable transition proposal. 

Now, this Committee has historically exercised its role to address 

the problems of cyber squatting, competition, and copyright infringement with respect to generic top-level domain names. 

That oversight has included concerns about the effectiveness of 

the multi-stakeholder model that led to the expansion of the toplevel domain names. 

And I, along with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle of this Committee, along with our counterparts on the Senate 

Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to ICANN describing these 

safeguards, including whether that multi-stakeholder process provided trademark owners, consumers, and law enforcement community a meaningful opportunity to voice their concerns, and I am 

going to put that letter in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 

Mr. CONYERS. I look forward to hearing today about how we can 

ensure that ICANN remains responsive to our concerns as well as 

those of other key stakeholders over the next 18 months as this 

process unfolds. 

So, finally, a truly effective transition must and can ensure that 

the criteria for transition remain in place long after that transition 

occurs. 

Some of the critics of the NTIA’s announcement have expressed 

concern that, by relinquishing its contract with ICANN, the United 

States will be unable to prevent subsequent changes and it might 

undermine Internet security, stability, and openness. This is not 

exactly accurate because the process itself can and should result in 

enforceable principles that the United States can support. 

Again, this is the start of a transition process that there will be 

plenty of opportunity to make sure it is going well. And, if not, 

NTIA has the option to renew the contract with ICANN for a total 

of four additional years through 2019. 

Stakeholders should all work together to be involved in the process announced by NTIA on March 14 so that ICANN and the Internet community can develop constructive proposals that will meet 

NTIA’s criteria. 

To this point, there has been a broad group of stakeholders who 

have expressed support for the NTIA announcement, including 

AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Google, Public Knowledge, and the 

Chamber of Commerce. The process should continue to be open, 

transparent, and obtain international stakeholder consensus and 

support. 

We should have more hearings to review this issue to see how 

it develops and evaluate the process as it moves forward. These 

hearings will provide us with the opportunity to examine whether 

sufficient safeguards are being put in place during the next steps 

of the transition of NTIA’s role, and the Committee should consider 

sending designated representatives to attend and monitor the 

meetings held in compliance with NTIA’s announcement. This 

would facilitate meaningful oversight by Congress. 

These are some suggestions that I have. And I thank the Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time and look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Conyers. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be 

made part of the record. 

I want to explain who I am. My name is Tom Marino. I am the 

Vice-Chair of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee. 

My colleague, the Chairman and my mentor, Howard Coble, the 

gentleman from North Carolina, has a conflicting schedule this 

morning, but will attempt to get here as soon as possible. 

We have two very distinguished panels today. I will begin by 

swearing in our first witness before introducing him. 

If you would please rise, sir, and raise your right hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. MARINO. Let the record reflect that the witness has answered in the affirmative. 

And, Mr. Secretary, you may be seated. 
13 

The witness’s written statement will be entered into the record 

in its entirety. 

I ask that the witness summarize his testimony in 5 minutes or 

less. We are on a very tight schedule today. So when you get to 5 

minutes, I will politely tap the hammer just to give you an indication because those lights are to the sides of you and you know how 

they work. 

And to help stay within the time, these are timing lights on your 

table. They make no sense to me because I am colorblind and I 

can’t tell what they are. 

When the light switches from so-called green to yellow—and I 

have no idea what that is—you will have 1 minute to conclude your 

statement. When the light turns red, it signals that the witness’s 

5 minutes has expired. So I will politely nudge you, if you don’t 

mind 

Our first witness this morning is the Honorable Lawrence 

Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the United States Department of Commerce, a very important position. 

In his position, Mr. Strickling serves as Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the executive branch agency that is responsible for advising the President 

on communications and information policies. 

Mr. Strickling earned his juris doctorate from Harvard Law 

School and his bachelor of science in economics from the University 

of Maryland. 

Welcome, Mr. Strickling. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE E. STRICKLING, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE 

Mr. STRICKLING. Thank you, Chairman Marino. 

And I want to acknowledge Ranking Member Nadler, Chairman 

Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Conyers. 

I am pleased to be here today to testify about NTIA’s role working with ICANN and the domain name system as well as our 

March 14th release announcing our intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community. 

And, Chairman Goodlatte, I want to assure you I am not here 

to shut down discussion about this issue. My hope is that these 

issues are fully debated not just here, but among all of the global 

Internet stakeholders. 

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 
14 

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. And 

I brought a copy if anybody wants to look at it. This is necessary 

for the rooting of Internet communications. 

ICANN performs these tasks at no cost to the U.S. Government. 

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

proposed by ICANN to the root zone file before passing the changes 

on to VeriSign, which actually maintains and updates the root zone 

file. 

ICANN develops its policies through a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. 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 agreement 

on Internet policies. 

I want to emphasize that NTIA does not exercise any control or 

oversight over policymaking at ICANN. Rather, it is the global 

multi-stakeholder community that makes Internet policy today, 

whether it be setting domain name policy at ICANN or developing 

Internet technical standards at the Internet Engineering Task 

Force. 

The U.S. Government has been a vigorous supporter of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance from the start. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently emphasized that the multi-stakeholder process is the best mechanism for 

making Internet policy. Congress agrees. 

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 to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder 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. We asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played 

by NTIA in 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 four 

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 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 to convene the multi-stakeholder process because it is the current IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for DNS. 

We informed ICANN that we expected it to work collaboratively 

with the other Internet technical organizations, including the Inter-
15 

net Society, the IETF, the Internet Architecture Board, and the regional Internet registries. 

At its recent meeting in Singapore, ICANN convened two public 

sessions in association with these organizations to obtain stakeholder input on how to design the process to develop the transition 

plan. 

The Internet community has responded to our announcement 

with strong statements of support, and many of the Members have 

referred to them. 

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 this evolution. 

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 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 

that meets the four conditions we laid out on March 14. 

And 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. 

Similarly, we have not set any deadline for action. The current 

contract expires on September 30th, 2015, but we can extend it for 

up to 4 years if the community needs more time to develop its proposal. 

I also want to assure all Members that, even as the United 

States looks to transition out of this clerical role that 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 in 2009. 

Our commitment to preserving the Internet as a platform for economic growth and innovation remains steadfast and, by this action, 

we are simply enlisting others to step up and join us in supporting 

the free and open Internet. 

Thank you. And I look forward to answering your questions this 

morning. 
16 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Secretary. And once again, your full 

statement will be made part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickling follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Mr. MARINO. We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with 

questions, and I will begin by recognizing the Chairman of the full 

Committee, Chairman Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Strickling, welcome, and I very much appreciate your 

remarks, and they are helpful in this process. 

My first question is: Do you agree that the authority that NTIA 

has over ICANN under the IANA contract has never been abused? 

Mr. STRICKLING. That we have not abused our authority? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Correct. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you agree that this authority and the functions performed under this agreement have absolutely nothing to 

do with the surveillance techniques that were allegedly revealed by 

Edward Snowden? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that this is 

a subject that never came up in interdepartmental discussions. 

Did this issue ever come up in the discussion surrounding this 

decision? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. But it was never a primary reason for our 

action. Our action that we are taking today was fueled much more 

by the fact that we felt Internet had matured as an organization 

to the point where it was time for—to do this final transition. 

And it was also, I think, fueled by the increasing international 

acceptance of the multi-stakeholder model of governance that we 

are seeing in the developing world as reflected in the Brazil undertaking of the global multi-stakeholder meeting they are hosting in 

Brazil later this month. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Castro states that, without U.S. oversight, 

ICANN has the potential to become the world’s largest unregulated 

monopoly. 

Do you agree or disagree with his statement, and why? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, if we are referring to IANA functions, I 

strongly disagree. I think that totally misapprehends exactly what 

our role is under IANA functions. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would have to say that you have a point to the 

extent that, while a number of concerns were raised in this Committee and elsewhere in the Congress and elsewhere in interested 

groups, that had no effect on the decision by ICANN to undertake 

the dramatic expansion of the top-level domain name program that 

has quite a bit of concern on many parts, quite a bit of cost to some 

entities, and contains the, I would say, evidence that this is an organization that can, maybe even now under the existing contract— 

but certainly would be able to, without such a contractual relationship with the United States, expand itself and expand its powers 

with regard to the Internet. 

Would you agree with that statement? 

Mr. STRICKLING. No. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Explain yourself. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, let’s take the example of the expansion of 

top-level domains. ICANN didn’t do that in terms of ICANN, the 

employees and the board members. That was a decision taken after 

6 years of multi-stakeholder discussion. 
27 

Many people were involved in debating the pros and cons of 

doing that. It actually goes back to the origination of ICANN. 

I mean, one of the purposes of putting this to the private sector 

was to increase competition among domain names. So this has long 

been contemplated, going back to 1998, when ICANN was created. 

And I think people tend to conflate ICANN with the output of 

the multi-stakeholder process that is conducted within the ICANN 

sphere. 

And so I think the idea that ICANN as an organization is going 

to turn into some unregulated monopoly totally disregards the 

presence of hundreds of stakeholders—thousands of stakeholders 

who actually set the policies for ICANN. 

And if you are saying that AT&T, Verizon, Cisco, Microsoft, Freedom House, Public Knowledge, Center for Democracy and Technology are all going to allow that to happen, then, you are basically 

saying you don’t believe in the multi-stakeholder model, because I 

don’t think they will let that happen. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. I am not saying that I believe that at all. 

But I will say that I am concerned that the actions taken by the 

entity are the genesis of the problems that we have with countries 

that do not respect the freedom that exists on the Internet, do not 

respect individual liberty, and will always—unless they change 

their own perspective of the world and their own perspective of 

civil liberties, will always be looking for excuses to take control of 

the Internet. I am talking about countries like Brazil undertaking 

the initiative that they have right now. 

So I understand the concern about this remaining link to the 

United States, which, in my opinion, notwithstanding the challenges that we and any other representative democracy face, still 

is a beacon in the world for freedom. 

And I think that we can rightly take credit for the freedom that 

exists on the Internet today in the manner in which we have 

worked to unfold it. 

The question and concern that I have and many others have is: 

When we let go of that final link, will that institution that I support in terms of how it is expected to operate—will that institution 

be safer from those efforts to regulate the Internet or will it be 

more exposed because it no longer has the protection of the United 

States? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, Chairman, I am a little flummoxed by 

your question because it is not the last link. As I said in my statement, we continue to have a tremendous amount of engagement 

with ICANN. We are an active and vigorous participant in the Government Advisory Committee, and that is public policy. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No question. No question. But is the last contractual relationship. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, but we also have the affirmation of commitments with ICANN under which they have committed things 

that are basically in their bylaws in terms of increasing their accountability and transparency not just to us, but the entire worldwide community. 

And it has set up a series of review teams, one of which, the accountability and review team, I sit as a member on. So I have devoted a tremendous amount of my own time both in 2010 and 
28 

again last year, 2013, for the first two iterations of that team that 

does a very in-depth examination of the accountability mechanisms 

at ICANN and makes recommendations to the board in terms of 

how to improve that. 

We are joined in that effort by governments of Denmark, Australia, Costa Rica in the last iteration, as well as from experts from 

around the globe, technical experts and then members of the representatives of the various supporting organizations. So there are 

a number of ways that we provide input and guidance and oversight into how ICANN operates. 

The IANA function really is primarily a symbolic role that we 

have played. We got involved in this in 1998 because, when the 

government wanted to get out of this role, when it was performing 

these functions itself, we had to find a mechanism by which to get 

a private entity to do it. 

That was the purpose of the IANA functions contract. It was basically a one-time opportunity for the United States to move from 

doing it itself to finding someone else to do it. 

And, since then, they have been performing these roles. Policies 

have been set by stakeholders and, literally, our role has been to 

do that final verification of accuracy of changes before they are 

made. 

And I think people are blowing totally out of proportion this 

function that we perform with respect to IANA functions and they 

are ignoring the many other ways in which—that we participate 

through the multi-stakeholder process to ensure that American interests are furthered through ICANN and through any of the other 

Internet technical organizations. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I get that. And I thank you. Your comments are 

helpful. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Congressman 

Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before beginning my questions, I ask unanimous consent to enter 

an article from 2011 titled, ‘‘Beckstrom Calls for ICANN’s Independence,’’ in which Mr. Beckstrom expressed the belief—the ‘‘clear 

belief that the U.S. Government should live up to its 1998 white 

paper commitment to transfer management of the IANA functions 

to the private sector-led organization enlisted to manage DNS, 

which is ICANN.’’ 

Given representations of Mr. Beckstrom’s opposition to this transition now, I think it is important that the hearing record reflects 

a more complete record of his position. 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
29 
30 
31 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Strickling, before I begin my other questions, let me ask you 

as a follow-on: Do you believe that the step that you have announced of—with respect to ICANN will have any effect, pro or con, 

in increasing or decreasing the power of a foreign government that 

wants to limit the Internet in some way to do so outside its own 

borders or inside its borders, for that matter? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I don’t think it affects their power. No. 

Mr. NADLER. Because? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, to the extent a government wants to shut 

off content coming into its country, there is nothing any of us can 

do to prevent that other than continuing to help inspire stakeholders in those countries to rise up and oppose and object to such 

practices when they take place. 

The ability of any government to somehow come in and take over 

ICANN is basically zero by itself. There is just no mechanism by 

which it can happen. 

Now, governments can bring these matters to the UN and to the 

International Telecommunication Union, and we are concerned 

about certainly the outcome at the World Conference on International Telecommunications 2 years ago where 88 countries basically felt that some of these matters of Internet policy ought to be 

brought to the ITU. 

That is very troubling, and we are working very hard in a—— 

Mr. NADLER. The step you are taking now that we are discussing 

today has no effect on that one way or the other? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, we hope that—there is no question but 

what—the U.S. role in this has served as a talking point for countries like Russia and other authoritarian regimes. 

When they are trying to convince countries in the developing 

world to join in them in some of their policies, they use this as an 

argument. 

So, yes, we are taking that argument away. So we would hope 

that developing countries would approach these issues with a different mindset as a result of this. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Now, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Communication Technology Subcommittee is marking up and voting today on 

H.R. 4342, the DOTCOM Act of 2014. That bill would delay any 

transition of the IANA functions until after the Government Accountability Office reviews and reports on any transition proposals. 

Do you support this bill? Could this act harm the transition process? And how might it impact the ongoing efforts of some nations 

to transition Internet governance to the ITU of the United Nations? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So the Administration opposes the DOTCOM 

bill, and we do think that enactment of the bill would send the 

wrong signal to the global Internet community about the United 

States’ continued support of the global multi-stakeholder governance model. 

We think that the bill undermines longstanding U.S. support for 

the model’s multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. 

And while we have certainly seen international support growing 

for the multi-stakeholder model, authoritarian regimes are attempting to provide an alternative Internet governance model that 
32 

would enhance the role of governments in controlling the Internet, 

and the timing of this bill would be particularly damaging for supporters of the multi-stakeholder model. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Now, some of my colleagues—and you dealt 

with this somewhat in your statement, but I would like you to 

briefly elaborate on it. 

Some of my colleagues have claimed that relinquishing the contractual relationship with ICANN could mean turning Internet 

over to greater influence by foreign governments such as Russia or 

China. You stated this isn’t true, obviously. 

Even if the initial model to which we transition doesn’t allow for 

this, how do we ensure that it isn’t later changed to allow governments to exert undue control? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, again, we are putting our faith, as we 

have for the last 15 years, in the multi-stakeholder model. 

What we are depending on, again, are large multi-national corporations, important civil society organizations both here and the 

United States and worldwide. 

We are relying on technical experts who created this Internet, 

people like Steve Crocker, the chairman of the board of ICANN 

who is sitting in the room today. 

And you would have us believe that somehow those people are 

going to somehow end up with a result that, in effect, would turn 

this over to governments who have a totally different model in 

mind in terms of how the Internet ought to operate? I just don’t 

see that happening. It just won’t happen. 

Mr. NADLER. Now, some have argued that relinquishing the contractual relationship robs us of any oversight or leverage to ensure 

that ICANN adheres to its operating principles. 

Do we have any such control by virtue of our contract with 

ICANN now? And, if so, how do we ensure similar accountability 

from ICANN if we relinquish the contract? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, these are important questions, and I think 

that is exactly what we have teed up for the community to be talking about as they develop a transition plan. 

The question we put to the community is: What do you want to 

create, if anything, to replace the role we have played, however it 

has been interpreted by the community? 

We recognize that there is a symbolic nature of the IANA functions contract that has given, we think, comfort to people who feel 

that somehow we can use that to discipline ICANN. 

And the question of the community now is: Well, if you believe 

that, then design a mechanism that provides that same assurance 

to the entire community going forward. That is the task that the 

community will be taking up here over the next many months. 

Mr. NADLER. And we will be able review the results of that? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. And as I indicated in my statement, we 

have provided four conditions that any proposal must meet. 

They include maintaining security and stability of the Internet. 

They include respecting the multi-stakeholder model. And we expect and will demand and ensure that any proposal that is brought 

back to us measures up to those standards. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 
33 

And, finally, it is my understanding that some of ICANN’s most 

important functions are performed under its affirmation of commitments, or AOC. 

What incentives or pressures exist to keep ICANN from unilaterally withdrawing from the AOC? And is this something that can or 

might be strengthened through proposals to transition the IANA 

functions? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I don’t think it is affected by our announcement 

regarding IANA. Keep in mind that the commitments ICANN 

makes under the affirmation largely are already reflected in its 

own bylaws. 

So, again, this is a situation where the multi-stakeholder community insists on these commitments, and I don’t think they would 

allow them to be relaxed in any respect, nor would we in terms of 

the fact that these commitments have served an important purpose 

in the last 3 or 4 years. 

We have seen the accountability and transparency of ICANN improve as a result of the work of the accountability and transparency teams. 

ICANN staff, ICANN board have been supporters and have 

taken very seriously these recommendations and have taken the 

measures necessary to improve in those areas. 

So I don’t see those commitments going away, as a practical matter, even if the instrument itself might change over time. 

Mr. NADLER. And the step you are proposing now would not 

change our ability to enforce any such commitments? 

Mr. STRICKLING. That is right. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Nadler. 

I am going to break tradition here a little bit. And now the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Congressman Conyers, will ask 

questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And we welcome you here, Assistant Secretary Strickling. This 

is—your testimony has been very helpful in starting us off on this 

role. 

Let me ask you how you feel about the argument that NTIA’s 

contractual relationship is working and should not be changed, it 

follows the ‘‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’’ phrase? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, we don’t think we are changing anything. 

We feel we are carrying out the policy originally set forth in 1998 

that has continued to be the policy of the United States, which is 

to complete the privatization of the domain name system. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. Some have characterized NTIA’s role as 

providing critical oversight through its supervisory contractual control over ICANN and have raised concerns that, without the U.S. 

Government ensuring that ICANN’s operating principles are followed, there is no way to stop foreign governments from interfering 

with ICANN’s operation going forward. 

How do you react to those kinds of assertions? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, again, referring to my previous testimony, 

I just don’t see a mechanism for that happening as a result of us 

completing the privatization of the domain name system. That action will not lead to that outcome, period. 
34 

Mr. CONYERS. And even if the initial model to which the IANA 

functions are transitioned—safeguards against this, how do we ensure that changes aren’t made that allow undue governmental influence going forward? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, again, we have made it very clear that 

any proposal presented to us cannot be a proposal that turns this 

over to governments or would lead to governments taking this over. 

So we are expecting that in terms of coming from the community—that we would get from the community a proposal that will 

ensure that. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. In the past, a number of us, including 

myself, former Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith, have raised concerns 

about ICANN’s management of Internet domain functions, including whether it was affording adequate protections for consumers 

and rights holders in working to combat online fraud and piracy. 

Now, if NTIA relinquishes all contractual relations with ICANN, 

how do we ensure that ICANN remains responsive to our concerns 

as well as those of other key stakeholders down the road? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So, again, the role we have with IANA functions 

really doesn’t bear on the policymaking with respect to the expansion of top-level domains. 

We shared many of those same concerns in terms of the expansion of top-level domains, and we expressed those views as vigorous 

advocates at the Government Advisory Committee. 

And to ICANN’s credit, they adopted many, many of the recommendations that the governmental advisory committee, through 

our leadership, adopted. 

And so we will continue to play that role going forward, and I 

do know that will not change as a result of the announcement we 

made 3, 4 weeks ago. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, Secretary Strickling, your responses have all 

been quite satisfactory to me. I thank you. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. We are going to—thank you, Congressman 

Conyers. 

We are going to break for votes. We are being held more and 

more to the time limit on the votes. So we will get over there. We 

will vote. Looks like we are going to have two votes, and we will 

be back here. I apologize for the inconvenience. Recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARINO. The hearing will now come to order. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Congressman 

Farenthold, who has to be in three places at one time today. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Strickling. I want 

to talk to you a second. Mr. Conyers asked you, if it ain’t broke, 

why are we trying to fix it, and your response was to the effect of, 

we are not fixing it, we are just moving along with the process. You 

know, I want to take exception to that, because I think if you are 

changing the process and the people in charge, you really do run 

the risk of breaking something that isn’t broken. 
35 

I mean, we are not having any problems today getting the root 

servers updated. I mean, the technical process is going fine, right? 

There are no problems there? 

Mr. STRICKLING. That is correct. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And they are being done in a timely fashion, 

right? It is getting done 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD [continuing]. Basically overnight, at the max? 

Mr. STRICKLING. You should probably ask the customers of the 

IANA functions the rate on that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Yeah. And there have been no complaints that 

we are not administering in a fair fashion? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am sorry? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It is not being administered in an unfair way, 

right? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, when you say administer, what are you 

referring to? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, you don’t have people saying, well, you 

are not registering my domain name because I am from X, Y, Z 

country? 

Mr. STRICKLING. That is not us. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Right. Nobody is saying we are not being fair? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, again, I think you are maybe conflating 

ICANN and the policymaking process with the role we play. Again, 

as I said earlier in my testimony, all we do after a change to the 

root zone is sent to us from ICANN, verify its accuracy, basically 

proofread it and pass it onto Verisign, and nobody has complained 

about that role that we have played. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And it is not costing us a lot of money? 

Mr. STRICKLING. No, it is less than a full-time staff person who 

performs these functions for us. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And I think you answered Chairman 

Goodlatte that there is no complaints we are taking advantage of 

this through, you know, the Snowden in the NSA, or we are not 

getting any intelligence advantage or any other advantage out of 

doing this, right? 

Mr. STRICKLING. None. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. We are not blocking our political enemies or 

trying to stifle free speech by saying, oh, we are not going to register that domain name, we are going to, you know, block this. We 

are not doing that, right? 

Mr. STRICKLING. That is correct. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And in fact, this country has been pretty aggressive about protecting that. I know we had quite a debate here 

in Congress when SOPA and PIPA came out, we were talking 

about, you know, blocking things, a little above your level at the 

DNS level, but we didn’t do that. So I guess I come back to, it isn’t 

broke, it is not expensive, why are we messing with it? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, again, I repeat what I said before, we are 

carrying out the policy that was established in 1998 to complete 

the privatization of this function. And we are—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And I understand where you are 

going with that, and I—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. Could I add, sir? 
36 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Sure. 

Mr. STRICKLING. But what we have put in place now is a process 

for the community to decide how best to replace our role. They may 

decide nothing is needed, because as I said before, it is largely a 

clerical role. That is for the community to decide. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Right. And I think you also testified in response to a question from Chairman Goodlatte, with respect to the 

affirmation deal, isn’t it correct that that could be abrogated with 

just a couple months’ notice? 

Mr. STRICKLING. The document can be abrogated on 120 days’ notice. But as I also testified, the commitments that ICANN makes 

in that largely come directly from its bylaws, so they are not going 

to go away. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And, you know, again, I am going to beg to differ with you there, that I like the fact that America continues to 

be in a leadership role in the Internet. 

Mr. STRICKLING. We will continue in that leadership role, sir. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. We basically invented it, you know. Our tax 

dollars funded DARPA which became the Internet. I would argue, 

it may be the only successful computing project this government 

has actually ever undertaken. So, you know, I am concerned about 

giving up our leadership role. 

Finally, I—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Sir, please, I must push back on you. We are 

not giving up our leadership role. We are stepping out of a clerical 

function that we currently perform, but as I have testified I think 

to many of the Members this morning, we are not giving up our 

leadership role in this space. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And you and I visited a couple seconds before the meeting. My office had sent you a letter with some 

specific questions and rather than take up this Committee’s time 

dealing with this, I just want you to just state for the record you 

are in the process of answering that and will have those answers 

in short order, some things dealing with some constitutional analysis and background and the process coming to this decision. You 

are committed to getting us an answer to those questions? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes, sir, we are preparing answers to your questions, and we will get that to you as quickly as we can. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I don’t want to put you on the spot. I 

want full and accurate answers—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Sir, feel free. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD [continuing]. So I will be waiting for the response to that letter. Hopefully it will not close before the opportunity to file extraneous materials in the record for this hearing. 

But my red light is on, so I am out of time. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Dr. 

Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

A number of U.S. companies including, for example, Google, 

Verizon, AT&T, and the Chamber of Commerce have expressed 

their support for NTIA’s announcement and the transition to this 

multi-stakeholder process. Why do these companies support this, 
37 

and how might this transition affect their businesses here and 

overseas? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So, first off, you referred to a transition to the 

multi-stakeholder model. The multi-stakeholder model exists today. 

It is the way ICANN does business. I think what you are seeing 

in the various positive responses we are getting from these large 

companies here in the United States, and the other support that 

we are getting from civil society and from technical experts reflects 

the fact that the multi-stakeholder model has worked. It is what 

has led to the economic growth and innovation we enjoy today on 

the Internet, and they want to see that continue. 

And I think that is why they are so strongly in support of this 

very, again, renewed affirmation of support from the United States 

for this model, setting an example for the rest of the world. Because one of the challenges we face is getting other parts of the 

world to accept this model, to join in this effort. 

We need to be able to convince these countries that engaging in 

the multi-stakeholder model can bring the benefits of the Internet 

economy into their Nations, the job creation, the wealth creation, 

and I think these countries stand to gain a lot from the growth of 

users of the Internet and the more intensive use of the Internet by 

existing users, and that is why they support this. 

Ms. CHU. And the way it would affect their businesses here and 

overseas? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I think, as the multi-stakeholder model continues to grow and expand overseas, it will help their businesses. 

Ms. CHU. What would be the impact if Congress were to halt this 

transition? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, I think we would suffer seriously in the 

face of the rest of the world in terms of a policy that has been a 

clear and unequivocal policy for 15 years, to all of a sudden step 

in and reject that policy. It would show a lack of faith in the multistakeholder model, and I think there would be repercussions for us 

worldwide. 

Ms. CHU. Some have suggested that NTIA’s announcements is a 

knee-jerk reaction to international anger over Edward Snowden’s 

leaks about U.S. surveillance. So I would like to ask you, how, if 

at all, has that issue played into this announcement? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So as I explained in response to an earlier question, our decision to do this and to do it now was based on two factors: One was the continuing improvement in maturation of 

ICANN in terms of its accountability and transparency and technical competence. I mentioned that I had served on these two accountability and transparency review teams in 2010 and 2013, the 

result of which have been a series of recommendations that have 

been adopted by the ICANN board, implemented by the ICANN 

staff and have led to measurable and significant improvement in 

that regard. 

The other factor that bore on this was the increasing international acceptance of the multi-stakeholder model. Again, it is 

trending positively. It is not where it needs to be in terms of where 

we would like to see the international community be in terms of 

support for that, but the trend line was going well. 
38 

And we felt that, again, making this announcement at this time 

would provide something of a booster shot to those efforts to continue to build international support for the multi-stakeholder 

model of governance, which as I mentioned, in response to your 

earlier question, very important to American businesses, very important to continuing the concept of a free and open and growing 

and innovative Internet. 

Ms. CHU. What are your thoughts about subjecting this transition and accountability mechanism to stress test? 

Mr. STRICKLING. We think that is a good idea, in the sense that 

there are serious questions that are being raised here in this hearing. We heard them last week at the Energy and Commerce hearing. We are hearing them in the community. What we have done 

is simply ask ICANN to convene a process that is going to last for 

many months. 

We do think that all of these issues that people have, these concerns that people have raised about what could happen here, what 

might happen there, we ought to develop, and when I say ‘‘we,’’ I 

am really referring to the global community that works on this. I 

think it is incumbent upon them to develop these use cases and 

really think through and, as you say, stress test them to make sure 

that the proposal that comes back to us is going to meet the conditions and is going to be sustainable for the long term. 

Ms. CHU. Could you explain what is the stress test and how it 

might give more assurance to—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, I think the idea is that rather than just 

sitting down and designing a process in isolation, the idea of the 

use cases and stress tests are that you really sit down and figure 

out, what are all the scenarios that might emerge, what are all the 

things that might go differently than you assume, and plan at the 

front end as to how you will respond to that if that emerges or to 

take action in making your proposal; that will ensure that the proposal is designed strong enough that those situations won’t arise 

and jeopardize what it is you are trying to accomplish. 

So it seems to us, this is a very appropriate and commonsense 

way to proceed. My understanding is, and you will hear from Fadi 

Chehade ́ in the next panel, he endorses this. I think the community heard this discussion in Singapore several weeks ago. I think 

the community is coming around in support of it. 

So I think it is a good idea, and I expect the community will actually apply that as they develop their proposal. It is a smart thing 

to do. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Doctor. 

I yield myself 5 minutes now to ask questions. Secretary, we are 

going to do a little lightning round, okay? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Okay. I will try. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your commitment to 

keeping this Committee informed. You and I had a very lengthy 

discussion yesterday and a very good exchange. And throughout 

this proposed transition process, will you also commit to working 

with the Members of this Committee to ensure we can develop a 

consensus before decisions are made or announced. 
39 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes, sir, we will keep you informed. We will 

keep my other Committee, Energy and Commerce well informed, as 

well. I have got to put that in. No favoritism here. We will endeavor to keep Congress informed of progress throughout the process, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. And informed in time enough for us to further get 

involved in the decisionmaking as far as our opinions are concerned? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. Chairman, we want this to be a consensus 

proposal. 

Mr. MARINO. Good. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Congress are stakeholders, too, and we would 

hope that you will participate in the process however you wish to 

ensure that we reach a good outcome here. 

Mr. MARINO. We appreciate that. 

If we give up oversight, over to the IANA contract, the only role 

we have in ICANN is the Government Affairs Committee; is that 

correct? 

Mr. STRICKLING. You say the only other role? 

Mr. MARINO. Yes, the only. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Oh, that is not true today. 

Mr. MARINO. Please elaborate. 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am sorry? 

Mr. MARINO. Could you please elaborate on that. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. So we have the Government Advisory Committee; in addition, we are the signatory to the affirmation of commitments that we have talked about. And I think I mentioned several times, I personally have a seat on the accountability and 

transparency review team that meets every 3 years. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. I am going to pose a quick hypothetical to 

you: As far as putting the American people on solid footing, if I 

may use that suggestion, will our concerns be weighed equally with 

as much input from ICANN concerning North Korea? Let me rephrase that. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yeah. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. Will the American people’s concerns be 

equally weighed with those of North Korea? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am not even sure North Korea will participate 

in this process, but I will assure you, American interests will be 

well taken care of as part of this process. We will ensure that that 

happens. 

Mr. MARINO. What if communist countries do participate in this? 

Are they going to be given equal weight as democratic countries? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, again, I think you are kind of migrating 

over to a multilateral or governmental type of discussion. The 

multi-stakeholder process does not operate by governments or by 

states; it operates by stakeholders. So when Cisco appears and operates in this, they may be sending staff members from any number of countries who are knowledgeable on the issues, but they are 

there to represent Cisco’s interests. 

So what I can assure you is that a well-run, open, transparent 

multi-stakeholder process takes into account everyone’s issues and 

everyone’s concerns. 
40 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. Can you give me your opinion as to why 

former President Clinton made the statement he made, given the 

fact that this was put together under his watch? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, as I read his statement, I did not see any 

lack of support for the multi-stakeholder model. I didn’t see any 

statement from him saying that we shouldn’t have done what we 

did. What I saw in his statement was that he raised concerns, 

many of which you have raised, have been raised here and many 

that have been raised in other parts of the community, and those 

are important concerns and we want to make sure they are addressed as part of this process. 

Mr. MARINO. What do we tell our constituents back home, what 

do we tell the American people when the issue comes up of what 

influence, if any, and what authority, if any, is the United Nations 

going to play in this issue? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So what you want to tell your constituents is 

that the United States is opposed to having the United Nations run 

the Internet; that this process that we have put in place, we think, 

will reduce the risk of that happening; and that the proposal that 

has to be brought back to us cannot result in the United Nations 

taking this over, and we will do everything within our power to 

prevent that from happening. 

I would add to that, that I see no real basis on which to assume 

that the multi-stakeholder community would ever bring such a proposal like that back to us. So I think it is an extremely small likelihood of occurring. We stated it explicitly because we wanted to assure people that wouldn’t be an outcome of this process. 

Mr. MARINO. Given the fact that the U.N. has endorsed this, do 

you have any opinion about that concerning their role in this? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, when you say the U.N. has endorsed it, 

I am not sure what you mean. I am aware of a statement from the 

secretary general, but I view that as actually showing progress in 

the sense that the secretary general is endorsing the multi-stakeholder model. 

The issue at the U.N. isn’t the Secretary General. The issue at 

the U.N. are authoritarian regimes such as Russia and countries 

in the Middle East that attempt to use the U.N. as a way to meet 

their policy goals. The problem is not with the Secretary General. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. My time has expired. 

And the Chair now recognizes the Congressman from New York, 

Congressman Jeffries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you very much for yielding. 

And Mr. Strickling, thank you for your presence here today. 

Now, privatization of the domain-name system has been contemplated since 1998; is that correct? 

Mr. STRICKLING. As a practical matter, it has happened. The only 

thing that is remaining is this last little vestige of involvement 

that we have, but ICANN has been managing the domain-name 

system and has been conducting the multi-stakeholder processes to 

set policy in this space for over—well, 15 years. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, in terms of the formal transition, was that 

something that originally was expected by NTIA to occur in 2000? 
41 

Mr. STRICKLING. The statement of policy released in 1998 did lay 

out 2000 as the date they hoped of which to complete the transition. Obviously, we are a little late. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. So I assume that the privatization that was originally contemplated to have been completed by 2000 did not occur 

because NTIA came to the conclusion that ICANN hadn’t reached 

the sufficient level of maturity at that time? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I wasn’t there, so I hesitate to give the reasons 

for why it didn’t happen. I have heard people say that, you know, 

9/11, after it occurred, I think, changed some behavior as to why, 

or changed some views on this, but I don’t know the particulars. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. But nevertheless, you have now concluded that 

ICANN has reached the sufficient level of maturity, correct? 

Mr. STRICKLING. That is a factor, yes, in leading us to make the 

announcement we made 4 weeks ago, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And what are the indications of that level of maturity that you have come to the conclusion that now is an appropriate time to move forward with the final stage of privatization? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, in 

large part, the work to improve its accountability and transparency. When the affirmation of commitments was signed in 2009, 

it created a series of review teams so that the global community 

now had an opportunity to review ICANN’s performance in a number of areas, the most important of which was their overall accountability and transparency to the global community. As part of 

that process, teams are put together and they run every 3 years 

to evaluate ICANN’s performance in these different areas. 

For accountability and transparency, we set up the affirmation 

so that I, or the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, sits on that 

team. So I personally have participated in very lengthy, in-depth 

reviews of ICANN’s accountability and transparency, first in 2010 

and again last year in 2013. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, you also stated that you expected that the 

U.S. would continue its leadership role with respect to the Internet 

moving forward, correct? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Absolutely. We are not going anywhere. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Right. Now, can you elaborate on how exactly you 

expect the United States under this completion of privatization to 

maintain its leadership role? 

Mr. STRICKLING. So again, with respect to ICANN, we will continue to play a leadership role in the Governmental Advisory Committee just as we have up until now. We will continue to participate in the accountability and transparency reviews. I think worldwide, though, the United States has always been a leader on these 

issues of Internet policy and Internet governance, even beyond just 

the narrow area, technical area in which ICANN performs. We are 

not yielding that one bit. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, it is fair to say that the First Amendment 

protections embedded in our Constitution have been important to 

the United States throughout the history of the Republic and have 

helped inform how the Internet has developed through United 

States leadership; is that correct? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I would tell you that the idea of a free and open 

Internet and the freedom of expression on the Internet supersedes, 
42 

or no, it doesn’t supersede but it even transcends our First Amendment here in the United States. I mean, that is a global value that 

we increasingly see other countries who perhaps don’t have the domestic tradition of a First Amendment protection in their own constitutions, yet they recognize the importance of free expression as 

a way to grow the Internet. So I would say it is more worldwide 

than just a U.S. issue or U.S. value. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. But isn’t it reasonable to be concerned about authoritarian governments such as Russia or China or other entities 

that have been moving toward authoritarianism? We saw a recent 

example with the Turkish prime minister as it relates to Twitter. 

Are these reasonable concerns as it relates to maintaining the 

openness of the Internet, which I think you yourself have testified 

openness is one of the four criteria that NTIA will evaluate; and 

what are the metrics by which you will measure whether sufficient 

anticensorship measures have been put into place? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, again, for the issue that we have before 

us, I am not sure that we are going to get into content issues or 

censorship issues. When you talk about the performance of the 

IANA functions, those aren’t content-based issues. But in general, 

I think the United States has to remain a beacon for the rest of 

the world in the area of supporting free flow of information on the 

Internet. 

It is critical to our business interests; it is critical for our social 

interests in ensuring that not just American citizens but global citizens, have the ability to express themselves on the Internet and I 

expect that we and the State Department and everybody who 

touches these issues will continue to be strong and vigorous advocates for that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. My time has expired, but I would simply state for 

the record, too, that how one accesses information through the address system that is available is a key link to content, and I think 

that is a consideration that must be taken into account. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman. 

The Chair now goes to the Congresswoman from California, Congresswoman Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, it has been interesting to listen to some of the discussion today and it reminds me that generally when the Congress 

gets involved in the engineering questions of the Internet, we 

sometimes show that we don’t understand the Internet and we 

often almost make mistakes, I think, about the call that some on 

the Committee made to, quote, bring in the nerds during the SOPA 

discussion because it was pretty obvious that most of the Members 

didn’t even know what DNS was. 

I do think, therefore, that this hearing is very, very helpful, because it informs us and the American people about what really is 

the question before us. 

I remember, I was on the Committee in 1998, 1997 when we had 

these discussions initially, and obviously, America invented the 

Internet, but it became obvious to all of us in the mid-1990’s that 
43 

we were not going to have an international Internet run by the Department of Commerce, that was just not going to work. 

And we had some choices to make, and the choice we made and 

I think has proven to work very well, is to have private-sector, 

multi-stakeholder governance of these core functions, and it is driven by, you know, engineers and technical people, and I think, you 

know, and it is not just the generic top-level domain system, I 

mean, IPv4 and IPv6, we have a nongovernmental function, that 

those at that level are being managed by the ARIN and RIPE in 

Europe and elsewhere, so this is not new. 

And I do think it is important that we stand up for what has 

worked, because the alternative, which was the same alternative 

we really had in the 1990’s, was to try and have government control of this system. Now, we have had discussions, ITU had the 

conference in Dubai where authoritarian regimes openly discussed 

trying to take over all functions with an intent to subvert the free 

and open nature of the Internet. 

I think we can’t have it both ways. Either we are for nongovernmental, multi-stakeholder governance or we are for governmental 

governance and if it is the latter, I think we are walking into a 

very serious bad problem which is the agenda of authoritarian regimes to take over this. 

Now, I am against government control of the Internet. I am 

against government regulation of the Internet. And I think, and I 

come from Silicon Valley, all of the Internet companies that I am 

aware of are in favor of an open Internet. So I guess my question 

to you, Mr. Strickling, is, do you know of any of the Internet companies that oppose what you are doing? 

Mr. STRICKLING. No, and, in fact, we have gotten the support of 

the Internet Association, which is a trade association of many of 

those companies. Google and Facebook and Cisco have all issued 

strong statements of support for this, and I am sure others that I 

just don’t recall sitting here now. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I know that Vint Cerf was at one time on the governing board of ICANN, along with other famous Internet evangelists. What does Vint Cerf say about this proposal? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Oh, Vint is a very strong supporter of this and 

has been quoted in the press multiple times over the last 3 or 4 

weeks indicating his support for this. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I would just urge, and I won’t use all my 

time because we have another panel, but I think that it is important that this Committee stand up against the inaccuracies that 

have been promulgated out in the press by people, I assume they 

are working in good faith, but who misunderstand what is even 

being discussed here; and that we stand up for freedom on the 

Internet, which means standing up for multi-stakeholder governance and against government control and regulation of the Internet. 

That is what this is about. It is what the decision was about in 

1998 and I still remember the conversation I had with Howard 

Berman at the time saying, you know, we are just not going to— 

it is not a good idea for the government to run this. And I think 

that the Committee was of one mind at that time, and hopefully 
44 

we are of the same mind at this point to preserve a free and open 

Internet. 

And I thank you for your service, sir. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, thank you, congresswoman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

I see there are no other congresswomen or men here at this time, 

so I want to thank Secretary Strickling for his testimony. It was 

very enlightening, and thank you for being here. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. We are going to turn to our second panel, but I 

want my colleagues to know that the record will remain open for 

5 days where they can submit questions to you and hopefully you 

can get some responses back, if you don’t mind. 

Again, thank you very much and I am now going to turn to the 

second panel. 

And if you would remain standing, we will get the swearing in 

out of the way. Good morning, gentlemen. Would you please raise 

your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MARINO. You may be seated. And let the record reflect that 

the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

And let me just give you an update on what is going to happen. 

In the next 10 to 15 minutes we are going to be called for votes. 

We were supposed to have three series today, they condensed the 

last two into one series of votes. However, it is broken up where 

we vote, 10 minutes later vote again, 10 minutes later vote again. 

We want to continue with this hearing. If it is all right with you, 

I am asking if you would indulge us, and you are probably going 

to be waiting for us for 45 minutes. Jerry says it may not be that 

long. So, I am not as optimistic as he is, but if that is the case, 

so be it. Does anyone have any objections? I know your schedules. 

All right, thank you. Thanks so much. 

Our first witness is Mr. Paul Rosenzweig. Am I pronouncing that 

correctly? 

Mr. ROSENZWEIG. Yes, Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. Founder of Red Branch Law and Consulting and Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He is here 

today to testify in his personal capacity. Mr. Rosenzweig formally 

served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department 

of Homeland Security; in addition to clerking for the Honorable R. 

Lanier Anderson, III, of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

11th Circuit. 

Mr. Rosenzweig received his juris doctorate from the University 

of Chicago School of Law. He holds a Master’s in Science and 

Chemical Oceanography from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography University of California in San Diego and his Bachelor of 

Arts is from Haverford College. Welcome. 

Mr. ROSENZWEIG. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Our next witness is Mister, and help me out on the 

pronunciation, Fadi Chehade ́. Thank you. President and Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers, also known as ICANN. Mr. Chehade ́ leads and builds 

progressive Internet enterprises and leverages relationships with 
45 

senior executives and government officials across Asia, Europe and 

the Middle East and the United States. 

Before joining ICANN in 2012, he served as Chief Executive Officer of Vocado, a U.S. firm that provides cloud-based software for 

the administration of educational institutions. Mr. Chehade ́ received his Master’s Degree in Engineering Management from Stanford University and his Bachelor’s Degrees in Computer Science 

from Polytechnic University in New York. Welcome, sir. 

Our third witness is Mr. Steven Metalitz, partner at Mitchell 

Silberberg & Knupp and counsel to the Coalition for Online Accountability. For nearly 20 years, Mr. Metalitz had advised the 

trade association and companies in the film, music, software, video 

game and publishing industries on domestic and international, 

antipiracy and e-commerce issues. 

As counsel to the Coalition on Online Accountability, Mr. 

Metalitz represents the interest of copyright industry companies, 

associations and organizations on matters that come before 

ICANN. Mr. Metalitz received his juris doctorate from Georgetown 

University Law Center and his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Chicago. It is good to see you here, sir. 

Our fourth and final witness is Mr. Daniel Castro, Senior Analyst With Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, also 

known as ITIF. He is also Director of the Center for Data Innovation. Mr. Castro writes and speaks on a variety of issues related 

to information technologies and Internet policy, including privacy, 

security, intellectual property and Internet governance. 

Before joining ITIF, he worked as an IT analyst at the Government Accountability Office where he audited IT security and management controls at various government agencies. Mr. Castro holds 

a Master’s of Science and Information Security Technology in Management from Carnegie Mellon University and his Bachelor’s of 

Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University. 

Welcome to you all, and once again, we are going to start with 

Mr. Rosenzweig. And let me, please, again, emphasize, would you 

kindly watch the lights, keep your remarks to 5 minutes. I will politely tap; you don’t have to stop there, but just bring it to a conclusion. And bear in mind that all of your statements will be entered 

into the record as full. Thank you. 

Sir, please. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL ROSENZWEIG, VISITING FELLOW, THE 

HERITAGE FOUNDATION, PRINCIPAL, RED BRANCH CONSULTING, PLLC 

Mr. ROSENZWEIG. Thank you, Chairman Marino, Ranking Member Nadler, thank you very much for the invitation to be here. 

I confess to find myself a bit confused after the conclusion of the 

prior panel, because if I were to have listened to Mr. Strickling, I 

would have heard that this was an exceedingly minor ministerial 

change which, if that is the case, should neither be opposed nor approved but with any great degree of fervor. I think the truth is to 

the contrary, that this is a rather consequential change of great 

significance. 

And I also find myself unconvinced at this point whether it is 

going to be a success or not. I am quite certain that there are many 
46 

ways in which the transition of the IANA function to ICANN can 

work very well. I am also quite certain that there are instances in 

which the proposals that would come forward from the community 

might not be sufficiently protective of some of the interests that we 

think are important in terms of the management of the network. 

Indeed, I thought Congressman Jeffries’ point was quite well 

taken, which is that there is in the world a significant anti-openness, anti-freedom component to the argument, and it is at least 

feasible to imagine certain structures that would be developed that 

would, rather than foster that openness in freedom, degrade it. 

So I think the challenge for ICANN going forward, one that I am 

open to their succeeding on, is to develop an architecture for the 

IANA management function that ensures its technical capability, 

that is that the DNS will continue to function as well as it functions now; ensures that it maintains a political independence from 

control of authoritarian regimes. 

It is absolutely the case that in the last expansion of global toplevel domains, some people thought of the top-level domains as content based and therefore opposed new top-level domains like dot 

Islam or dot gay on the grounds that they were expressive and 

shouldn’t be continued. We can develop structures that prohibit, 

that avoid diminution of the openness, but those structures need to 

be defined, as well. 

Likewise, it is absolutely the case that there are certain financial 

components to the expansion of global top-level domains that need 

to be controlled for and managed in a way to ensure that ICANN 

or the IANA management function doesn’t take on aspects of an 

unregulated monopoly, something that Daniel’s testimony talks 

about at greater length. I think that there is a possibility for that 

structure to be developed, but it is going to have to be brought forward and shown to the NTIA as a successful one. 

I can outline some of the components of what I think that would 

necessarily include: Things like outside audit boards for the IANA 

function; maybe an inspector general type functionality; a commitment for the new IANA function to a FOIA-like responsiveness to 

the public, such that all of the information that is necessary for 

people to actually have some confidence in the transparency and 

accountability of the institution are in place. 

Those are not necessarily impossible things to achieve. And then 

the fourth thing that I would suggest is essential, is some way of 

gaining an assurance that once we have the structure in place, it 

doesn’t change. I agree with Mr. Strickling that the affirmation of 

commitments is part of the bylaws, for example, of ICANN, but corporations can change their bylaws at some point. It takes an act 

of the board of directors and there is a barrier to do that, but if 

we think it is important, we want to try and figure out aspects of 

the mechanism that make that less likely to happen. 

Again, I don’t think that those are impossible objectives to 

achieve, but what I do think is that it is going to take a great deal 

of conversation within ICANN, a great deal of conversation within 

the community and that we here in the United States, we at the 

NTIA ought to be cautious in proceeding and ought to insist that 

the details of the transition process be made clear before approving 

the transition. 
47 

The principles that Mr. Strickling articulated are eminently reasonable and ones that everybody ought to support as a necessary 

component of the transition. But we ought to also be clear that if 

the proposal doesn’t meet those principles in actual practice, that 

the NTIA should maintain its current role. These are not impossible objectives, but they are going to be ones that are going to require a lot of process from ICANN in order to achieve. 

I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Paul Rosenzweig follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chehade ́, please. 

TESTIMONY OF FADI CHEHADE ́ , PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED 

NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN) 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for welcoming me here today. I am Fadi 

Chehade ́, the President and CEO of ICANN, and I am here today 

to provide you testimony that hopefully will help with this discussion. 

I was 18 when my father insisted I leave our war-torn country 

that was governed by an oppressive regime. And I asked him, why 

don’t I just go to a place where I speak the language, because I did 

not speak English. And my late father said, go to America. That 

is the place that has our values: Openness, inclusivity, acceptance, 

freedom. And I came alone at 18. And it has been a remarkable 

journey, a journey of all these values have proved to be true; in 

fact, they are truest today as I stand in front of you. 

These same values underpin the Internet. It was our invention, 

open, inclusive, promoting freedom, again. And it is this Internet 

that I stand before you today to support, because many of us think 

of the Internet as a place that is open and free and inclusive. We 

forget that the American genius that created the Internet, which 

I don’t take credit for, I give credit to my boss, the chairman of 

ICANN who is behind me, and many others, Dr. Crocker, who invented this when they were in high school together, these people 

equally invented the system of governing the Internet which we 

call the multi-stakeholder system. It is a remarkable invention almost as good as the Internet where no one can capture this governance model. 

Today at ICANN, yes, we have 133 governments. They cannot 

even offer me advice or offer the board advice unless all 133 can 

reach consensus. What kind of capture can happen in a system like 

that? And that is just the governments. Then we have all the 

stakeholders, the users, the civil liberty folks. Everyone is at the 

table with an equal voice. Consensus is hard, very hard to achieve, 

but it is by design like the Internet impossible to capture, and it 

is what made ICANN successful today. 

We are promoting the Internet and the multi-stakeholder model 

to the world, and therefore the decision of NTIA to show the American people’s trust in the multi-stakeholder model is a momentous 

decision; it is a decision telling the world, not only have we given 

you the Internet, but we are giving you a model we trust. And the 

model works. It works very well. It is through that model that we 

have a $4 trillion digital economy that fuels the economies of the 

world today. It is all borne out of engineers, academics, Americans, 

foreigners, everyone working together to create this great resource 

called the Internet. 

Today, I stand before you to say the following: I did not hear all 

morning any disagreement that we all want less government in the 

affairs of the Internet. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. 

However, what I did hear is valid concerns that we make sure that 
61 

as this last bit of involvement in the IANA functions goes away, 

that it does not get replaced with the wrong mechanism. 

I am with you on that. And as the President of ICANN, I want 

to give you the assurance that we will build the mechanism that 

not only meets the requirements that NTIA put out to ensure no 

government or intergovernmental organization controls that mechanism, but I will make sure that these same conditions set by 

NTIA survive the transition. It is important that we believe in 

these parameters, these principles, and we keep them at the heart 

of how ICANN works. 

And I am not alone: Cisco, Microsoft, AT&T, Verizon, Facebook, 

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, even the Motion Picture Association, everyone is engaged with us. I give you this assurance. Today, 

I invite you to join us, as well, in the ICANN processes. Please do 

come visit and watch how this great American invention called the 

multi-stakeholder model works. It works very well. 

I am here to take your questions, and I thank you again for welcoming us. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chehade ́ follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Fadi Chehade ́, President and Chief Executive 

Officer, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Fadi 

Chehade ́, the President and CEO of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned 

Names and Numbers. I am very pleased to be testifying before you today. 

Forty-five years ago, America demonstrated its technological brilliance by inventing the Internet. We showed our diplomatic genius 29 years later, by establishing 

a multistakeholder community model to govern a part of the Internet’s basic functioning, free from the political pressures inherent in government-run institutions. 

This was a bold and unprecedented experiment. Governance by those who make the 

Internet work for the benefit of all. Over the past 16 years the multistakeholder 

community has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to govern itself, and according to the framework laid out across three U.S. Presidential administrations, 

ICANN has matured into a responsible, representative, respected governing body. 

America’s great experiment has succeeded. 

In recent years some have questioned the principle of the multistakeholder community. Some critics demand a greater role for governments, perhaps by transferring functions performed by ICANN to an inter-governmental organization, such as 

the ITU. They point out that the Internet is not truly free from government control 

if one government retains unique control for itself—referring to the United States, 

via issuance of the contract with ICANN to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers 

Authority (IANA) functions. The U.S., its allies, and the vast majority of stakeholders acknowledge this one exception to the ‘‘no government control’’ rule, but 

make clear that overseeing the IANA contract is ministerial, minor and has had no 

real impact on day-to-day operations of ICANN or the Internet. And they remind 

us that for nearly 16 years the U.S. has consistently voiced its support for the multistakeholder model rather than a government-run model. Additionally, the U.S. has 

consistently reduced its unilateral involvement in ICANN matters and oversight of 

ICANN operations. 

On March 14th, the NTIA announced its intent to transition this final element— 

stewardship of Internet domain name functions via the IANA contract—to the global multistakeholder community. The U.S. called upon ICANN to convene a process 

to develop a proposal for that transition that will guarantee no future government 

control. ICANN, the Internet technical organizations and many American organizations—such as AT&T, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Neustar, the U.S. Chamber and 

Verizon—almost immediately voiced their support for NTIA’s announcement. 

As outlined in the NTIA’s announcement, the NTIA’s stewardship role will not be 

replaced with a government-led or an intergovernmental solution. This is consistent 

with the unequivocal policy expressed in the 2012 bipartisan resolutions of the U.S. 

Senate and House of Representatives (S.Con.Res.50 and H.Con.Res.127) affirming 

U.S. support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. 
62 

In brief, the proposal generated through broad multistakeholder dialogue will 

meet the following four fundamental criteria: 

• Supports and enhances the multistakeholder model 

• Maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS 

• Meets the expectations of affected parties 

• Maintains the openness of the Internet 

ICANN is committed to developing a robust bottom-up process to develop the proposal for transition. At ICANN’s forty ninth public meeting, which took place March 

21–27 in Singapore, ICANN launched discussions with the multistakeholder community, in-person and remotely, for public dialogue on how the mechanisms for the 

transition should occur. Inputs were compiled, and, on April 8, ICANN intends to 

seek public comment and community feedback on the principles, mechanisms, and 

process for arriving at a proposal that meets NTIA’s criteria. The feedback from the 

community will inform the process going forward. ICANN is facilitating the process, 

and in this regard will work with its partners to engage the global multistakeholder 

community in relevant forums and meetings around the world, in addition to 

ICANN’s public meetings. 

In its role as administrator of the IANA functions since 1998, ICANN has been 

responsible for coordinating unique Internet identifiers—names, IP numbers, and 

protocol parameters—and has done so while maintaining the continued security, 

stability, and resiliency of the Internet. It is important to note that ICANN doesn’t 

control content on the Internet; instead it coordinates the Internet’s unique identifier functions. These functions are not apparent to most Internet users, but they 

play a critical role in maintaining a single, global, unified and interoperable Internet. ICANN has performed the IANA functions for nearly 16 years, in a no-fee 

agreement with the U.S. government. 

Since its inception in 1998, ICANN has evolved its accountability and transparency mechanisms for the benefit of the global community. ICANN’s Bylaws, and 

the Affirmation of Commitments, establish clear mechanisms for ICANN’s evolution, 

review of its processes, and improvements, through community input and multistakeholder review committees. With the eventual transition, ICANN recognizes the 

urgency of enhancing and extending its accountability mechanisms. At the meeting 

in Singapore, the ICANN multistakeholder community began a dialogue on this subject, taking the Affirmation of Commitments as a baseline. 

In relation to the IANA functions, ICANN’s Performance Standards for timeliness 

and accuracy of processing stakeholder’s requests are published on a monthly basis. 

In addition, ICANN is subject to an annual audit of the security of the IANA functions systems. Over the years, ICANN has performed the IANA functions with increasing autonomy, demonstrating in the process both operational excellence and 

maturity in organization—as illustrated by the findings of the IANA Functions Satisfaction Survey of December 2013. In addition, after an independent assessment, 

the IANA Functions Department received recognition from an international organization for its business excellence. 

Now, let me be clear: NTIA’s announcement will not affect the status quo. The 

continued strength and stability of the IANA functions are critical to the operation 

of the Internet. The IANA functions will continue to be administered by ICANN in 

coordination and cooperation with the affected parties (country code and generic toplevel domain operators, root server system operators, regional Internet registries, 

the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Task Force). These 

bodies continue to hold policy authority for names, IP numbers and protocol parameters. They also maintain oversight responsibility to ensure that ICANN administers these functions according to those policies. Finally, this announcement does 

not affect Internet users and their use of the Internet. While stakeholders work 

through the ICANN-convened process to develop a transition proposal, NTIA’s current role will remain unchanged. 

Since ICANN’s beginning, the U.S. government has envisaged transitioning its 

modest stewardship role to the private-sector led, multistakeholder community. 

Today, ICANN is uniquely positioned, as both the current IANA functions contractor 

and the global coordinator for the DNS, to convene the multistakeholder process to 

develop the transition plan. NTIA’s announcement in fact represents the final triumph of the American ideal for self-governance by the Internet community, free 

from government control, even our own. Few nations in history have had such vision, magnanimity and consistency. ICANN understands and accepts the responsibility of the task at hand, and I am confident in ICANN’s ability to lead the community in this effort. 
63 

Both ICANN and the U.S. government have championed the multistakeholder 

model, in which standards and policies are developed by large and small businesses, 

the technical community, not-for-profit organizations, civil society, intellectual property experts, governments, academia, and Internet users from around the globe. 

American corporations—such as AT&T, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Neustar and 

Verizon—and the Internet technical community (the IAB, IETF, the Internet Society, the RIRs and the World Wide Web Consortium) are also supporters of the 

multistakeholder model. These entities have welcomed the U.S. government’s announcement as the way to bring more countries to support the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance, moving them away from a model in which only governments hold sway. NTIA’s announcement preserves and prolongs the free and 

open Internet that has brought so much economic growth and social and cultural 

development. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. The Committee is now in recess and 

hopefully we will return not longer than 30 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARINO. The hearing will once again begin, and we have 

opening statements, two opening statements yet. 

Chairman, you want to quickly put in your questions and then— 

all right. The Chair recognizes the Chairman just to put two questions into the record. 

Mr. BACHUS. Yeah, I just had a unanimous request to submit two 

questions for the record, to the representative of ICANN. 

Mr. MARINO. No objection. 

Mr. BACHUS. IANA. All right. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
64 
65 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Metalitz, please. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN J. METALITZ, PARTNER, MITCHELL 

SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION 

FOR ONLINE ACCOUNTABILITY 

Mr. METALITZ. Thank you very much, Vice Chairman Marino, 

Mr. Nadler, Members of the Subcommittee. 

That was a well timed break since I don’t immediately have to 

follow Fadi Chehade ́,who is a very hard act to follow, but I appreciate the chance to be here. This Committee has played a critical 

role in oversight of NTIA and ICANN and their relationship for 15 

years, and we are pleased to have been able to contribute to that. 

This is the seventh time you have asked us to testify on these topics, so we appreciate it very much. And of course, I am here representing the Coalition for Online Accountability, which is the 

copyright and trademark interests that are very much affected by 

what ICANN does. 

I want to—you have my written statement, so let me just hit 3 

points quickly. The first is the IANA function, the second is everything else that ICANN does, which is extremely important, and 

then our thoughts on the challenge ahead both for ICANN and 

NTIA and for this Committee. The IANA function, as you already 

heard, is a limited function, a technical function but extremely important, and particularly in the part we focused on, which is the 

root zone file for domain names. Normally, this function is extremely mundane and routine, but it is also quite easy to imagine 

scenarios in which it would not be, and that is why we have been 

very glad to have NTIA oversight of proper execution of this step. 

So, if there is going to be a change in that, it is crucial that the 

alternative structure be very carefully crafted, very thoroughly vetted, and very well overseen, including by this Committee. 

Now, the NTIA has stated its criteria. It has set up a line about 

governmental control, and we are basically in agreement with 

those. In our testimony we do suggest a couple of other factors that 

ought to be taken into account, but if we look at everything else 

that ICANN does, apart from the IANA functions, these are the 

issues that have really—this Committee has been engaged with for 

15 years. 

Issues like the accuracy of the ‘‘whois database,’’ so we know who 

is actually involved with the registration of domain names. The 

new gTLD program, which we have already heard a lot about. 

These are all areas where the U.S. Government relinquished its 

contractual control, is not planning to, it did it 5 years ago in 2009 

when the Affirmation of Commitments came in replacing the previous contractual relationships. 

So, these are areas where active involvement by the U.S. government is really important and very important for copyright and 

trademark owners. We have heard a lot about free expression and 

all the other benefits of the open internet which are very important 

and should be at the center of oversight here, but let’s also remember, we are talking about some very important economic interests 

of the United States. 

The industries that depend on copyright protection are a trillion 

dollar industry, five-and-a-half million jobs, and they are good U.S. 
66 

jobs, and a lot of the decisions ICANN makes have a big impact, 

especially as more and more of the copyright industries are moving 

to the internet as their main means of delivering to the public. 

So, there are at least two vehicles that are important for continued NTIA engagement. One is the Governmental Advisory Committee. As our testimony lays out, we have seen an increased U.S. 

Government role and it has played a very positive role, I think, 

over the last few years, so we hope history will be continuing along 

that line. 

And the second is the Affirmation of Commitments. One thing 

that is—provision in the Affirmation of Commitments that is very 

important is that ICANN remains in the United States subject to 

U.S. law. This is a failsafe. This is an extremely important failsafe 

to maintain in place, and as we have heard, the AOC can be abrogated by either party unilaterally on 120 days’ notice. That is probably an area that really requires some greater certainty before we 

move ahead with the transition. 

And finally, in terms of the challenges ahead, I will just talk 

about two. One of course is this IANA function transition, both the 

process for shaping it and the outcome need to be credible. We now 

have NTIA looking over ICANN’s shoulder as it performs these 

functions, who is going to be doing that in the future? But the 

other point, of course, is with everything else that ICANN is doing, 

there is a dire need for execution on the part of ICANN, and we 

need the U.S. Government oversight to make sure that happens. 

Particularly with regard to contracts. You know, we have heard 

a lot about the multi-stakeholder model here. One key feature of 

the multi-stakeholder model is that instead of government regulation, we have contractual frameworks, and those frameworks will 

only work, the multi-stakeholder model will only work, if those contracts are strong and if they are strongly enforced. So, there is a 

big compliance and execution challenge. We have already seen 

problems even at the beginning of the new gTLD rollout, so this 

is an area where continued strong oversight by this Committee is 

going to be essential. 

Thank you. I am glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Metalitz follows:] 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, sir. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Castro. 

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL CASTRO, SENIOR ANALYST, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOUNDATION (ITIF) 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the future of 

internet governance here today. 

NTIA’s proposal to relinquish its oversight of the IANA function 

presents unique risk. U.S. oversight serves an important and valuable role in maintaining the security, stability, and openness of the 

internet and in deterring countries who might try to manipulate 

the DNS for political purposes. 

The U.S. Government does not directly exert its authority on 

ICANN’s policymaking process, but it has intervened when ICANN 

has fallen short of global expectations. For example, in 2002, NTIA 

used its oversight to ensure that ICANN adopt an organizationwide conflict of interest policy and public reporting requirements to 

increase its transparency. Moreover, ICANN’s future performance 

in the absence of U.S. oversight cannot be predicted based on its 

past performance while under it. Removing oversight means removing accountability. 

Any pledged commitment or oath made by the current ICANN 

leadership is not binding unless there is some accountability mechanism in place to back up those promises. Until now, the United 

States has served that role. If the U.S. Government is no longer 

providing that stability, an alternative mechanism is needed to ensure that ICANN is held accountable to the public interest. 

Without U.S. Oversight, ICANN has the potential to grow into 

the world’s largest unregulated monopoly. ICANN finances its operations by levying fees on the internet resources it maintains. 

These fees can be adjusted and expanded at the discretion of 

ICANN. This is a conflict of interest since ICANN’s own financial 

interests are at odds with keeping costs down for internet users 

and businesses. 

It is natural for organizations to want larger budgets, but 

ICANN is in an unusual position in that it has a substantial 

amount of authority to independently raise additional revenue. Already ICANN has shown its appetite for more funding. In the decade from 2003 to 2012, ICANN’s annual revenue grew tenfold, from 

6 million to over 70 million, and in between 2012 and 2013, 

ICANN’s revenue tripled to over 230 million as the organization expanded the number of top-level domains. 

A lot could happen with so much money at stake. For example, 

some countries could look to ICANN as a new tool to redistribute 

global wealth. We should be very mindful of creating a global organization with little accountability that can effectively tax the internet. 

While the proposal to transition governance of the DNS to a 

multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN is vastly superior to alternatives such as ceding control to the ITU. Giving up U.S. oversight creates a highly uncertain future for ICANN. The primary 

problem is that its existing bylaws and structures are not permanent and can easily be changed in the future. Without the U.S. 
85 

Government serving as a backstop, it may very well devolve into 

something resembling the ITU. Congress should be aware that a 

U.N. style takeover of the internet could happen even within 

ICANN if the advisory role the governments have today later becomes one of outright control. 

Given the significant impact that this transition could have on 

the future of the internet, it is critical for Congress to be actively 

engaged on this issue. The final decision to relinquish its oversight 

should only occur if there is consensus for transition in both Congress and the Administration. If NTIA pursues this transition, it 

has only one opportunity to get it right. There are no second 

chances. 

Therefore, Congress, through the Government Accountability Office should work closely with NTIA and other stakeholders to identify potential risks involved in the transition, including worse case 

scenarios, as well as opportunities to mitigate those risks. NTIA 

should then be required to explain to Congress how any proposal 

it finds acceptable would successfully avoid the threats identified 

by stakeholders and importantly, NTIA should be required to explain not just how the plan mitigates first order risk in the proposed plan but also second order risk of how ICANN could change 

after the U.S. Government relinquishes its oversight. Developing 

new scenarios will also help NTIA move from broad principles to 

detailed criteria for how it will evaluate any future proposal. 

The future of internet governance is at a crossroads. The transition away from U.S. oversight will create risks and challenges for 

internet governance, many of which we may not be able to fully anticipate today. Without the current oversight by the United States, 

ICANN will not be accountable to anyone. Such a change may not 

bode well for the principles supported by the United States and its 

allies. While the initial principles for the transition outlined by 

NTIA are a good first step, Congress should exercise its own oversight authority to demand a more detailed set of criteria that must 

be met before any transition plan is accepted. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on 

the proposed transition. I look forward to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Castro follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Daniel Castro, Senior Analyst, 

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) 

Chairman Coble and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you to discuss the recent decision by the Department of Commerce 

to give up U.S. oversight of important Internet functions. I am a senior analyst at 

the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). ITIF is a nonpartisan think tank whose mission is to formulate and promote public policies to 

advance technological innovation and productivity. In my testimony today, I will discuss the unique and valuable role that U.S. oversight has served in Internet governance, the risks inherent in a transition away from this model, and how to best mitigate those risks. 

BACKGROUND

The U.S. government has had an unparalleled impact on the development of the 

Internet from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) building 

the first packet switching network to the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding research that would eventually lead to the creation of Google. Over time, the 

Internet has evolved from its original roots as a domestic research network into a 

global platform for commerce, communication, and innovation; however, throughout 
86 

1 ‘‘A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce,’’ The White House, July 1, 1997. https:// 

www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd-nec-ec.htm. 2 ‘‘Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses,’’ National Telecommunications and Information Administration, June 5, 1998, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federalregister-notice/1998/statement-policy-management-internet-names-and-addresses. 3 Ibid. 

4 ‘‘NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions,’’ National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration, March 14, 2014, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ 

press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions. 5 ‘‘Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,’’ September 30, 2014, http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/affirmation_of_commitments_2009.pdf. 

this transformation, the U.S. government has been at the forefront of efforts to ensure the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet, while also protecting the 

interests of individual users, businesses, and other stakeholders. 

A core component of these efforts has been the oversight of the Internet Assigned 

Numbers Authority (IANA) functions by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce. The IANA 

functions include managing the root zone of the Domain Name System (DNS), allocating Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, and various other technical functions integral to the stability and security of the Internet. The DNS is the system that translates URLs, such as www.congress.gov, into IP addresses, such as 140.147.249.9. 

These functions were originally managed directly by contracts held by the U.S. government, but after commercial use of the Internet expanded in the 1990s, the U.S. 

government decided to transfer the management of the DNS and related functions 

to the private sector. 

In July 1997, the Clinton Administration reassigned responsibility for the IANA 

functions from the NSF to the NTIA and authorized the Department of Commerce 

‘‘to support efforts to make the governance of the domain name system private and 

competitive and to create a contractually based self-regulatory regime that deals 

with potential conflicts between domain name usage and trademark laws on a global 

basis.’’ 1 The NTIA, in turn, issued two policy statements, in January and June 1998 

respectively (commonly referred to as ‘‘the Green Paper’’ and ‘‘the White Paper’’) 

outlining a plan to privatize the management of Internet names and addresses.2

The NTIA made clear that ‘‘during the transition and thereafter, the stability of the 

Internet should be the first priority of any DNS management system.’’ 3 Following 

the publication of these policy documents, the NTIA signed a no-cost contract with 

the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a newlyformed not-for-profit organization headquartered in Marina del Rey, California, 

tasking it with managing the DNS and related technical functions. Since then, the 

IANA contract has been renewed and modified multiple times, and the existing 

IANA contract with ICANN will expire on September 30, 2015. On March 14, 2014, 

the NTIA announced that it intends to relinquish its oversight of the IANA functions.4

U.S. OVERSIGHT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE STABILITY OF THE DNS AND

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ICANN

The U.S. government has had, and continues to have, an important role in maintaining the security, stability, and openness of the Internet. U.S. oversight provides 

a backstop to ensure that ICANN satisfies its responsibilities in effectively managing the Internet’s domain name and addressing system. This oversight provides 

the necessary assurance to the millions of companies not just in the United States, 

but around the world, who invest in and use the Internet for business that the 

Internet’s basic technical architecture will continue to be governed in a fair, open, 

and transparent manner. And under this oversight, the world has witnessed the 

Internet deliver an incredible amount of innovation and social benefits. 

Moreover, U.S. oversight has served as a deterrent to stakeholders, including certain foreign countries, who might otherwise choose to interfere with ICANN’s operations or manipulate the DNS for political purposes. For example, a country may 

want to censor a top-level domain name or have ICANN impose certain restrictions 

on domain name registries or registrars. However, both ICANN and the U.S. government have publicly committed to ensuring that decisions about the DNS are 

made in the public interest and that ICANN operates openly and transparently.5

Although the U.S. government has made a strong commitment to upholding these 

principles, it does not directly exert its authority in ICANN’s policymaking process. 

Instead, if ICANN were to fall short of these commitments, the U.S. government 

could intervene. For example, as recently as 2012, the NTIA used its oversight of 

the IANA function to ensure that ICANN adopt an organization-wide conflict of in-
87 

6 ‘‘Commerce Department Awards Contract for Management of Key Internet Functions to 

ICANN,’’ National Telecommunications and Information Administration, July 2, 2012, http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-management-keyinternet-functions-icann. 7 ICANN receives either $0.18 or $0.20 from registrars providing services for current TLDs. 

See ‘‘FY14 Budget Approval,’’ ICANN, August 22, 2013, http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/ 

adopted-opplan-budget-fy14-22aug13-en.pdf. Registrars providing services for the new gTLDs 

are assessed a $0.25 fee. See: ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions,’’ ICANN, 2014, http:// 

newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/customer-service/faqs/faqs-en. 

terest policy and public reporting requirements to increase its transparency.6 This 

governance structure provides tremendous benefit as it has created an open, 

participatory, bottom-up structure of Internet policymaking that includes constituents from the private sector, civil society, and governments, while ensuring that 

there is a fail-safe mechanism in place so that the principles and spirit with which 

ICANN was created can flourish. 

THE PROPOSED TRANSITION PRESENTS RISKS TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE

The proposal to relinquish U.S. oversight of the IANA function presents unique 

risks to the future stability, security, and openness of the Internet. Removing oversight means removing accountability. Any pledge, commitment, or oath made by the 

current ICANN leadership is not binding unless there is some accountability mechanism in place to back up that promise. Until now, the United States has served that 

role. If the U.S. government is no longer providing that stability, an alternative 

mechanism is needed to ensure that ICANN is held accountable to the public interest. 

ICANN’s future performance in the absence of U.S. oversight cannot be predicted 

based on its past performance under U.S. oversight. U.S. oversight of ICANN resembles self-regulatory systems in the private sector. In these systems, an industry-led 

self-regulatory organization sets and enforces rules and standards related to the 

conduct of companies in the industry. However, there is typically an outside entity, 

such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which can intervene if a company defies the self-regulatory organization or if the self-regulatory organization produces 

rules that are insufficient to protect the public interest. Just as it would be incomprehensible to suggest that an industry that has a successful track record with selfregulation no longer be subject to the FTC or other government oversight, it is a 

similarly dubious proposition to suggest removing this backstop for Internet governance without a suitable alternative mechanism in place. 

Without U.S. oversight ICANN has the potential to grow into the world’s largest 

unregulated monopoly. ICANN finances its operations by levying fees on the Internet resources it maintains. For every domain name that is registered, renewed, or 

transferred, ICANN receives between $0.18 and $0.25 per transaction.7 These fees 

can be adjusted and expanded at the discretion of ICANN. For example, ICANN 

could decide to increase the fees it charges, expand the fee to an annual or monthly 

license fee instead of a per-transaction fee, or create new fees for other resources 

it manages such as IP addresses. ICANN has a conflict of interest in pursuing the 

global public interest since its own financial interests are at odds with keeping costs 

down for Internet users and businesses. It is natural for organizations to want larger budgets, but ICANN is in an unusual position in that it could raise a substantial 

amount of additional revenue with little accountability. Already, ICANN has shown 

its appetite for more funding. In the decade from 2003 to 2012, ICANN’s annual revenue grew ten-fold from under $6 million to over $70 million. And then between 

2012 and 2013, ICANN’s revenue tripled to over $230 million as the organization 

expanded the number of top-level domains. Moreover, some countries could look to 

ICANN’s ability to extract money from the Internet ecosystem to fund other projects 

such as broadband connectivity, digital literacy, or access to computers. These types 

of projects may have broad appeal, but it would not be useful to create a global organization with the ability to effectively tax the Internet with no safeguards in place 

to limit its authority. 

Finally, while the proposal to transition governance of the DNS to a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN is vastly superior to some alternatives, such as 

ceding control of these functions to a multi-lateral governmental organization like 

the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), as some nations have proposed, 

giving up U.S. oversight creates an uncertain future for the Internet. The primary 

problem is that the existing governance structure of ICANN, as with any organization, is not permanent and can easily be restructured in the future. Without the 

U.S. government serving as a backstop, it may very well devolve into something resembling the United Nations. Congress should be aware that a UN-style takeover 
88 

of the Internet could happen even within ICANN if the advisory role that governments have today later becomes one of outright control. 

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD WORK TO IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE RISKS

MOVING FORWARD

Given the significant impact that this transition could have on the future of the 

Internet, it is critical for Congress to be actively engaged on this issue. The final 

decision to relinquish this oversight should only occur if there is consensus for a 

transition in both Congress and the Administration. If the NTIA pursues this transition, it has only one opportunity to get it right—there are no second chances. 

Therefore, Congress, through the Government Accountability Office, should work 

closely with the NTIA and other stakeholders to identify potential risks involved in 

this transition, including ‘‘worst case’’ scenarios, as well as opportunities to mitigate 

those risks. The NTIA should then be required to explain to Congress how any proposal it finds acceptable would successfully avoid the threats identified by stakeholders. And importantly, the NTIA should be required to explain not just how their 

plan mitigates first-order risks in the proposed plan, but also second-order risks of 

how ICANN could change after the U.S. government relinquishes its oversight. Developing these scenarios will also help the NTIA move from broad principles to detailed criteria for how it will evaluate any proposal. 

CONCLUSION

The future of Internet governance is at a crossroads. The transition away from 

U.S. oversight will create unique risks and challenges for Internet governance, 

many of which we may not be able to anticipate today. Without the current oversight by the United States, ICANN would not be accountable to anyone and would 

be motivated only by the interests of those individuals who control the organization. 

Such a change may not bode well for the principles supported by the United States 

and its allies. While the initial principles for the transition outlined by the NTIA 

are a good first step, Congress should exercise its own authority to demand a more 

detailed set of criteria that must be met before any transition plan is accepted. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the proposed transition. I look forward to answering any questions you have. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, sir. 

The Chair now is going to recognize the Ranking Member Mr. 

Nadler from New York to do the first series of questioning. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Let me thank all the witnesses. 

Let me ask, first of all, that—I gathered from all the witnesses, 

the possible exception of Mr. Castro, that all the concerns you have 

expressed are contingent concerns that we ought to bear in mind, 

that we got to watch the process of—as proposals are put out. A 

year-and-a-half from now, the—or request for proposals in effect 

that is put out. A year-and-a-half from now, proposals come back, 

and at that time we have to be very careful that these concerns 

that have been expressed have been adequately addressed by any 

proposal before it is adopted then but that the real concern that we 

ought to have and look at in the proposals that come back then, 

and just be wary of this now. 

Does anyone disagree with that? In other words, does anyone disagree? Does anyone think we are taking a step that is irrevocable 

or really bad now, or does everybody, or good, for that matter, or 

does everybody really think that we are setting the stage, there is 

going to be a preparation, and we really have to watch carefully 

what comes back and make decisions a year-and-a-half or 2 years 

from now? 

Why don’t we go left to right. Mr. Rosenzweig. 

Mr. ROSENZWEIG. I agree with the characterization. I would add 

only the small ‘‘p’’ political concern that there might be a degree 
89 

of pre-commitment to the result on the part of both the Administration and/or and NTIA and/or ICANN, but—— 

Mr. NADLER. But you haven’t seen that. 

Mr. ROSENZWEIG. But I haven’t seen that, yeah, but I would correct—I think you are correct in structuring this as we need to 

measure the result. 

Mr. NADLER. And a little premature to get all upset or happy or 

whatever. Mr. Chehade ́. 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. You are correct, Congressman Nadler. We have 

time, and as I said also before, we are not—we shouldn’t be rushed. 

I know that we have a contract that has a natural ending in September 2015, but there is no rush. We should get this right, and 

we have the time to do them. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Metalitz. 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes, sir. I would agree with that, Mr. Nadler. The 

one footnote I would drop is that in fact this decision might be irrevocable, and that is why we need to be so careful. 

Mr. NADLER. Yeah, but the decision, a year-and-a-half from now, 

not now? 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes, that is right. Both in the process and in the 

outcome, we need to make sure we get it right. 

Mr. NADLER. Right. Mr. Castro. 

Mr. CASTRO. I would just add that I think the announcement 

puts us on a irrevocable trajectory right now. 

Mr. NADLER. So you disagree. 

Mr. CASTRO. I just think that, I don’t think we can go back from 

this. I think it would be very difficult to, at least. 

Mr. NADLER. So, are you saying that the decision to seek these 

proposals now binds us to accept a proposal even if the criteria are 

not met, Mr. Castro? 

Mr. CASTRO. It doesn’t bind us, but it certainly puts tremendous 

pressure to accept it. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. I assume none of you, the rest of you agree 

with that. Okay. 

Now, Mr. Chehade ́, Politico reported yesterday that you conceptually support H.R. 4342, the DOTCOM Act of 2014. Do you support that bill? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. As I said yesterday to you and to the public, Congressman Nadler, we support conceptually mechanisms for accountability and for transparency. We do not support any particular bill. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. So you don’t support that bill or any other 

bill. Do you think that that bill, the DOTCOM Act, could harm the 

transition process? And let me just comment, and how might it impact the ongoing efforts of some nations to transition internet governance to the ITU or to the United Nations? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. I believe that if the perception globally that our 

government does not trust the multi-stakeholder model, which we 

approved unanimously—— 

Mr. NADLER. Which you think would be generated by adoption of 

that bill? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Could. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. 
90 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Could add to the perception that we do not trust 

our own model, and I think that that will send the wrong messages. 

Mr. NADLER. So do you think the DOTCOM Act would harm the 

transition process for that or any other reason? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. I don’t think it affects directly that transition 

process, but it will send continued messages that we are not trusting our own multi-stakeholder model that we believe in and we believe is the right model. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Do you see any reason we need legislation 

now to ensure our oversight of this process? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. The only reason we would is if we hadn’t heard 

Secretary Strickling multiple times say that he is going to be available, he is going to build consensus here, he will inform the Congress, and I make the same assurances on behalf of ICANN. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Now, there is concern that without NTIA 

oversight, ICANN will not have any external accountability and 

might be governed by the interests of those controlling the organization, what would you reply to that? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. It would be impossible to imagine that. 

Mr. NADLER. Because? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Because ICANN was structured, as I said before, 

with a set of mechanisms and hundreds of checks and balances 

that make it impossible for any one party to capture the processes 

at ICANN. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Now, in the past, some of my colleagues have 

raised concerns that ICANN’s management of internet domain 

functions, including whether it was affording adequate protections 

to consumers and rights holders and working to combat online 

fraud and piracy, if NTIA relinquishes contractual relations with 

ICANN, how do we ensure that ICANN is responsive to our concerns as well as to other key stakeholders down the road? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. So, first let me clarify that the announcement by 

NTIA has nothing to do with the way we make policies and we enforce our contracts. These are completely two separate things. So 

the fact that they are going to relinquish that particular oversight 

is being conflated with the other work we do, as Mr. Metalitz explained very well. In that other realm of policies and enforcement, 

I want to tell you that we have been strengthening our ability to 

ensure compliance. I think in since 2011 we nearly tripled the—— 

Mr. NADLER. But some people think that the NTIA—that we 

have leverage over ICANN because of this, no? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Not any more than you will continue to have. 

NTIA participates, the U.S. Government participates in all of our 

processes, and they will continue to do so. The announcement 3 

weeks ago has to do with the IANA function, and that is a very 

small and specific area of work, important, but has nothing to do 

with the policies and the enforcement of the Congress. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. My last—is what Mr. Metalitz noted that 

ICANN must remain a not-for-profit subject to U.S. law by virtue 

of the Affirmation of Commitments, and I want to ask why is this 

important and what would cause ICANN to withdraw from the 

AOC, and if it did so, how can anyone be sure that obligations contained in the AOC would continue to be followed? 
91 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. This Mr. Metalitz is superbly right here. We must 

maintain the AOC. It is a very important document. I am committed to that. In fact, in the next few days we will launch a public 

consultation process to strengthen the AOC, strengthen our accountability, and engage the whole community to ensure that the 

concepts and the agreements that we made to the world and the 

AOC remain very much in the fabric of ICANN. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Mr. Metalitz, you have any comment on that? 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes. I think that is—that is a welcome statement, 

but Mr. Chehade ́ is not going to be the president of ICANN forever, 

the board isn’t going to be the same forever, and I think we need 

to probably be looking at mechanisms to make sure that ICANN’s 

relationship under the Affirmation of Commitments is kept permanent as much as possible. 

Mr. NADLER. I assume in the next hearing, you have to go make 

recommendations as to some mechanisms of doing so. 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. My time is expired. 

Mr. HOLDING [presiding.] Thank you. 

Mr. Chehade ́, can you respond to Mr. Castro’s concern that 

ICANN has the potential to become the world’s largest unregulated 

monopoly and may be able to use this authority to tax the internet? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. It is impossible for ICANN to move in that direction because of the multi-stakeholder model. It is important to appreciate that even the policies we use to perform the IANA functions come from huge large communities even outside of ICANN. 

Take, for example, the thousands of engineers of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the IETF. They get together around the world 

every few months. 

They make policies. They check on me performing these policies 

regularly, and it is not a fun meeting when we have it with them. 

They have accountability on us. So for all these thousands of people 

in different communities even outside of ICANN who make policies 

for how the internet works, to be somehow captured under a single 

model is impossible. It is by design. It is almost like saying one entity can control the entire internet. Just like the Internet, ICANN 

is impossible to capture. 

Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Castro, he says you don’t know what you are 

talking about, so take a minute to refute Mr. Chehade ́ there. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. I think any political system is subject to various types of designs, and those designs put constraints on what 

people can do, but they are not infallible. Certainly we can look at 

any government, any institution in the world where we have seen 

dramatic change. We have seen in our own U.S. history a change 

in the amount of revenue that the Federal Government takes in 

along various principles. 

You know, at one point an income tax was inconceivable, and we 

have that today. I am not, by any means, anti-tax, but the point 

is, organizations change. The dynamics change. The political will to 

do things changes. It is very conceivable to think of a time when 

ICANN would be suffering as an organization, and to move forward, it would have to raise revenue even just to remain operational, and so changes would be made. And as well, the technology 
92 

changes. The technology for which ICANN is responsible might 

change as well. 

We are moving from IPv4 to IPv6. What that means is we are 

going to have a significantly larger pool of numbers that ICANN 

is responsible for. 

Right now ICANN doesn’t charge anything for that, but it could. 

That would be an astronomical increase in the amount of revenue 

it could obtain. These aren’t things that definitively will happen, 

but these are risks that we should be aware of. 

Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Rosenzweig, do you think there is a potential 

of this monopoly danger? 

Mr. ROSENZWEIG. I think the right way to structure the question 

is this, all of the restrictions that Mr. Chehade ́ has referenced are 

internal to ICANN, and they are good. They are probably quite effective, but you work in a body that has a lot of internal restrictions as well, and you know as well as I do that times come where 

people waive those restrictions or change them or they mutate over 

time for good reasons or for benevolent reasons. 

The only way—the right answer to that problem is one not available to this institution of some other form of external checking 

function that is able to restrict and restrain that mutation if it goes 

off in adverse ways. That is why I suggested, as part of my testimony, the need for, you know, an outside check-in function in 

forms of audits, oversights, inspectors generals, an external judiciary of which they already have a forum. 

Those are the types of external structures that will then ensure 

that the internal structures continue to function as they are and 

aren’t overtaken by internal events. So, again, I don’t think it is 

an insurmountable problem, but I think it is critical that as part 

of the IANA transition, one of the things that ICANN brings back 

to the NTIA and for us to review is what those external structures 

would be that would maintain that Mr. Metalitz’s suggestion that 

ICANN has to remain subject to U.S. law suggests that is one of 

those functions might be U.S. courts. 

I don’t know if that would be a good answer or not and I am not 

sure whether the rest of the world would like that answer, but that 

is at least inside the model of what I think is essential. 

Mr. HOLDING. Do you think it is possible that ICANN has a significant financial motive in wanting to move to an international 

status? 

Mr. ROSENZWEIG. I can’t examine the motives of ICANN. I don’t 

know. I do know that there are at least failure modes I could imagine in which the financial incentives would drive behaviors that I 

would consider bad. I haven’t seen any evidence of that now, but 

I can’t guarantee that they won’t happen in the future, so to that 

degree, I sort of concur with Daniel’s suggestion that it is a possibility, but it is one that I think can be guarded against or should 

be guarded against. 

Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Chehade ́, what was ICANN’s annual revenue 

in 2001? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. I was not, I am not aware of that number. I can 

get back to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOLDING. A few million dollars, would it fair to say? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Yes, under 10 million. 
93 

Mr. HOLDING. How about in 2013? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Our revenues for the core operations of ICANN 

was a little shy of $80 million or so. 

Mr. HOLDING. Eighty million? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Yes. Now if you add the new gTLD program—— 

Mr. HOLDING. 8-0. 

Mr. NADLER. He said 8-0 or 1-8? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Yes. And then for the new gTLD program, we 

have a separate accounting mechanism to deal with that, but that 

is a revenue neutral program. It is not a profit program. The fees 

we take are used to process the program, and the fees we have 

taken are pretty much spent on getting that program up and running. 

Mr. HOLDING. All right. Thank you. 

I believe Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think this has been a very helpful discussion, and as I listen 

to Mr. Chehade ́’s testimony, I am struck by how closely this development in ICANN has tracked what our hopes were back in the 

1990’s, in the mid 1990’s. Now, it is true, I mean, there is no guarantee for anything ever in life, but so far so good, and I had to 

laugh when I heard you say, you know, meeting with thousands of 

internet engineers is not always fun. I cannot imagine, I mean, the 

internet engineers I know agreeing to do any of the parade of 

horribles that, you know, people are concerned about, so that is one 

part of the guarantee. 

I think it is important that we have a diversity of opinion, and 

Mr. Castro is odd man out again. I remember when you were here 

during the SOPA hearings. I think you were the only voice in favor 

of DNS redirection and in favor of SOPA when all of the rest of 

the internet engineers I had ever met were arguing against it, and 

I think it is important that your voice, although isolated, be heard 

again. 

I do think that, as I have listened to my colleagues, I am hearing 

an interest. Obviously, the United States is going to continue to be 

involved in ICANN, but primarily that involvement has been 

through the private sector, individual engineers, and kind of the 

nerdiest branch of the Federal Government in the Department of 

Commerce. Is there a role for the legislative branch to look and to 

observe in ICANN or have any other governments have legislators 

also attend meetings and observe? Would that be a problem? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. First of all, everyone is welcome at ICANN. 

ICANN is open, has no membership fees, all of our meetings are 

transcribed, completely transparent in all languages of the U.N. 

plus Portuguese, so everyone is welcome. We have not seen a large 

participation by judicial bodies from around the world. Law enforcement, however, has been more involved at ICANN with the 

Interpol and the FBI and others engaged, and in fact, they have 

been very helpful in shaping some of the elements of the new 

agreements we signed with a thousand registrars in the world. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. So, but I think the participation is welcome, Congress is welcome, we need everyone to be involved, but at this 

stage, ICANN has shown its very close attention to the review 
94 

mechanisms and the accountability mechanisms and they are in 

place and they are working. My colleague Paul mentioned earlier 

FOIA. 

We have a process at ICANN similar to FOIA that we have implemented since 2009, so we have many of these mechanisms and 

processes, including independent review mechanisms that go outside of ICANN to ensure that we are performing with accountability. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I think that, you know, unfortunately, and 

I don’t think it is people in this body, but there have been some 

alarmist voices out in the media world that I wish that—I hope 

that they have listened to this hearing and gotten a greater understanding really what this is about, and the fact that you, Mr. 

Chehade ́, and ICANN itself is not resisting, in fact, is embracing 

the idea of continued involvement to make sure that our goals for 

a free and open internet continue to be met. 

And I certainly, the Committee and other, Energy and Commerce 

Committee, as well, is interested in that, and you know, I don’t 

know that every Member of Congress would want to go and sit 

through these meetings, but it might be a good experience for us 

and the next time you meet in the United States, maybe, you 

know, we should do a little group and go see firsthand what it is 

like to participate, and I will be the first to volunteer to do that. 

I want to thank each one of you for your excellent testimony here 

today. It is a service to the country, and you know, people don’t realize that you are volunteers here. I mean, and we appreciate that. 

It is really very, very helpful. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we have one other 

speaker and lots of airplanes waiting for us to leave for our 2 

weeks off. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARINO [presiding]. Thank you. 

I guess I am the last one. So, as we say in my rural district of 

Pennsylvania, let’s go to the barn and talk turkey here because I 

didn’t hear the questioning from my colleagues, but I was in a 

meeting with someone that I didn’t want to send them home without meeting with me, so I apologize for that. 

But I think it—Mr. Metalitz and Mr. Chehade ́, I emphasized on 

more than one occasion, I believe, that ICANN is going to stay in 

the United States. Is that true? Did I hear that correctly? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Yes, it is part of the Affirmations of Commitment 

document today that we have to remain incorporated and 

headquartered in the United States. 

Mr. MARINO. Is there a possibility, and I am asking for a prediction, when we pass legislation well intended, we do not see some 

ramifications coming down the road, but with a reasonable degree 

of certainty, can you tell me could ICANN leave the United States 

at some point, and why, and how? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. So long as the Affirmation of Commitments are in 

place, and I mentioned earlier that I am starting a process to 

strengthen them and affirm them, we will stay here. We also have 

thousands of contracts signed here as a California corporation. It 

is the logical thing for us to continue and there is no plan or prospect right now for doing so. 
95 

Mr. MARINO. I am going to ask you to play devil’s advocate with 

me a little bit here. Give me a scenario, if you could, again, with 

a reasonable degree of thought here, how ICANN would move from 

the United States? Is there a circumstance that you can think of 

that would occur, because even though there is a commitment, you 

have contracts here, anything can be litigated if it got to that, but 

there is—I know of nothing that would prevent a company from 

leaving the United States should it decide to do that. 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. The best way to look at this scenario is to think, 

as you asked, Mr. Chairman, how would we get there. Well, it is 

not the decision I can make. It is not the decision even our board 

can finalize without full multi-stakeholder consultation that will 

take—if it took us 7 years to come up with a gTLD program, it will 

take us a little longer than that to agree on something this fundamental and this changing of how we work. So, the good news is 

that ICANN will involve the private sector, you will have Microsoft, 

you will have Google, you will have Cisco, you will have all of our 

members, the civil society groups, everyone will have to be involved 

in, frankly, answering your questions, which are why would we do 

this? 

It has worked so well for us here, why would we change that. So 

this is a process, and it takes a long time, and all is transparent, 

so none of this can happen without this House and this Congress 

knowing immediately that there is even a discussion about that, 

because everything we do is public, transparent, and transcribed. 

Mr. MARINO. Does anyone else want to respond to that? To my 

scenario? 

Mr. METALITZ. If I may. 

Mr. MARINO. Please, go ahead, sir. 

Mr. METALITZ. If I may. I would agree that it would be—it 

wouldn’t be an overnight decision if that were to occur, but I want 

to—I just feel like I have to respond to one thing that Mr. Chehade ́

said earlier which was that it is impossible for any one group to 

capture the multi-stakeholder process. 

That may be true if you think of the multi-stakeholder process 

in the abstract, but as I sit here, having been involved in ICANN 

longer than everyone else at this table put together, I can tell you 

that ICANN, while it tries to embody the multi-stakeholder model, 

ICANN can be captured and it has been captured in the past by 

interest groups. So, I think we constantly have to be on guard 

against that. 

Maybe in the abstract the multi-stakeholder model cannot be 

captured, but I think we really do have to be on guard against that 

in this human institution called ICANN that is attempting to embody the multi-stakeholder model. 

And I think this is really an area where oversight by this Committee and by the Congress is extremely important as well as engagement by the U.S. Government on an ongoing level because I 

think that risk will remain. 

Mr. MARINO. How many entities are involved in changing bylaws? I am not quite clear on that at this point. Anyone? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. So, ICANN has a board of directors made of 16 

board members that are elected through both the community, so it 

takes a long time again for let’s say the user groups can elect a 
96 

person that sits on the board, business sector, et cetera, so each 

stakeholder groups elects these board members. 

And then we have an independent nominating committee that 

picks some of the board members, and again they search openly for 

a non-stakeholder based board members. That board has the ability 

to change the bylaws, but it is a pretty broad board and it is a community board and has used its, I think, if you look at how they 

have worked today, especially as it relates to bylaws, it has been 

very judicious in touching these. And it is very hard to get consensus, frankly, along 16 board members that have been elected 

through communities, not through monolithic processes. 

Mr. MARINO. What intention would there be, if any, to bring 

those proposed bylaw changes to this Committee? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. What intention we—— 

Mr. MARINO. Would you have any problem with bringing those 

proposed bylaw changes to Congress, to this Committee? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. I think it would have to be explained to our stakeholders. We have thousands of stakeholders and many not U.S. 

based stakeholders. It would be very complicated for us to explain 

to them that we need to bring bylaw changes for a California corporation to Congress. 

Frankly, I don’t even know how this could be done with all of our 

stakeholders. We have to, frankly, I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that 

you are concerned that bylaws could be changed without proper 

vetting, but I can tell you, we will, in these mechanisms that we 

plan to build in this transition, put strong components that ensure 

that the core principles you believe in and we believe in are maintained, that they are not easy to change. They have to be in there. 

For example, the principles that NTIA put out that no government or intergovernmental body can control ICANN or control our 

decision making, I committed in my opening statement that we 

need to put these mechanisms and make sure that they survive not 

just the transition but past the transition. So, we are on the same 

page in that regard, and again, I invite you, Mr. Chairman, and 

Members of the Committee not just to attend our meetings, as Congressman Lofgren suggested, but indeed to keep an eye, and we 

will come back and keep you briefed so you can keep an eye on 

these changes. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Anyone else want to respond to any of my scenarios? 

Okay. Then I see no other individuals here before I move on further. 

I would like to submit for the record a letter from ACT dated 

April 9, 2014, to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Judiciary that is headed, ‘‘In Defense of Process: Identifying the Problem Before Seeking Solutions.’’ 

I hear no opposition, so this will be entered into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
97 
98 
99 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. Chairman, may I? 

Mr. MARINO. Please, go ahead, sir. 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. I just was reminded to share with you that every 

change to our bylaws, every proposed change to our bylaws is publicly posted and everyone is welcome to comment on it, and I hope 

including Congress. We do not make these changes before they are 

publicly posted and shared with everyone and we receive input 

from all stakeholders. I want to assure you of that. 

Mr. MARINO. I am going to throw one more question out there, 

two questions actually, and anyone of you please respond it to if 

you want to. What is the single most important upside to this, and 

what is the single most detrimental down side to this? 

Mr. ROSENZWEIG. I will swing first just because I am on the end. 

The most significant down side would be actually the technical one, 

which is that if somehow in the transition the current root zone 

management system were modified in a way that it did not function as effectively as it did now. 

We are all extremely dependent upon that as a successful activity across the globe, and if it broke, that would be horrible. The upside is that the IANA function, the naming function is just one of 

a host of internet related issues that require some form of international coordination, spam, cybersecurity, yesterday we discovered 

the lack of international coordination on encryption stamps, et 

cetera, et cetera, et cetera. None of those have effective international—or none of those have standardized or completely effective international structures of governance. 

Mr. MARINO. Sure. 

Mr. ROSENZWEIG. If this works, if 5 years from now, 10 years 

from now we are all really confident in this multi-stakeholder 

model as a way of managing this little piece of the internet, then 

we may be building a structure that goes further, that is reproducible. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. Anyone else? 

Mr. CHEHADE ́. I have two boys that I taught to ride a bicycle, 

and at some point in their lives I have to take the training wheels 

off. The worse thing I could have done is that after I have watched 

them and taught them, as soon as they try to take their first ride, 

I put these training wheels back on. 

I think we have been watching ICANN for 15 years, and the 

training wheels have been largely up, and we are fine. It doesn’t 

mean we should walk away, just like I didn’t from my boys when 

they took their first big ride. I watched them and I was near them, 

and if they got out of the way or did something dangerous, I 

stopped them, but this is the time to let go and show the world our 

trust. 

So the answer to your question, if I could be direct, Chairman 

Marino, is this is the moment the world wants to watch us trust 

our own model. Let’s not show them we don’t trust it. Let’s show 

them we are careful, we will put the safeguards, we will check on 

ICANN, please do, we need you to do that, but at the same time 

let’s show our trust in the model we voted for unanimously. Please. 

Mr. MARINO. All right. Thank you. 

Gentleman, thank you. 

Mr. Nadler. 
100 

Mr. NADLER. Before we adjourn, I would ask unanimous consent 

to insert two statements from the Wall Street Journal article and 

testimony of the executive director of Net Choice into the record. 

Mr. MARINO. No objection. They are entered into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 

Mr. MARINO. Gentleman, thank you so very much. I thank you 

on behalf of the entire Committee, Mr. Nadler, and myself. It has 

been an extraordinary exchange. This is quite a task ahead of us. 

It could be a game changer for the positive. 

So, with that, this concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all of 

you, our witnesses for attending. I want to thank the Members out 

at the gallery for being here and listening to this. Many people ask 

me what I do on intellectual property, and as soon as I start talking about copyrights and trademarks and hardware and software, 

they just—they glaze over, but we are sitting here because we find 

it extraordinarily interesting. 

So, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

materials for the record that you may want to submit. 

This hearing is adjourned, and thank you, and everybody have 

a good break. 

[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(117) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
118 
119 
120 

ATTACHMENT 
121 

f 
122 
123 

f 
124 
125 

f 
126 
127 

Æ