U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

96–987 2016

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE IANA 

TRANSITION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 13, 2015 

Serial No. 114–41 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 6 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 94 

WITNESSES

Steve Delbianco, Executive Director, Netchoice .................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Danielle Kehl, Senior Policy Analyst, New America’s Open Technology Institute ........................................................................................................................ 26

Prepared statement 1 ........................................................................................ 28 

Audrey Plonk, Director, Global Cyber Security and Internet Governance Policy, Intel Corporation ........................................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Matthew Shears, Representative and Director, Global Internet Policy and 

Human Rights Project Center for Democracy and Technology ........................ 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Brett Schaefer, Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, 

The Heritage Foundation .................................................................................... 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Article entitled, ‘‘What’s in a (Domain) Name?’’, by Peter Roff, U.S. News 

& World Report, May 13, 2015, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ............................ 95 

1 The attachment to Ms. Kehl’s statement can be found at: http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if16/20150513/103448/hhrg-114-if16-wstatekehld-20150513.pdf. 

(1) 

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE IANA 

TRANSITION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:19 p.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Barton, 

Shimkus, Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, 

Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Collins, Cramer, Eshoo, Doyle, Clarke, 

Loebsack, Matsui, McNerney, Lujan, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor for Communications and Technology; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Andy 

Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Gene Fullano, Detailee, 

Telecom; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Telecom; Grace Koh, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, 

Legislative Clerk; Jessica Wilkerson, Oversight Associate, O&I; Jeff 

Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; David Goldman, Democratic 

Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Lori Maarbjerg, 

Democratic FCC Detailee; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic Senior 

Professional Staff Member; and Ryan Skukowski, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. Now that we have killed the lights, we will call the 

subcommittee on Communications and Technology to order, and 

welcome our witnesses here today, and our colleagues. Thanks for 

your patience with our late start. We had a vote on the floor, as 

you know, but we appreciate your being here today, and look forward to your testimony. 

From the time the Administration announced their intent to 

transition IANA functions from ICANN to the international multistakeholder community, I have had very serious concerns about the 

potential risks associated with that move. We have said time and 

again that this is far too important to rush, and that we must carefully consider all of the consequences and outcomes before we ring 

a bell that cannot be un-rung. 

This subcommittee has been committed to oversight of the transition process, and ensuring that there are safeguards in place to improve the odds of a successful transition, and preserve the Internet 

2 

we all committed to protecting. Last Congress we held a hearing 

on this topic and passed the Dot Com Act out of the full Committee 

almost exactly a year ago. The goals of the Dot Com Act are consistent with our position. It is the appropriate role of this subcommittee to oversee the NTIA, and, in this case, ensure that it 

thoroughly evaluates any proposal. As part of this oversight, we 

have already asked the GAO to begin an inquiry into the process 

that examines the existing contract, risks to be considered, and any 

safeguards that can be put into place to reduce the threats to the 

future operations and functions of the Internet. 

Many have come to us to emphasize the importance of the IANA 

transition to the continued success of the multi-stakeholder model 

of governance, and to urge us to be mindful of the way the international community perceives our actions. We recognize these considerations, but we also feel it would be irresponsible to ignore the 

very real risks associated with a relinquishment of the U.S. role in 

Internet governance, no matter how symbolic. This is why we have 

taken the measured approach that we will discuss today. 

NTIA put forward a set of criteria that they say any acceptable 

transition proposal must meet, all of which are essential to ensuring a vibrant Internet, should NTIA transition IANA to the multistakeholder community. NTIA should be applauded for this, and for 

its willingness to stick to these criteria, despite the difficulty in 

meeting them. Our goal, through this legislation, and our efforts in 

the subcommittee, is to ensure that these conditions are met, and 

that the myriad unforeseen complications that could arise in meeting them are addressed. 

I am pleased to report the staff from both sides of the aisle have 

been working together to produce an amendment to the Dot Com 

Act that meets these goals that we all share without unduly burdening the agency as it works towards its goal. While NTIA works 

within its proper role in the multi-stakeholder model, we too are 

working with our proper role as oversight authority. While we have 

not reached agreement on final text, our discussions have been 

very promising, and there is an important role for Congress in this 

transition, and I commend the staff for their hard work. 

I would also like to take a moment to touch on the timeline of 

the transition. It seems that everyone, including NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling, has acknowledged that the important work 

needed to facilitate a transition cannot be done before the existing 

contract expires on September 30, 2015. I urge NTIA to exercise 

the 2-year renewal option on the contract. Doing so allows the deliberative process to continue without artificial pressure or time 

constraints, and this won’t provide any additional hurdle to the 

transition itself. Should NTIA and ICANN come to agreement on 

an acceptable proposal before the 2-year period is up, the contract 

can be cancelled to facilitate that transition. 

I am pleased to have our panel of stakeholder witnesses here 

today to give us an update on their views of this transition. In the 

past year thousands of hours of hard work have taken place, many 

by our witnesses at the witness table today, to move this forward. 

Our last hearing gave voice to concerns that have been incorporated into the work of the multi-stakeholder working groups, and 

this is an opportunity for us to once again play our role in the procVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-41 CHRIS
3 

ess. I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to 

your expertise. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

From the time the administration announced their intent to transition the IANA 

functions from ICANN to the international multi-stakeholder community, I’ve had 

very serious concerns about the potential risks associated with the move. We’ve said 

time and again that this is far too important to rush, and that we must carefully 

consider all of the consequences and outcomes before we ring a bell that cannot be 

unrung. 

This subcommittee has been committed to oversight of the transition process and 

ensuring that there are safeguards in place to improve the odds of a successful transition and preserve the Internet we are all committed to protecting. Last Congress, 

we held hearings on this topic and passed the DOTCOM Act out of the full Committee almost exactly a year ago. The goals of the DOTCOM Act are consistent with 

our position—it is the appropriate role of this subcommittee to oversee the NTIA, 

and in this case ensure that it thoroughly evaluates any proposal. As part of this 

oversight, we’ve already asked the GAO to begin an inquiry into the process that 

examines the existing contract, risks to be considered, and any safeguards that can 

be put into place to reduce threats to the future operations and functions of the 

Internet. 

Many have come to us to emphasize the importance of the IANA transition to the 

continued success of the multi-stakeholder model of governance, and to urge us to 

be mindful of the way the international community perceives our actions. We recognize these considerations, but we also feel it would be irresponsible to ignore the 

very real risks associated with a relinquishment of the U.S. role in Internet governance, no matter how symbolic. This is why we have taken the measured approach 

we will discuss today. 

NTIA put forward a set of criteria that they say any acceptable transition proposal must meet, all of which are essential to ensuring a vibrant Internet should 

NTIA transition IANA to the multi-stakeholder community. NTIA should be applauded for this, and for its willingness to stick to these criteria despite the difficulty in meeting them. Our goal through this legislation and our efforts in the subcommittee is to ensure that these conditions are met and that the myriad unforeseen complications that could arise in meeting them are addressed. 

I am pleased to report that staff from both sides of the aisle have been working 

together to produce amendment to the DOTCOM Act that meets these goals that 

we all share without unduly burdening the agency as it works toward its goal. 

While NTIA works within its proper role in the multi-stakeholder model, we too are 

working within our proper role as oversight authority. While we have not reached 

agreement on final text, our discussions have been very promising. There is an important role for Congress in this transition and I commend the staff for their hard 

work. 

I’d also like to take a moment to touch on the timeline of the transition. It seems 

that everyone, including NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling, has acknowledged 

that the important work needed to facilitate a transition cannot be done before the 

existing contract expires on September 30, 2015. I urge NTIA to exercise the twoyear renewal option on the contract. Doing so allows the deliberative process to continue without artificial pressure or time constraints. And this won’t provide any additional hurdle to the transition itself. Should NTIA and ICANN come to agreement 

on an acceptable proposal before the 2-year period is up, the contract can be cancelled to facilitate the transition. 

I’m pleased to have our panel of stakeholder witnesses here today to give us an 

update on their views of the transition. In the past year, thousands of hours of hard 

work have taken place—many by our witnesses—to move this forward. Our last 

hearing gave voice to concerns that have been incorporated into the work of the 

multi-stakeholder working groups, and this is an opportunity for us to once again 

to play our role in this process. I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to your expertise. 

Mr. WALDEN. With that, I would recognize the gentlelady from 

California, my friend, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

Ms. Eshoo. 

4 

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

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to all 

the members, and to all of our witnesses. We welcome you here, 

and we thank you for your willingness to come and share your 

thoughts with us about—this is an important topic. Earlier this 

year Singapore’s Minister of Communication and Information, Dr. 

Yaacob Bin—Ibrahim stated that ‘‘no one person, organization, or 

even country has a monopoly on the expertise and wisdom needed 

to meet the challenges that we are facing on the Internet on a day 

to day basis.’’ 

I agree with that quote, and his thought. It is why Congress, on 

a bipartisan, bicameral basis, has consistently stated that the 

United States should continue to preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has 

thrived. Our leadership in the IANA transition is critical, but I 

think inserting a unilateral role for our government, as the Dot 

Com Act does, undermines the legitimacy of the multi-stakeholder 

model, and it emboldens those that don’t agree with us. Some call 

them our enemies, but I think that emboldens them. 

For nearly 20 years it has been U.S. policy to transition the government’s role in administering the domain name system to the 

multi-stakeholder global community, and by requiring the GAO to 

study the pros and cons of making such a transition, the Dot Com 

Act fails to recognize this history. Equally concerning is the opposition from the stakeholder community, including NetChoice’s Steve 

DelBianco, who is here, and is going to be testifying today, that a 

post-analysis by GAO of the transition proposal is no longer necessary. 

The success of the IANA transition depends on built-in mechanisms for transparency and accountability, and a commitment by 

ICANN to resist—Mr. Chairman, I don’t think the committee is in 

order. That means stop gabbing, to my left. It is distracting. 

The success of the IANA transition depends on built-in mechanisms for transparency and accountability, and a commitment by 

ICANN to resist any expansion of the role government or inter-governmental organizations may play in ICANN’s deliberations. Now, 

if the majority shares these goals, and I believe that you do, then 

we should work together on a bipartisan alternative to the Dot 

Com Act which provides a reasonable period of time for Congress, 

and the general public, to review the IANA transition proposal. 

With responsible oversight, a successful transition of those functions will preserve the Internet’s guiding principles of openness, of 

security, of stability, and resiliency, and ensure ICANN cannot be 

exposed to government capture. 

And, again, I would like to thank the panel of witnesses. They 

are really esteemed individuals in each one of their spheres of influence, and I think that each one of them understands the Internet’s guiding values, and the importance of the multi-stakeholder 

model. So, again, I thank you, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 

balance of my time, unless someone else would like it. Doris, would 

you like my time? I would be glad to yield to you, to the gentlewoman from California. 

5 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, my fellow colleague. Got the 

wrong thing here. In 2012, with strong bipartisan congressional 

backing, the Administration’s position was strengthened in re-affirming the current multi-stakeholder approach that has allowed 

the Internet to flourish here in the United States and around the 

world. Congress must stay united moving forward. I am pleased to 

hear that the Administration will not support any proposal that 

undermines the openness of the Internet. With over two billion 

users, we all know the Internet has become a necessity, and not 

a luxury. It plays a dominant role in the world economy. We need 

to continue to promote innovation and openness of the Internet 

around the globe. That has been the hallmark of U.S. policy. I believe the multi-stakeholder approach must continue to define Internet governance, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

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

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, the Vice-Chair of the 

Subcommittee, Mr. Latta. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

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

thank our witnesses for being with us today. The Internet has 

quickly integrated into our everyday lives, and has become a central platform for job creation, education, business development, 

health care, and free expression. Therefore, the preservation of the 

Internet’s openness and freedom should remain a high priority as 

NTIA prepares to transition the U.S. Government’s role in the 

Internet’s—numbering functions to a global multi-stakeholder community. 

I thank the gentleman, my friend from Illinois, for introducing 

the Dot Com Act to ensure proper oversight of this transition. This 

bill will safeguard our national security interests, and allow citizens to continue to freely navigate the Internet. I look forward to 

hearing from our witness. And, Mr. Chairman, I would, at this 

time, yield to the gentleman from Illinois the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. I want to thank Chairman Walden and 

Chairman Upton for holding this hearing today. While we all use 

the Internet, few Americans, and I am included—few Americans 

truly understand the underlying Internet architecture. Perhaps 

that is because a system that has been in place has worked so well 

that we don’t need to think about it. The Internet remains a free 

and open place to exchange information and ideas, and the goal of 

my legislation has always been to preserve that for future generations. 

What we wanted to do with the Dot Com Act has always been 

to exercise vigorous oversight on the transition, and make sure it 

is done right, the old trust but verify statement. As a legislative 

body, specifically in the Telecom Subcommittee, we have authority 

and responsibility to oversee the activities of NTIA. We get one bite 

at the apple with this. We would be negligent in our responsibilities to not sure that NTIA, and the Administration, is living up 

to its promises. 

NTIA says the proposal must, and this is from them, support and 

enhance the multi-stakeholder model, maintain the security, staVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-41 CHRIS
6 

bility, and resiliency of the Internet DNS, meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services, and maintain the openness of the Internet. I have concerns 

that these requirements that NTIA has put forth are vague at best, 

but allowing Congress a chance to review any proposal would hold 

the Administration’s feet to the fire before any transition could 

occur. If the proposal isn’t as promised, and ICANN hasn’t made 

the necessary changes to facilitate the transition, then Congress 

has the chance to engage in other legislative avenues to ensure 

that Americans will continue to access a free and open Internet. 

Bipartisan staff discussions are ongoing, and we are hopeful that 

an agreement can be reached to hold NTIA accountable to their 

own criteria and move it to the floor, and to the President’s desk. 

We just have to be careful, by exercising congressional oversight of 

NTIA, because there is no turning back once this moves forward. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record an article 

that came out today, ‘‘What Is In A Domain Name?’’ by Peter Roff, 

and it was in U.S. News & World Report. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I yield back my time. 

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

Chair recognizes the Ranking Member from New Jersey, Mr. 

Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The subject of today’s 

hearing is the transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA, and this function is sometimes called the Internet’s 

phone book of Internet names and numbers, and, more simply, it 

is what allows Internet users to easily navigate the Web. The 

Internet is an unprecedented platform for economic opportunity 

and democratic free expression. It is used by three billion people 

around the globe. And because this phone book has worked so well, 

very few of us ever have to think about how it works, we just know 

it works. And that is a credit to a successful Internet governance 

model that uses a multi-stakeholder approach to decision-making. 

We all want this success story to continue, and that is why the 

U.S. Government has taken steps over the past two decades to get 

out of the way and allow the private sector to assume management 

of the domain name system. Put another way, we think the future 

of the Internet should be determined by businesses, civil society, 

and technical experts. 

Both Republican and Democratic Administrations have supported 

the idea that the Internet should be governed through a decentralized bottom-up process that is free from government control, and 

Congress too has embraced this vision. In 2013, the House voted 

unanimously in support of a bill making it official U.S. policy to 

‘‘preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that 

governs the Internet.’’ I personally believe that the transition of the 

IANA functions to the global multi-stakeholder community helps 

achieve that goal. 

7 

Since NTIA announced last March its intention to relinquish control of the IANA contract, they have made significant progress to 

plan for this transition. They have also made impressive strides to 

enhance accountability for ICANN. NTIA has clearly and consistently articulated principles for the transition, in keeping with the 

U.S. Government’s support for the multi-stakeholder model, and an 

open global Internet. I believe Congress has a bipartisan interest 

in seeing the IANA transition executed consistent with these principles. 

We all have a shared interest in transparency and accountability, 

and therefore thank my Republican colleagues, especially Chairman Walden and Mr. Shimkus, for working with us to address concerns with the DOTCOM Act, and I look forward to continuing our 

shared responsibility, conduct rigorous oversight of NTIA, and to 

ensure the agency lives up to its commitments for the transition. 

So, again, thank you to the witnesses today for sharing their perspectives that they are going to on the proposals that have been 

put forward, and the work that remains to be done. And thank you 

to both the Chairman and our Ranking Member, Ms. Eshoo, for 

putting this together, and the work that we are going to do together on this. 

I think Mr. Doyle and Ms. Matsui—you have already spoken, 

right? Does anyone else want any time? He says he doesn’t, so, all 

right, I yield back. Thank you. 

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

Thank you for your kind comments. We look forward to continuing 

our work together. 

Now we will go to our witnesses, and we will start with Steve 

DelBianco, Executive Director of NetChoice. We are delighted to 

have you with us today. Turn on that mic, pull it up close, and we 

look forward to your testimony, sir. Go ahead. 

STATEMENTS OF STEVE DELBIANCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NETCHOICE; DANIELLE KEHL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

NEW AMERICA’S OPEN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE; AUDREY 

PLONK, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL CYBER SECURITY AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE POLICY, INTEL CORPORATION; MATTHEW SHEARS, REPRESENTATIVE AND DIRECTOR, GLOBAL 

INTERNET POLICY AND HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT CENTER 

FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY; AND BRETT SCHAEFER, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW IN INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

STATEMENT OF STEVE DELBIANCO 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, 

members of the Committee, thank you very much for having yet 

another important hearing on this transition. I am deeply involved 

at ICANN, 30 meetings and five times elected as the policy chair 

for the businesses constituency, and partly on the inspiration of 

your hearing last year, I got deeply involved in the transition planning. I represent the commercial stakeholders globally on the transition planning team. 

This was a year ago in April when you held the first hearing on 

NTIA’s plan to transition oversight, and I think that what that foVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-41 CHRIS
8 

cused on was the fact that, over 17 years, our government has protected ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model from government encroachment, and really helped ICANN to mature. The analogy I 

suggested to you last year is that the U.S. built this car called 

IANA in the 1990s, we handed the car keys to ICANN in 1998, 

when we created ICANN, but we kept the ownership papers, we 

kept the title close. We monitored their driving and their care of 

the vehicle for those last 17 years. But, look, it is just not sustainable for the U.S. alone to hold that title forever, especially in a 

post-Snowden political climate, which really has nothing to do with 

the DNS, but politically, it is connected. 

So the NTIA asked the community for proposals to replace the 

stewardship role for IANA, and the global multi-stakeholder community responded to the challenge. We have had hundreds of meetings in the last several months, tens of thousands of person hours 

have gone in, often overnight, since we cycle through different time 

zones for our friends in Asia, and all around the world, and I can 

tell you I have learned to keep my mic on mute after 2:00 in the 

morning. 

Our community proposals are an excellent start. I summarized 

them in my testimony. Let me give you some highlights. We are 

giving the—for the first time we are giving the community new 

powers to challenge the Board’s decisions and actions via the independent review panel that can issue binding decisions. We are allowing the community to veto bylaws changes proposed by the 

Board of Directors to veto strategic plans and budgets proposed by 

ICANN’s Board, the power to remove and individual director, and 

better still, to spill the entire Board if they are not listening to the 

community. 

Now, we assessed whether these new powers give the community 

the accountability we need in the face of stress tests, and, Chairman Walden, you indicated a certain appreciation for that in the 

first hearing. Good news, they answered quite well. We did 26 

stress tests, and the new mechanisms I have just described allow 

the community to have the powers we needed to challenge the 

Board decision and hold them accountable. But there were some 

stress tests that needed even further changes. 

Last June this Committee raised some very stressful questions of 

our own, drawing on the Dot Com Act to put together a set of requests for GAO, Government Accountability Offices, to analyze the 

risks and implications for national security in U.S. agencies. Both 

our stress tests that I talked to you about, and your third GAO 

question asked, what happens if ICANN quits the affirmation of 

commitments? That is a great question, because they can quit with 

120 days’ notice, particularly if they don’t have to stay in it to keep 

the IANA contract. So we took ICANN’s commitments in the affirmation, and the periodic reviews of the community, and have baked 

them into ICANN’s bylaws as part of the proposal we released last 

week. And earlier I said that if ICANN tried to take those commitments out of the bylaws, the community can block that change. 

Another is we channeled your second GAO question, another one 

that came from the Dot Com Act. Said, what if the Government Advisory Committee changed to majority voting for its advice that 

they give to ICANN? This would truly expand government’s power. 

9 

We said, in the working group, that changing ICANN bylaws was 

essential so that we only are obligated to seek a mutually acceptable solution to this government advice if the government advice 

came over with consensus. So let them change their voting method, 

but only consensus carries that obligation. 

Turning back to the proposals that I had earlier, we need details 

that we haven’t provided yet. We were still in draft one, and the 

entire global stakeholder community has to review what we have 

come up with, so it will not happen by September 2015 IANA deadline. The timeline I have got here—and in my testimony shows that 

your Committee’s good work on requesting GAO to start its analysis last June is really going to pay off. 

They have been at it for several months. I have had two extensive, exhausting meetings with GAO, they are asking great questions, and it would be immensely valuable to see the GAO analysis 

during the comment period we are having right now, and a second 

one this summer, that would be a more valuable form of the Dot 

Com Act than having GAO only start their analysis when we are 

finished, and after the community has already developed their proposals. So, even with the extension, we really worry that ICANN’s 

Board and management will resist the reforms that we are talking 

about, because they are tough medicine. Mr. Schaefer will address 

that in his testimony later on. 

The role of Congress in this transition could be critical. We think 

you ought to insist that NTIA require ICANN to accept and implement the final form of our proposals for new accountability as a 

condition of getting the IANA transition, and that is why my chart 

has showed them in the upper right hand corner, to accept and implement, and it will be up to NTIA to make sure that that is the 

case. We would like you to support, and encourage, and insist upon 

NTIA to do that. 

And I will conclude by saying this is, as you have indicated, our 

last chance to use the leverage that we are about to relinquish, because this driver is about to turn 18. It is time to sign over the title 

to this car, but not until we are sure that ICANN is answerable 

to the community we designed it to serve. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DelBianco follows:] 

10 


96987.001
11 


96987.002
12 


96987.003
13 


96987.004
14 


96987.005
15 


96987.006
16 


96987.007
17 


96987.008
18 


96987.009
19 


96987.010
20 


96987.011
21 


96987.012
22 


96987.013
23 


96987.014
24 


96987.015
25 


96987.016
26 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. Turn over the titlement. 

Who is paying for the insurance? That is what I want to know. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. That is the expensive part, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. That is the expense. Anybody with a teenage knew 

that. 

We are going to go now to Danielle Kehl, who is the Senior Policy 

Analyst at the New America’s Open Technology Institute. Danielle, 

we welcome you, and thank you for participating in our hearing 

today. 

STATEMENT OF DANIELLE KEHL 

Ms. KEHL. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member 

Eshoo, and members of the Subcommittee. As a researcher and active participant in global Internet governance issues, I appreciate 

the Committee’s desire to preserve a free and open Internet, and 

believe that a swift and orderly IANA transition is key to achieving 

that goal. 

While I share the Committee’s concern that if the IANA transition goes badly it could harm Internet freedom, the best way to 

prevent that outcome, and to ensure the continued stability of the 

Internet’s domain name system, is to support the ongoing process. 

The U.S. Government’s oversight role has long been a political target, an exaggerated symbol that overshadows our good intentions 

in the global Internet governance space, and it is time to step 

aside, which will ultimately help us in our ongoing efforts to prevent government overreach on other Internet governance issues. 

The first point that I would like to emphasize today is that this 

is the right time for the IANA transition to happen, and without 

unnecessary delay. The transition is long overdue, both historically 

and politically. It is the logical conclusion of the sequence that 

began in 1998, when the U.S. Government first announced that it 

would privatize the DNS, and it is a formal recognition that the 

Internet is now a truly global network. 

There is broad consensus that no single country should have exclusive jurisdiction over the Internet’s core infrastructure, and that 

the system needs to evolve in ways that benefit users all around 

the world. That is why a wide range of Internet stakeholders support the decision to complete the transition to a community-based 

non-governmental institution. As former FCC Commissioner Robert 

McDowell put it, it is time to get the government out of the Internet governance business. And we can’t forget that NTIA made it 

clear from the very beginning that this oversight role would be 

temporary. The justifications for it in 2015 are considerably weaker 

than they were in 1998. 

There is also significant evidence that if NTIA had not voluntarily decided to begin the transition, other Internet stakeholders 

would have tried to force its hand. For all these reasons, the decision last year to initiate the transition and establish a communitydrive multi-stakeholder process is the only way to ensure that the 

transition happens in such a way that it addresses both the needs 

of the global community and the interests of the U.S. Government. 

Second, the process of developing the transition and accountability proposals, as I think my colleagues on the panel will also 

say, is proceeding reasonably well. Last year, NTIA laid out five 

27 

clear principles that any transition plan must meet, and the development of this plan is receiving significant input from a wide range 

of stakeholders. Yes, the process is complex, but there is still reason to believe that when the dust settles, there will be a real community consensus about what the transition should look like, and 

that it will include appropriate safeguards to ensure the system’s 

ongoing stability. And NTIA is firmly positioned to reject any proposals that fail to meet its criteria. 

At the heart of all of this is the question of ICANN accountability. Specifically, after it is freed from U.S. Government oversight, what will prevent ICANN from taking on a global governance role far outside of its core commitments? There are important 

issues that need to resolve, including how to make sure that the 

community has the means to correct any misuses of ICANN’s 

power. But these questions are best addressed through the existing 

accountability process, whose working group recently released its 

initial draft proposal, 142 pages, for review. 

So, finally, while I share the Committee’s concern that the stakes 

are high, legislation like the Dot Com Act is not necessary, and, although surely unintentional, could actually make it substantially 

more difficult for the U.S. Government to make sure that the transition happens smoothly. Imposing a delay would appear to be an 

act of bad faith, and it will be poorly received internationally. It 

will look like an attempt to substitute the U.S. Government’s judgment for the global community’s. Preventing NTIA from completing 

the transition is also inconsistent with the previous statements 

that were mentioned in opening remarks about unanimous support 

for the multi-stakeholder Internet governance model. And, finally, 

it would play into the hands of foreign governments who seek to 

undermine the system, and strengthen their opposition to the U.S. 

on a broad range of free expression issues. 

To conclude, I think we are all in agreement that the IANA transition is a significant opportunity for the United States and for 

Internet users worldwide, and we appreciate the Committee’s engagement on this incredibly important issue. But the best way to 

ensure that it goes well, and to achieve our broader shared goal of 

protecting a free and open Internet is to let the community complete its work before deciding what the next step should be. Thank 

you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kehl follows:] 

28 


96987.017
29 


96987.018
30 


96987.019
31 


96987.020
32 


96987.021
33 


96987.022
34 


96987.023
35 


96987.024
36 

[The attachment to Ms. Kehl’s statement has been retained in 

committee files and can be found at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if16/20150513/103448/hhrg-114-if16-wstate-kehld20150513.pdf.] 


96987.025
37 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Ms. Kehl. Appreciated your comments 

and your insights. 

Go now to Audrey Plonk, who is the Director of Global Cyber Security and Internet Governance Policy for the Intel Corporation. 

Ms. Plonk, we are delighted to have you before the Committee. 

Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF AUDREY PLONK 

Ms. PLONK. Apologies. Good afternoon, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. I am Audrey Plonk, Director 

of Global Cyber Security and Internet Governance Policy at Intel. 

I am here to express Intel’s unequivocal support for the successful 

and timely transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions contract in support of the multi-stakeholder community. Intel has actively followed and participated in the transition process. 

Technology advances built on U.S. innovation have driven unprecedented economic growth in the U.S. and abroad. Intel has 

been at the center of this innovation for more than 40 years. In 

2014 Intel did $55.9 billion of business, and employed 170,000 people worldwide, 60,000 in the United States. Though Intel is incorporated here, our presence, impact, and revenues span the globe. 

I cannot stress enough the importance of trust to our current and 

future success. We have observed a trend toward diminished trust 

in the U.S. Government and U.S. companies, both at home and 

abroad. Any real or perceived failure in the transition in the form 

of an externally imposed or mandated delay will only heighten mistrust in the U.S. Government, and embolden governments threatened by a free and open Internet, to the detriment of the many 

Internet technology companies headquartered in this country. 

Intel is not a provider of domain name services, nor a registry, 

or a registrar. We are not a contracted party to ICANN. Quite simply, we design and manufacture the computing power of the Internet. Though the IANA functions are extremely important, they are 

fundamentally administrative, and involve updating and maintaining three related, but separate, registries, names, numbers, and 

protocols. 

The IANA neither makes policy, nor exercises judgment. It simply follows a mechanical process to maintain and update these registries according to explicitly defined rules. Without these functions, connected devices will not fully realize their potential to improve the lives of everyone on Earth. Today those rules are developed through multi-stakeholder processes through which all interested and affected parties participate. Much of the global debate on 

Internet governance centers on this process, and whether it is sufficient to govern the Internet going forward. 

The most widely supported alternative to multi-stakeholder governance is multi-lateral governance, in which an intergovernmental 

body, such as the United Nations, makes governance decisions. In 

this scenario, the overall influence of the United States government 

is diminished to a single vote, and the ability for direct participation from industry and civil society is largely eliminated. Again, 

any real or perceived failure in the transition emboldens hostile 

38 

governments to push this process toward the United Nations, or 

another intergovernmental body. 

Recognizing this, the U.S. Congress has consistently and publicly 

supported multi-stakeholder Internet governance, as was previously mentioned in opening statements. In 2012 Congress unanimously passed a resolution to preserve, and advance, a successful 

multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet today. And just 

last year, thanks to the foresight and leadership of this Committee, 

this policy was reaffirmed in H.R. 1580, which passed the House 

unanimously. It is Intel’s view that the transition of the IANA 

functions is, in fact, advancing multi-stakeholder governance in 

line with this stated policy. 

The transition is on an excellent path. As of today, there are four 

proposals, two complete from numbers and protocols, and two in 

draft format from names and accountability, covering all aspects of 

the transition. Most importantly, especially for this committee, and 

for congressional oversight, these proposals have been, and will 

continue to be, developed in a completely open and transparent 

fashion. Anyone with an interest can review and comment, and access the entire record of past discussion to understand how decisions were reached. 

The Internet doubles in size every 10 1⁄2 months, and has done 

so for 30 years. Technology is changing all the time. Keeping up 

with that rate of exponential growth requires all the parts of the 

Internet to be continuously improved. Not only the technical functions, but the political and policy functions as well. We can’t leave 

the politics and policies in the 20th century while the technology 

advances into the 21st. 

The transition is entering its final stages. We ask that you support allowing the names community and the accountability working 

group the time they need to arrive at a responsible and well considered outcome, recognizing that the uncomplicated proposals from 

numbers and protocols communities are complete. This approach 

reinforces the U.S. Government’s commitment to multi-stakeholder 

outcomes during this critical time for Internet evolution and Internet governance. Our collective success depends upon a global, open, 

interoperable, trustworthy, and stable Internet as a platform for 

the connected devices that Intel builds. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Plonk follows:] 

39 


96987.026
40 


96987.027
41 


96987.028
42 


96987.029
43 


96987.030
44 


96987.031
45 


96987.032
46 


96987.033
47 


96987.034
48 

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

We will go now to Mr. Matthew Shears, the Representative and 

Director of Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Project, Center for Democracy and Technology. Mr. Shears, delighted to have 

you here with us today. We look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SHEARS 

Mr. SHEARS. Thank you. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member 

Eshoo, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to testify today. CDT has been deeply involved in the IANA 

functions transition process since the announcement by NTIA over 

a year ago. We recognized, as did NTIA, and numerous other stakeholders, that this transition of stewardship over the domain name 

system was not only important in its own right, but would have 

significant consequences for international Internet governance and 

the future of open participatory stakeholder driven governance 

processes. 

I have had the pleasure of participating in the work of both the 

working group on the IANA transition of the domain names community, as well as the working group on enhancing ICANN’s accountability. The IANA transition and ICANN accountability working groups are dealing with very complex challenges. Replacing the 

oversight role of NTIA is not a simple matter, nor is changing the 

governance structure of an organization, let alone one as unique as 

ICANN. Yet the global multi-stakeholder community, comprising 

businesses, governments, the technical community, civil society, 

academia, individual users, has risen to the challenge. 

Through my work in both working groups, it has become clear 

to me that these disparate stakeholders are united by shared goals, 

the continued stability, security, and resiliency of the DNS, and an 

IANA function that continues to operate in a neutral, fully accountable and transparent manner. It is also clear that this process 

could not have proceeded without the input of this broad cross-section of the global multi-stakeholder community, and the range of 

technical, legal, and policy expertise that it brings. After many 

months of hard work, both the IANA transition and ICANN accountability proposals are now out for public comment. 

The two working groups have been working in parallel, but the 

issues they address are deeply intertwined. The working group on 

enhancing ICANN’s accountability is focused on finding ways to 

empower the ICANN community, its supporting organizations and 

advisory committees through increased oversight of ICANN processes and governance. These accountability reforms are also critical 

to the success of the IANA transition proposal. 

The current proposal for the IANA transition places the operation of IANA functions within a subsidiary of ICANN, thereby 

avoiding needing to create an external entity. In this proposal, 

ICANN will serve as the contracting entity for the IANA functions, 

and the subsidiary as the operator. It is clear that, for the proposal 

to work, ICANN, as the new IANA functions oversight body, must 

be held accountable so that it provides neutral and transparent 

oversight of the IANA functions. However, this will only be credibly 

possible with an ICANN community that is more empowered than 

it is today. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the proposed 

49 

accountability enhancements are embraced and committed to by 

ICANN and its Board, both at the time of the transition and beyond. These community powers will also guard against capture and 

mission creep. The new accountability enhancements will make 

more explicit the narrow mission and purpose of the organization, 

and will make those delineations harder to change. 

New measures, including the ability to question budgets and 

strategic plans, will be key to keeping in check what ICANN does 

and how it fulfills its role in the Internet ecosystem. The community will be able to veto changes to bylaws, ensuring that neither 

ICANN’s relationship to the IANA functions, nor these important 

accountability reforms, can be changed at the whim of the Board, 

now, or in the future. The community will be able to recall individual Board members, as well as the entire Board, making the 

Board members more directly accountable to the stakeholders that 

selected them. These powers will ensure that the leadership of 

ICANN remains responsive to the global community, and does not 

take its role in the DNS for granted. 

The IANA transition is a culmination of a long planned move to 

multi-stakeholder management to the DNS. The transition also 

supports the U.S. Government’s commitment to multistakeholderism and international Internet policy, as my colleague, 

Ms. Kehl, described. The NTIA’s role in overseeing the IANA functions has been a major point of contention over the years. It will 

be increasingly hard to credibly refute the calls for a controlling 

role for government in Internet governance if we do not complete 

a successful transition. 

To conclude, CDT expects, and indeed is working hard to ensure, 

that the global multi-stakeholder community will develop a transition proposal that satisfies NTIA’s principles and stakeholder expectations, safeguards against capture or undue influence by stakeholders, and continues to maintain the stability, security, and resiliency of the DNS. The transition proposal must be accompanied by 

governance reforms that ensure the accountability of ICANN to the 

global community, and that keep it closely tethered to its mission 

and mandate. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shears follows:] 

50 


96987.035
51 


96987.036
52 


96987.037
53 


96987.038
54 


96987.039
55 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Shears. We appreciate your coming 

over here to share those comments with us. 

We now go to Brett Schaefer, who is the Senior Research Fellow 

in International Regulatory Affairs for The Heritage Foundation. 

Mr. Schaefer, delighted to have you before the Subcommittee. 

Please go ahead with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BRETT SCHAEFER 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, other distinguished 

members of the Committee. Thank you very much for inviting me 

to testify here today. The history of the Internet is one of astounding innovation, growth, and success. A great contributing factor to 

the growth and success of the Internet is that formal governance 

and regulation has been light, and relatively non-intrusive. Since 

1998, the U.S. Government has contracted with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, to manage 

most of the technical aspects of Internet governance, including the 

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or the IANA function. This 

highly successful arrangement is about to change. 

As mentioned, in March 2014 the U.S. announced that it intended to end its historical relationship with ICANN. Although the 

timing of the announcement took many by surprise, the intent is 

consistent with longstanding U.S. policy to make management of 

the IANA fully private. This is a very important decision. When the 

U.S. Government oversight rule ends, ICANN will come under considerable pressure from a number of interested parties to adopt 

policies that they favor. It is critical that ICANN is sufficient insulted from these pressures to make independent decisions, while 

simultaneously being responsive and accountable to the broader 

multi-stakeholder community. This is a very tough line to walk. 

Failure could lead to inefficiencies, instability, partiality, and other 

problems that could result in substantial costs, and inhibit a vital 

medium for free speech and political discourse. There will be only 

one opportunity to do this, and it must be done right. 

I am happy to say that, although much work remains to be done, 

I have been immensely pleased and impressed with the commitment and progress made to date. To coordinate multi-stakeholder 

recommendations, ICANN convened community led working groups 

on stewardship and accountability to draft proposals for the transition. The working groups focused on technical aspects of the IANA 

have in particular made significant progress. The two teams focused on numbers and protocols submitted proposals in January 

that appear to have consensus support in the multi-stakeholder 

community. The third group, focused on names, has recently submitted a draft proposal for public comment. This proposal is more 

complex, and creates a new government structure within ICANN 

for the IANA. 

All three proposals would allow for separability, the ability to 

change to a different IANA functions operator if ICANN falls short 

in some way. This is a critical issue. The possibility that ICANN 

might lose the IANA contract with the U.S. Government, however 

unlikely, has provided an independent check on ICANN’s monopoly 

position. A key aspect of the stewardship discussion is focused on 

how to mirror that check after the U.S. role ends. According to 

56 

some well-informed sources, ICANN is pushing back on separability. Congress needs to pay attention to this issue and clarify its 

position. 

The accountability working group has also made great progress, 

and has submitted a draft proposal for public comment. In my 

opinion, the paramount concerns should be to ensure that, one, 

ICANN is sufficiently insulated against capture by governments or 

other narrow interests, two, ICANN’s purpose is narrowly defined 

to prevent mission creep, three, an independent review process is 

in place to adjudicate and issue binding judgments over disputes 

between ICANN and the community, and four, ICANN is responsive and accountable to the multi-stakeholder community by establishing a means to recalling the Board, individual Board members, 

approving the budget, and approving a strategic plan. As currently 

drafted, the accountability proposal addresses all of these concerns. 

However, sound ideas and intent can be thwarted by poor implementation, and we are far from the end of the process. 

The final issue I wanted to highlight is the tight timeframe. 

Under the terms of the current contract with ICANN, the U.S. 

Government will have to decide in just a few short months whether 

to allow the transition to proceed when the current contract expires 

on September 30, 2015, or whether to extend the current contract 

to allow the transition proposals to be more fully developed and/or 

implemented. As a practical matter, NTIA must have the details of 

the various proposed changes, and evidence of their implementation, well in advance of this date to make an informed decision on 

whether its conditions for the transition have been met satisfactorily. 

Looking at the hurdles that must be cleared, there is very little 

chance that this deadline will be met. NTIA administrator Lawrence Strickling and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade have both insisted, and repeatedly stated, that September 30 is not a goal or 

a—is not a—is a goal, not a deadline. In fact, there shouldn’t be 

any deadline. Congress should hold them to the fact that this transition must be done correctly, not in any particular time, or in any 

particular deadline format. Once NTIA’s contract with ICANN expires, so does its ability to ensure changes considered necessary by 

the multi-stakeholder community are approved and implemented. 

Only after an acceptable transition proposal is offered, and all the 

necessary forms to ICANN are adopted and in effect, should the 

U.S. end its current arrangement. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaefer follows:] 

57 


96987.040
58 


96987.041
59 


96987.042
60 


96987.043
61 


96987.044
62 


96987.045
63 


96987.046
64 


96987.047
65 


96987.048
66 


96987.049
67 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Schaefer, and I just want to say 

how much I agree with what you just said, and that is what my 

role certainly has been, and I think of our subcommittee here, with 

these hearings, I just want to know what it is that is going to govern this process once NTIA says, see you later, and all. And so I 

think we have an obligation, as stewards of this, to this point, to 

make sure we know what the future looks like before we just say, 

you go ahead and do it. So that has been the purpose behind all 

of our efforts, is just to find out what are the rules? 

And I want to commend those who have put so much time into 

this effort, because you have given us more and more confidence, 

with each step of the way, that you share our concerns here, and 

you are getting things locked into place where there is appropriate 

check and balance that otherwise goes away when that 60-some 

page contract is torn up. 

So my first question to each of you is do you believe the transition could and/or should occur by September of this year? And, Mr. 

Schaefer, I think you have already said no. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. That is correct. I don’t think there is any way, 

realistically, that—— 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. The transition can occur, and all these changes 

will be implemented. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Mr. Shears, yes or no? 

Mr. SHEARS. I don’t think it is likely to happen by that time, unfortunately. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Ms. Plonk? 

Ms. PLONK. I think that decision, and the plan, lies with the 

multi-stakeholder community, and not with me as an individual. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, but you get to tell us just the same. 

Do you think this can happen by September, given all the work 

you have put into this, that we are ready? 

Ms. PLONK. I think it depends on the outcome of the ICANN 

Buenos Aires meeting next month. I think we will have more information then. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, that is fair. Ms. Kehl? 

Ms. KEHL. I think it is unlikely, unfortunately, as well to happen 

by September 30, and getting it right is very important. But I also 

think the community dwill be the one that knows best how much 

time it will take to get it done right. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. Mr. DelBianco? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. The answer is no way, and the Administration 

has been very realistic about it, has already sent letters to the 

naming and the accountability group chairs 2 weeks ago, saying, 

how much time do you think you need? And I think that is appropriate. And the community is going to come back and ask for more 

time. As indicated on that chart, it is a concurrent process, it 

stretches, and there is a role for Congress throughout. There’s a 

role for—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. NTIA throughout the process. 

Though there isn’t this notion that moving that deadline—moving 

that goal out is somehow going to empower enemies of freedom and 

commerce. They already are enemies of freedom and commerce, 

68 

and any unique role for the U.S. I don’t think that we need to 

worry about providing them an excuse if we end up asking for, in 

my estimation—I have April of 2016 is about the earliest we could 

get enough implementation done, but there are others who believe 

it could take as long as into the summer of 2016. 

Mr. WALDEN. So then wouldn’t it make sense for NTIA to extend 

the contract for another year? Because, again, as I said in my testimony, they can cancel it if you get agreement, you can do that. But 

wouldn’t it make sense to extend it? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. I believe it does, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Does anybody disagree with that? Ms. Kehl? Ms. 

Plonk? Is that a yes or a no head shake? 

Ms. PLONK. I think I would just continue to say it is not—I—we 

haven’t gotten a response from NTIA’s letters to the community 

yet—— 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Ms. PLONK [continuing]. So it is not clear. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Shears? 

Mr. SHEARS. I think it is important that we understand and see 

what comes back from the community, in terms of the consultations that are out at the moment—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Mr. SHEARS [continuing]. On the two proposals. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. SHEARS. That is a key factor. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Schaefer? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I think it is very important for the NTIA to maintain its current role, at least as long as this process is still in play. 

Once the process is agreed to, and most importantly all this—all 

the necessary changes are actually implemented and verified, then 

is the time to—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. SCHAEFER [continuing]. End the current relationship. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. So, Ms. Plonk, while we acknowledge there are 

potential benefits to this transition, we also have very serious concerns about the very real risks. I think everybody has spoken to 

that. Beyond simply trusting the international community to do the 

right thing, what do you see is the best way for Congress to get 

answers to the questions, and are there ways to address the potential pitfalls? 

Ms. PLONK. Thank you for the question. I think it is a really important one, and I absolutely agree with you that there are risks, 

and potential pitfalls. Two main things. I think first we want to 

commend this Subcommittee for actively participating in the process, for attending meetings, for showing up in Busan at the Plenipotentiary Conference, and for the amount of time the Committee 

has invested to understanding that that continued investment in 

the process will be a huge impact for the outcome, so I think that 

is one. The second is to continue to conduct oversight through having hearings, like this one, as we move through the process. And 

then the final point is to ensure that what NTIA accepts at the end 

is multi-stakeholder, is what—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

69 

Ms. PLONK [continuing]. Has come out of the multi-stakeholder 

process so that Congress is supporting its longstanding position on 

multi-stakeholder governance. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. DelBianco? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You asked the question what is the best way for Congress—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. To get answers? I will give you two 

suggestions. The first is to get questions in now, as soon as possible. The GAO analysis generates questions and risks—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. Unanticipated risks and implications. And those risks, if we wait until the end of this process, Mr. 

Chairman, it will completely mess this process up. We need to hear 

about your concerns and risks this summer, over the next several 

months, and give us the opportunity to take care of your risks and 

concerns. 

And the second change is to find a way to give NTIA enough rope 

to spend time and resources answering your questions—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. For them to be the steward of getting you the answers that you need from the community, as well 

as for NTIA to assess whether the criteria are being met. It doesn’t 

help us if NTIA waits until the very end to say thumbs up, thumbs 

down. There needs to be an engagement and an involvement. 

Mr. WALDEN. See, that is what we have been after, and that 

there is after you all do your work, and the multi-stakeholder process does its work, give us a chance to at least look at it and understand it before handing the keys, the title, and the insurance payments off to the 18-year-old driver. 

With that, I thank you again for your testimony and your counsel 

along the way. Now recognize my colleague from California, Ms. 

Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Am I the 18-year-old that you are—— 

Mr. WALDEN. No, but Mr. DelBianco—— 

Ms. ESHOO. I thought you were flattering me. OK. 

Mr. WALDEN. You are—I was thinking more like—— 

Ms. ESHOO. All right. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. You know, 17. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, at least it is not a sports analogy, so—thank 

you. You are all enlightening, you really are, very, very helpful. 

Now, we have got a couple of things on the table here. You have 

described all of the work, and it is extensive work. And, as the 

Chairman said, and I join him in thanking you for the time that 

you have put in on this. I mean, this is an enormous amount of 

work that you have done, and it is productive, and it is bearing 

fruit, but we are not quite ready. And none of you think that the 

work is going to be accomplished by, what, September of this year, 

and—all right. 

Now, we have got a couple of things on the—I think three things 

here. We have the Dot Com—in it. More work has to be done, but 

you are very pleased with what is on the table so far, and that 

Congress should continue to have—to do its oversight in this. Now, 

if we get through this entire process, and, say, the Dot Com Act 

70 

is law, then you have to go back to the GAO and have them study 

what is completed, and, what, wait another year? Do you all support that? Does this make sense to you, or am I—do I have a—the 

wrong take on the legislation? I mean, it is my understanding that 

it will take—it will add another year to—to what, John? John? Let 

me just ask you—Mr. Shimkus? John? My pal—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Sit up straight. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I was listening. I was—— 

Ms. ESHOO. I will yield to you for a second. When does your year 

begin? After they finish their process? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right, but, remember, GAO is already doing a report now too. 

Ms. ESHOO. I know. So that is the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So I think the timeline would be—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Right. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You know—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Almost—parallel. 

Ms. ESHOO. But the—reclaiming my time, I mean, I think you 

just made my point. That is why I think it negates it, because if 

the GAO is doing something—anyway, tell me what you all think 

of this. Do you think that this is a good plan, this is the way to 

go forward? I mean, just quickly, yes or no. Let us start with Mr. 

DelBianco. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. The right plan is—— 

Ms. ESHOO. You are not going to be hurting anyone’s feelings. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Understood. 

Ms. ESHOO. I just want—— 

Mr. DELBIANCO. The right plan—— 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. A professional opinion. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Got it. Thank you. The right plan is to take 

those risks and implications that you have asked for from GAO, 

and surface those into the process. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. If, in fact, those risks are not addressed, it 

should not take anywhere close to a year to say, we raised these 

risks and concerns for national security—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. And for other agencies, and they 

haven’t been addressed. That could happen very quickly. But it is 

so important to happen while we are convened. If you wait for us 

to finish—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, that is my—— 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. And generate that document—— 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Very point—— 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. In won’t work. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. To get to the end, and then start all 

over again I don’t think is a good way to go. Do you have something, Ms. Kehl? 

Ms. KEHL. I would agree with that. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Ms. KEHL. I think that the important thing here is engagement 

now in the process—— 

71 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Ms. KEHL [continuing]. As it is ongoing. And that is one of the 

great things about the process, is it is a multi-stakeholder—— 

Ms. ESHOO. It is. 

Ms. KEHL [continuing]. Transparent and open—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Ms. KEHL [continuing]. Process. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Ms. KEHL. So there is the opportunity now to look at and review 

what is happening. We know a lot of the risks. The stress test that 

exists—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Go quickly. My time is running out. 

Ms. KEHL [continuing]. Is really important. 

Ms. ESHOO. So you are agreeing? 

Ms. KEHL. I would—— 

Ms. ESHOO. That is great. 

Ms. KEHL. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Ms. Plonk? 

Ms. PLONK. I also agree. I want to just also say that everything 

that is happening right now is completely transparent and open, so 

the final final that transits from the ICG to ICANN to—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Ms. PLONK [continuing]. NTIA—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Ms. PLONK [continuing]. Will not be a surprise to anyone who 

has been participating or—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Ms. PLONK [continuing]. Anyone who hasn’t. They can see everything that is happening. 

Ms. ESHOO. I want to thank Intel for everything you do in our 

region, and in my district. You are wonderful. Mr. Shears? 

Mr. SHEARS. Yes. I also agree, but I would like to emphasize that 

now is the time for us—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. SHEARS [continuing]. As Steve said, for those—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. SHEARS [continuing]. Results of that report to be revealed. 

Ms. ESHOO. And Mr. Schaefer? Yes? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I don’t think that there are two times. I think 

that Congress does have a very strong interest in this issue, and 

in the process. I think it should voice its concerns and its priorities 

during this process. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. But I also think that it should, at the end of this 

entire process, take a moment, evaluate what is the final product, 

and then make a decision as to what is going on, and whether it 

is meeting its own—— 

Ms. ESHOO. So start all over again? That is what you are saying? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I don’t think it requires a year, but I think it 

does—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well—— 

Mr. SCHAEFER [continuing]. Need to be assessed at the end of 

the—— 

72 

Ms. ESHOO. I think if we do our job, we don’t need that time. 

That is the point. If we are thorough, both on our side of the dais, 

and you on yours—let me just raise something. We have another 

issue here, and that is in the Commerce, Justice, Appropriations 

bills which was released today, ‘‘None of the funds made available 

by this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the 

NTIA with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root, zone 

file, and the Internet assigned numbers authority function.’’ So we 

have appropriators getting into this as well. 

I think that this is the subcommittee that needs to give guidance 

to all of this. We have done a deep dive on it, and we will continue 

to, because it requires it. And I am all for this subcommittee to do 

that work. And I commit myself, and I know people on our side of 

the aisle—boy, are you a distraction today, Pallone, jeez whiz. 

Anyway, listen, I forgot my train of thought, but, I think that the 

work has to keep going on. It needs to be intensive, broad, deep, 

and directed. We know what the mission is. We know what we 

need to accomplish, and Congress has to be part of that every step 

of the way. And I think if we do that, that the date that we finish 

is not the point. It will be that we did an excellent job on something that requires that kind of work. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentlelady, and just for point of clarification, that is why we are having this hearing, and why our staffs 

have been meeting. 

Ms. ESHOO. I understand. 

Mr. WALDEN. I think the original Dot Com Act, with a year deadline and all, kind of preceded all of this, and that things have 

changed. And that is why they have been talking, and we have already got the GAO audit underway, well underway—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. And so I don’t know that it needs to 

be a year at all, and I thought we—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Right. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. Communicated that. So we look forward to working together with that. I now recognize Vice-Chair of 

the Committee, is that right, Mr.—no, wait, down to the former 

Chair of the Committee, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of our witnesses 

talked about giving the driver the keys, and you talked about who 

is paying for the insurance. My question is, who is going to police 

the road? Who is going to be there when something goes wrong? 

The best of drivers are going to run a stop sign, or exceed the speed 

limit, and there are various kinds of insurance. Sometimes they 

pay, sometimes they don’t, but if you don’t have an enforcement 

mechanism, you are going to have chaos. And I have yet to hear 

this vaunted multi-stakeholder process come up with an enforcement mechanism. I have tried to think of international multi-stakeholder institutions. I can’t think of one that I think works better, 

or as well, as, and I hate to say this, but the Federal Government. 

I wouldn’t say the United Nations is a paragon of efficiency. I 

wouldn’t say the International Olympic Committee. I wouldn’t even 

say the World Bank. 

73 

So somebody on this panel enlighten me, we have got a system 

that is not broke. It is the most open, transparent process out 

there. One of you has talked about the Internet doubling every 10 

months. I have been all over the world on various congressional 

trips. The only place I have had trouble—my laptop because you 

said the Chinese government was going to bug it if I tried to turn 

it on. 

So why try to change something that, to all intents and purposes, 

is one of the best multi-stakeholder, transparent, international 

processes out there that has the benefit of having an enforcement 

mechanism behind it, which is ultimately the Federal Government? 

And I will let anybody take a crack at that. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Mr. Barton, Steve DelBianco. I think we 

misconnected on the earlier part of the testimony, but I would describe the new powers that we are proposing, because 17 years ago, 

when ICANN was set up, in their bylaws they explicitly took away 

the ability for the community to actually police them. In other 

words, a corporation has to answer to its shareholders, who can 

spill their Boards, and pass resolutions. My members of my trade 

association hold me accountable, and I think your voters and citizens probably hold you guys pretty accountable too. None of that 

has existed for 17 years in ICANN. 

Instead, the broad community has to run to run to, well, Congress, or NTIA to try to get a little leverage put on ICANN. We 

can sue ICANN, and many often do, and contract parties can take 

ICANN to court over what they are doing. I think that when you 

look at the testimony of what we have drafted so far, we are giving 

the community dramatic new powers that are more like those that 

a shareholder does, or that a voter has. And I think that is how 

we will police the road. 

Mr. BARTON. Anybody else? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Sure. Thank you. I think the first part of your 

question, the best analogy I can—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am just using what was given me. I mean—— 

Mr. SCHAEFER. No, the—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am better at sports analogies, actually. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I will actually steal from a colleague who was on 

a panel earlier today, and he says the process isn’t broken, and 

doesn’t necessarily need to be fixed. That is true, it has worked 

very well, and it has been very successful, but the toothpaste is out 

of the tube, and this was said by Phil Corwin this morning. 

And what that means is that we have entered into a process that 

can’t be reversed, and that if we try to reverse it, as mentioned by 

a couple other people on this panel, the very likely outcome is 

that—is not that we are going to have the same situation in place 

going forward, but that the oversight of ICANN and the Internet 

is going to be taken over by the ITU, or some other international 

organization, which would be a far, far less accountable, less efficient, and more susceptible inimical pressures than the current 

one. 

And so I think we are far better off having ICANN be accountable to a multi-stakeholder community, which is, in essence, everybody who uses the Internet governing ICANN directly. And if— 

until that happens, however, we need to maintain the current overVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-41 CHRIS
74 

sight structure of NTIA and the U.S. Federal Government to make 

sure that ICANN does accept, and abide by, and implement those 

measures that have been outlined by Mr. DelBianco—— 

Mr. BARTON. My time is about to—I am not opposed to this—— 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Multi-stakeholder process, but you 

take things for granted. We have created a system that is the best 

in the world. It really works. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. But you do need some enforcement mechanism 

somewhere with credibility that can step in, if they have to. And 

so far, with all respect, I don’t see that, and that is my concern. 

But maybe it is out there, and I just don’t know it. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I completely agree, Congressman, and you are 

right, it does not currently exist. That is what we are in the struggle to try and implement. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Plonk, did you want to respond? 

Ms. PLONK. I just wanted to add one thing. In addition to the 

various accountability measures that have been proposed, that I 

think are very good, and my colleague Steve has outlined in fairly 

good detail, in terms of an empowered community, how we overturn the Board, how we overturn decisions, I think all that gets to 

your question of enforcement. 

But in addition, something that has come out of this process that 

we haven’t talked about yet, is the preponderance of evidence that 

supports U.S. rule of law and incorporation in the State of California. And the various legal analyses that have been done by the 

multi-stakeholder community puts forward just how favorable the 

U.S., as a jurisdiction, is for this process. And I think the—— 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Would be helpful—if you are in the 

U.S. legal system, that is a plus. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Your Honor, if I could react to that? 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, if you do it quickly, because we have got to 

move on to Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Yes. The operational commitments required in 

8(b), that ICANN shall maintain a headquarters in California, that 

is a legal presence and a headquarters presence. That is in the affirmation of commitments, and, as I said earlier, ICANN can walk 

away from that. So we have made it our mission to move any commitments from the affirmation into the bylaws. 

It turns out that one, 8(b), is already in the bylaws. Article 18, 

Section 1 already says ICANN shall be principled offices California, 

Los Angeles, California. So it is in the bylaws, and yet the Board 

could change the bylaws. So another power we described is if the 

Board tried to change the bylaws and leave California, leave any 

legal presence, we would have—75 percent of the community votes 

could block that change. 

Now, that may not be strong enough for some of the concerns 

that I think the GAO will surface on issues like national security, 

so we may have to turn it into a fundamental bylaw, where 75 percent of the community would have to agree with it, as opposed to 

oppose it. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Mr. BARTON. Make that Houston, Texas and you have got me. 

75 

Mr. WALDEN. Wow. All right, we have got to move on to Mr. 

Pallone now, on the Democrat side. 

Mr. PALLONE. Ms. Eshoo mentioned that this morning the House 

Appropriations Committee released the Commerce, Justice, and 

Science Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2016, and the draft bill 

is designed to prevent NTIA from using appropriated funds to complete the IANA transition. She actually read that. 

So my question is, what is the impact of this language on the 

continued success of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, and do you think this language advances our interests in 

accountability and transparency into the transition process? I 

would like to ask any of you to respond to that. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. I could take a stab at it to suggest that NTIA 

operated under a rider over the past year, and, while they are not 

relinquishing anything, they are heavily engaged at ICANN, because that is what you charge them to do. NTIA is supposed to be 

at ICANN. They are at all the meetings and engaged. And on 

March the 19th we were in the middle of a hot debate with the governments over what to do about Stress Test 18. It was the first 

stress test that I articulated for you at last year’s hearing, this idea 

that the government could change to majority voting and suddenly 

be able to impose much of its will on ICANN. 

A handful of government objected to that, but our government 

stood tall, sent a very powerful letter to say that if we don’t make 

this change that we are recommending, we won’t meet the conditions of NTIA’s transfer. So instead of waiting to the end and voting no, engaged early. All it took was a little bit of a phone call 

and a nudge, and our Commerce Department stepped right up. So 

they are engaging. I don’t think it is spending any extra money, 

Mr. Pallone, because I think these are people that are on salary, 

right? But they are spending money to help us decide now to shape 

this transition, which is not the same thing as relinquishing control. So I guess it all depends on how the rider is written. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, did you want me to read it to you again? It 

says, ‘‘None of the funds made available by this Act may be used 

to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration with respect to Internet domain 

name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the 

authoritative root zone file and the Internet assigned numbers authority functions.’’ 

Mr. DELBIANCO. So it sounds as if Commerce could work as hard 

as they could to help get your questions answered and test the conditions, but they couldn’t take the final act of letting go of the contract. Is that an appropriate way to interpret it? 

Mr. PALLONE. I am asking you. I don’t know. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. I am not an expert on—— 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. I am not an expert on this. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Anybody else want to respond? 

Mr. SHEARS. If I may, I think it will be a great shame if things 

got in the way of the multi-stakeholder process and come before the 

proposal. If a proposal is ready, and there are further delays 

through other mechanism, I think that will be a shame, and that 

would really undermine the multi-stakeholder model and approach. 

76 

Mr. PALLONE. Ms. Plonk? 

Ms. PLONK. Thank you. Just to further my colleague’s comments, 

I think we would view that as an externally imposed or mandated 

delay, which, as I said in my testimony, we also believe would undermine the multi-stakeholder process. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Anyone else? 

Ms. KEHL. I would just echo that, and say that I think it is a 

lose-lose proposition in a lot of ways, because, although the intent 

may be to make sure that this transition is handled well, it will 

make it harder in some ways, I think, for NTIA. We want them to 

be very engaged in this process, and we want to send a message 

that we support it. And I think the concern about the message that 

this sends is also very important, this idea that it is some sort of 

attempt at an external delay in the process. So I don’t think it advances our interests. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Schaefer? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Actually, I think that is a—my interpretation is 

a sense of frustration on the part of Congress that its voice is not 

being heard, or perhaps being respected in the way that they want 

it to be. The NTIA has insisted that there is not a role for Congress 

here, that it has the authority to do this, and Congress has responded to that with this legislation. 

And I think the proper way to do this would be for NTIA to say 

that they are not going to make any decision without consulting 

with Congress, and involve it directly in the process, and for Congress to voice its concerns directly and clearly to the NTIA, also to 

the ICANN, and to the multi-stakeholder process what it considers 

to be vital and key priorities to resolve its concerns. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thanks. Let me just ask quickly, I know not all 

of you can respond, but I understand that ICANN will be meeting 

next month in Argentina, where many of the issues we are discussing today will be on the table. What progress are you hoping 

to see in Buenos Aires next month? If anybody wants to take a stab 

at that? 

Mr. SHEARS. We will have the results of the consultations on the 

two proposals, so there will be—have a significant input from the 

community, from the multi-stakeholder community beyond ICANN, 

and that will shape the two proposals going forward. So that will 

be two significant areas of work for us in Buenos Aires. 

Mr. PALLONE. Anybody else? Five seconds. No? All right. Thanks 

a lot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. You are welcome, of course. And I think this does 

speak to why we need to come to terms, as we are working together 

on this legislation, because of the frustration some members have. 

They will go to the—route if we don’t do our job. I am aware of 

that. So that is why we are having this hearing, and why our staffs 

have been talking about—if we can find common ground, we might 

be able to move forward with legislation that the Administration 

could support, and we could show strong support out of this Committee. 

With that, we will go to Mr. Latta, the Vice-Chair of the Committee. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks very much for 

our witnesses, again, for being here today. I tell you, this is a very, 

77 

very good hearing today, and I think it is bringing up a lot of very 

good information we have to have as we go forward as a committee, 

and as a House. 

But one of the first questions I would like to ask Mr. DelBianco, 

if I could ask of you, and there are three parts to this question, and 

the question is this. One proposal from ICANN accountability 

working group is a creation of fundamental bylaws, as a rejection 

mechanism for the multistakeholder community. Can you elaborate 

on how you think this is going to help improve accountability? And 

then maybe just following right up into this is do you think that 

this will work long term? And is there enough of a culture of accountability within the membership of the community to make this 

effective? So, really, starting with that question about the fundamental bylaws. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Latta. The bylaws that exist at 

ICANN today are all subject to change by the Board of Directors 

without any input at all from the community. They get to make the 

final decision to change bylaws. That has been unacceptable. That 

is not accountability at all. 

So the two powers that are embedded in the proposal that we 

have been discussing, the first power is that the community, with 

a 75 percent vote, can block a Board proposed bylaws change. And 

a lot of this is to make sure that we lock in the powers that we 

have, although we believe that there are certain bylaws that are 

more important than others, that are fundamental and critical. So 

for those, just flip it on its head. For those, if the Board wanted 

to change the bylaw, it is a fundamental bylaw, the community 

would have to agree by a 75 percent vote of these members. And 

we have a laid out structure on who gets to vote, and how. And 

if the community doesn’t get 75 percent agreement, the bylaw does 

not change. So one of the debates is should this California principal 

office be a fundamental bylaw, or not? It would be so helpful to get 

comments from members, and from this Committee, from the Congress, on that particular question, because it is before us over the 

next several weeks. 

You also asked if the community has a sufficient culture of accountability. The community is people like us, and we all are used 

to holding institutions accountable in our daily lives. It is when we 

go to ICANN that we sort of give all that up. So I hope that we 

can rely upon that cultural accountability that we have, and start 

to fire those engines when we start to work at ICANN, but it will 

take a few years, probably, for us to learn how to exercise the muscle of all these new powers we have designed. 

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Schaefer, let me ask you. Because this is interesting, and, as we have seen through time, and across the world, 

sometimes things don’t actually work sometimes the way we hope 

they would, especially when we are talking about the multi-stakeholders, and the oversight. And the question I am going to ask is 

this. Could there be some intimidation by certain members of other 

members that would be a problem out there that you would end up 

on an intimidation, when we are talking about trying to change bylaws, or just the functioning of the Board itself? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I am sorry, who are you addressing the question 

to? 

78 

Mr. LATTA. If you could answer that? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Sure. Anything is possible, of course. Other members can bring pressure on other Board members. But inside the 

reforms, as outlined by Mr. DelBianco, and in the accountability 

group, individual members of the Board would be susceptible to recall by their constituencies in there, and also—— 

Mr. LATTA. But suppose that some of these are more authoritarian type governments, and that is one of the things that we 

have talked about in this Committee—— 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Sure. 

Mr. LATTA [continuing]. That they wouldn’t be recalled by their 

constituency because there is no constituency. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Well, the constituencies on the ICANN Board 

aren’t representative of governments. They are representative of 

parts of the community, and various stakeholder groups, and advisory committees, so I am not exactly sure—— 

Mr. LATTA. The question that I have got, though, is can there be 

intimidation of those stakeholders out there? And there is going to 

be—it might not just be because of what we are talking about on 

the Internet, because of other things that are going on in the world, 

and a lot of things that this Committee touches that we have seen 

that can happen. But my fear is that you could have some folks out 

there that would be intimidated not by ‘‘a government’’, but by the 

stakeholders that are representing a government. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. That would require a significant amount of coordination and pressure among a great deal of people and a great 

deal of constituencies that I think would be very difficult to either 

conceal, and do so in a secretive fashion. The nature of the multistakeholder community is that it is very diverse, it encompasses a 

broad array of individuals, and organizations, and businesses, and 

so forth. And I think it would be very hard to do that, unless you 

are talking about criminal activity, and then that would be something that would be handled by law enforcement, not through the 

accountability measures established under ICANN. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentleman. Chair—— 

Mr. DOYLE [continuing]. Testimony you mentioned that for the 

proposed governance structure of IANA to work that ICANN must 

ensure it is accountable to the broader community of stakeholders. 

Have you seen ICANN take steps to empower the broader community in such a way as to enable this greater accountability, or what 

concerns still remain? 

Mr. SHEARS. One of the things that is certainly true is that this 

community, this community within ICANN, has been crying out for 

greater accountability and transparency for some time, and this 

came to a head last summer, and that was one of the reasons for 

accountability working group going forward. So the work that that 

group is doing at the moment is the work that we hope we will see 

implemented at the same time as the transition takes place. 

So, to date, I think it is fair to say, as others have said on the 

panel, that the accountability and transparency at ICANN has not 

been as good as it could have been, and at some times inadequate, 

79 

and that this is our opportunity to make sure that those changes 

are put into place. And it is essential that they are. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, and you mentioned one source of accountability 

is for the community to be able to award the IANA contract to another entity down the road. Do you see this as an effective check 

towards improving ICANN’s governance and accountability? 

Mr. SHEARS. It is an absolutely essential check, yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. Ms. Kehl, in your testimony you said that, had 

NTIA not voluntarily undertaken this transition, that other stakeholders would have moved forward. Tell us how U.S. leadership in 

this transition driven—how U.S. leadership has driven stakeholders to the table, and what will be the consequences if we have 

delays? 

Ms. KEHL. Of course, thank you for the question. So I think from 

the very beginning, actually from 1998, the U.S. has been a tremendous leader in bringing these stakeholders to the table, and 

empowering the system to work from the beginning. I think we 

saw, in October of 2013, which was what I mentioned in my testimony, the heads of the regional Internet registries, and ICANN, 

and the Internet Engineering Task Force put out a statement calling for the globalization of ICANN, and the transfer for the IANA 

function, saying it is time. 

And so I think the response the U.S. Government to say, yes, it 

is time, and we can initiate this transition was both, you know, it 

was appropriate historically, it made sense politically, and, as a result, we are in a strong position right now still to set the terms 

here. So we are a leader. We are not saying that this is going to 

be dragged from us kicking and screaming in any way. We are not 

saying that we are trying to delay it. We are saying it is time, we 

support this system, and we trust that we can figure out a way, 

working with the community, to actually make it happen. I think 

it is an incredibly powerful message for the U.S., and I think on 

the other side of that, if we don’t do that, there is this concern that 

this political target, this sort of, like, falsely clouds our good intentions, and the Internet governance space will only grow larger, 

right? 

So this idea that this is something that comes up it is—for the 

past more than a decade it comes up an Internet governance meetings, it came up in Korea, at the International Telecommunication 

Union Conference, this idea that this was a problem, and that this 

somehow privileged the U.S. role, and so it is the responsible thing 

to do to say we are going to end that, and we are going to do this 

in a manner that works for both us, and for the global Internet 

community. 

Mr. DOYLE. Would either of you like to add anything to that, Ms. 

Plonk or Mr. Shears? OK. Mr. Chairman, I will just close by saying 

that I want to keep it in Los Angeles, California, but not Houston, 

Texas. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [presiding]. Gentleman yields back his time, and 

Chair recognizes myself for 5 minutes. And it is great to have you, 

and I think we are making progress from my colleagues on the 

other side. 

I don’t think we would be in this position had the original bill 

not been dropped in the last Congress. And, in respect to the apVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-41 CHRIS
80 

propriation battle, I would argue that we wouldn’t even have that 

fight had we done a better job of working together last Congress 

to try to raise these issues, because, if you remember this whole 

debate, and Mr. Strickland was one of them, and many of you were 

there, Congress has no role. That is what your statements were, 

Congress has no role. Now today you are saying what? There is an 

important role for us to play, and we need to be involved because 

our citizens are going to ask questions. The world is a much different place now than it was in 2012. So where decisions were 

made in 2012, the world is—we are at a different place. I think 

there is less trust in the international world and community right 

now just because of world events. 

So we just represent people, OK, in our districts, we all have 

about 750,000, of what we are doing with NTIA. So as much as we 

have to respect the work that they are doing, they have to respect 

the work that we are doing. And so I want to appreciate—I do appreciate my colleagues. I think we are going to move in a process 

that—I am hopeful that we will have comfort that there is legislative—I would yield to my colleague, yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. For a few seconds. I appreciate what you said, and 

we have—Congressman Shimkus and I have worked on a lot of 

issues together very successfully over the years, so I appreciate 

what you said. I think where perhaps we weren’t totally on the 

same side was having confidence in a multi-stakeholder community, that that model could work. I don’t ever remember myself 

questioning whether Congress shouldn’t lean in, or anyone from 

our side, but that is the past. We are moving on. 

But I still think it is worth saying for the record, and we are 

going to work with you because we realize how important this is. 

And, I mean, for the amount of time that these people have invested is really glorious, and you should really be very proud of 

yourselves because I think you are the ones that have really moved 

the ball down the field, and said that to the Congress, and now the 

Congress is feeling far more confident. So thank you for yielding, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am happy to do so, and let me raise a couple 

issues. I did submit this column for the record in the opening statements, and it just raises one of the issues. And, as we go through 

this process, what are the concerns out there? And I have so many 

questions, I have been scribbling notes down through the whole 

hearing. But I guess the bottom line is, the NTIA have what their 

listed objectives are, the question will then be, what is missing, and 

your advice and counsel could be helpful, what should be added to 

give us certainty? 

For example, in the article it says, consider the importance of 

.mil, which is sponsored by the United States Department of Defense, that houses some of the secure systems and e-mail addresses 

most vital to U.S. national security. Using them would place a considerable strain on the nation’s defense. As yet, the Pentagon has 

no ongoing contractual right to it. The Department control over 

.mil is a legacy arising out of America’s invention of the World 

Wide Web. And they also mention .gov and .edu as a concern. Does 

anyone reject the premise of that statement? Mr. DelBianco? 

81 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. No, it is of vital importance. Think about what would happen. Think about the risks 

if our .mil and .gov were under attack, or redirected during an 

emergency. Maybe a coordinated attack that went after cyber structure and infrastructure. And it is particularly different for us. 

For 100 countries around the world, their .gov lives at the second 

level, .gov.ca for Canada, .gov.uk. Since it lives at that level, it is 

on a server on their soil completely under their control and law— 

is the root server, and it ought to maintain a U.S. presence for that 

reason. Now, we can get a contract with ICANN so that the U.S. 

DOD and GSA have permanent custody of those names, but that 

contract wouldn’t be worth the paper it is printed on if ICANN left 

the U.S. as a legal presence, and if the root left our shores. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and I will end on this, my time has expired. 

I will just say, I am curious to the contractual obligations, and 

NTIA’s role, and where would people go? I mean, I think we weave 

a story that people will flee. I am not sure there is any other organized structure which they would go to. So, with that, I would like 

to recognize for 5 minutes Mr. Luja AE1n for questions. 

Mr. LUJA AE1N. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and 

thank you for this important hearing today. And, Mr. Chairman, 

I just want to say this at the start, as we make this transition, we 

must make every effort to ensure that the foundational values of 

the Internet, freedom of expression, and protection from government interference, are preserved. I think that is a value that we 

all share. 

And, Ms. Plonk, as I am sure that you are aware, for years Intel 

has been an important partner in New Mexico, and we certainly 

appreciate your presence, and we are always open to opportunities 

to talk about expansion. And so I just wanted to lay that out with 

my good friend Mr. Walden, who is also here. I know that we are 

always talking about opportunities at Intel in our various states 

and our various districts as well, but we really appreciate you 

being here. 

And as important partner who shares a very important perspective with what Intel does, not only in this space, but being the only 

presence in the United States in what you do, and we have to acknowledge that. We wanted to make sure that we are doing our 

part to protect that industry, and to provide opportunities for expansion. But can you explain further why you support this transition, and how it impacts your business? 

Ms. PLONK. Thank you for the question, and for the kind remarks about Intel. We are building a new universe of connected devices, the Internet of things, wearables, what have you. All of these 

devices are not very valuable to people unless they can connect, 

and so our business interest is in seeing the Internet grow. I mentioned in my testimony the rates at which we have experienced 

growth for the last 30 years. It is going to need to continue to grow 

exponentially to meet the demands for all of the connectivity, for 

all of the devices that we are building silicon to support. 

So we are concerned that—well, we support the transition because we think that is the best path to growth, at the end of the 

day. We are concerned about anything that would deviate from the 

path toward growth of the Internet, such as fragmentation, should 

82 

countries decide to split off from a global Internet in a way that 

we couldn’t do business as easily across borders, or the benefit of 

the platform for expression, and for interoperability wouldn’t exist, 

at least in the way we know it today. All of those are huge drivers 

for not just Intel, but the IT and Internet community that, as I 

mentioned in my testimony, grew up in the United States, and to 

a large degree is headquartered here. 

So that is our fundamental business interest, so that is why we 

support the transition, and we are positive in the outlook of what 

we think is to come. All of my colleagues here have been deeply involved in the process. Mr. DelBianco has detailed out the accountability reforms. Mr. Shears has as well. So we are optimistic about 

the outlook for the future, and it is very critical to us. 

Mr. LUJA AE1N. And, Ms. Plonk, your testimony discusses the 

challenges the U.S. faces in building international support for the 

multi-stakeholder model as well. You note that some countries advocate for centralized control of the Internet, or a greater role for 

international organizations, like the UN. What would be the impact on companies like Intel if these voices were to prevail, and we 

abandoned the successful multi-stakeholder approach? 

Ms. PLONK. If we were to completely abandon the multi-stakeholder processes that we know today, I don’t know that anybody at 

this table would be able to participate going forward. A one country, one vote system, such as at the UN, doesn’t allow for direct 

participation from the private sector or civil society. We would be 

having to work through governments and national governments. 

We wouldn’t necessarily have the direct relationship that we have 

with ICANN to represent ourselves. So that is, I think, the short 

answer to the impact. 

Mr. LUJA AE1N. And I guess the follow up to that, just straight 

to the point, is, when taking into account the stakeholder international opinion, does United States advocacy for a multi-stakeholder model free of government control strengthen or weaken 

Internet access and freedom for users in states like New Mexico? 

Ms. PLONK. I think the multi-stakeholder system allows the U.S. 

Government to engage in representing the country, representing 

the people, just the way that you do here in Congress. And the 

multi-stakeholder system also allows users to represent themselves 

directly, whether that is through participation in civil society organizations, or in trade associations through their businesses, however, they have access directly, as well as through the U.S. Government representing them. 

Mr. LUJA AE1N. Thank you, and I thank you and all the witnesses for making yourself and your expertise available to us 

today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to you 

all, and it is a pleasure to be with you. Mr. DelBianco, you have 

emphasized the need to stress test various proposed ICANN reforms. I certainly agree with that, and you have not suggested such 

tests for the technical operations of the domain name system. Can 

we assume that this is because they have not been tested in a real 

world setting for quite some time? 

83 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Lance. We have 26 stress tests. 

Four of them do address core naming functions, change failure, redelegation failure, compromise of DNS set credentials, as well as 

dotless domains, and innovations of that nature. But in each case, 

the proposed planning that we have talked about, the powers, give 

the community and the direct naming customers the power to do 

escalation procedures on failures, as well as the ability for us to 

challenge decisions that were made, or inaction of ICANN. 

So the proposed community powers enable what we need there, 

but beyond that, we had no call to do stress testing of the underlying technical operation at the core of the Internet, because tech 

services at that level, those companies, they have actually been 

doing it for decades with—and they are tested every single day, I 

think, with stress tests of real world operation. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Ms. Plonk, you are nodding your head. 

I would certainly be interested in your comments. 

Ms. PLONK. Accountability over ICANN itself. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. To the panel in general, whoever would 

like to respond, in your experience, what is the international perception of the U.S.’s role in the operations and oversight of the 

Internet? Is there a solution that is acceptable to the international 

community without risking the future of the Internet? Mr. Shears? 

Mr. SHEARS. Thank you. This is a wonderful question, because 

when we—— 

Mr. LANCE. I didn’t write it, the staff wrote it, so—— 

Mr. SHEARS. When we talk about the multi-stakeholder model, 

that does involve governments, so governments from different countries around the world are represented in these discussions that we 

are having, so they are fully apprised of what is happening on accountability, and they are fully apprised of what is happening on 

the IANA transition. So, yes, there is a considerable amount of support. There are, of course, the naysayers, and this is to be expected, 

but there is a considerable amount of support for the transition 

around the globe. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Others on the panel who might wish to 

comment? Yes? 

Ms. KEHL. Thank you. I would add, I think, that historically 

there has been a lot—think that the key is that, in recent years, 

the sort of erosion of the trust in whether we could continue to be 

that neutral steward, or whether we needed to be, has been quite 

effective. And so I think that is why we are at the point now where 

there isn’t a way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. We can’t 

go back on the promises that we have made. And so the solution 

that we come up with has to be one that recognizes that while, 

without sort of diminishing the important role that the U.S. Government has played, that it is time to move on. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Ms. KEHL. Thank you. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. And, Mr. Lance, I might add that the international perception comes down to how we interact, and I say we 

as Americans—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

84 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. Because on every working group, at 

every ICANN meeting, there are, more often than not, more Americans than any other group. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Sometimes Americans might be more than the 

rest put together because—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. Countries don’t have the same kind 

of presence of companies like Intel. So there is a dominant presence 

of Americans, and we conduct our business at ICANN primarily in 

English. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. The second is there is a precedent here. The 

laws of the State of California have served us very well. And while 

others from around the world chafe when we talk about maintaining the fundamental bylaw for California presence, it is not as if 

anybody has stepped up with a better idea, and a better place to 

take it. So there is a grudging acknowledgement that we built it, 

and have an awfully good system in place, but it kind of bothers 

them that we are probably more dominant than we otherwise 

should be. 

Mr. LANCE. Well, thank you very much, and California is a great 

state. I yield back 17 seconds. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair recognize 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all 

of you being here and spending some time with us today, and I 

know you will be ready to go when that time comes too. But there 

has been some debate in the multi-stakeholder community over 

whether ICANN should be permanently granted stewardship of the 

IANA functions as a condition of the transfer. It seems some believe that in order to keep ICANN accountable to the community, 

there should be some mechanism to replace them. Mr. Shears, 

what are your arguments being made in regards to this issue? 

Mr. SHEARS. Yes, certainly CDT does not support ICANN having 

the IANA operations in perpetuity. We believe that being able to 

select another operator is a core accountability mechanism that 

keeps the IANA functions neutral, transparent, and accountable 

themselves, and that is probably one of the most important aspects, 

in terms of the package as a whole, the overall proposal. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Ms. Plonk, in your written testimony you also 

address this issue. Would you mind elaborating on it a little bit? 

Ms. PLONK. I support the comments by Mr. Shears that the ability to choose another operator through termination clauses, as is 

standard in contracts, certainly in the U.S. and in California, is 

normal, and should be a criteria for moving forward. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Does anybody else on the panel want to address 

it at all, or—yes, go ahead. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Kinzinger. I agree that we need 

to be able to reassign those IANA functions of names, protocols, 

and numbers. But when it comes to what an ICANN does, the policymaking part, it is a huge policymaking machine. It has signed 

thousands of contracts, and it has to enforce the contracts. I don’t 

think dumping that makes much sense. But what does work is if 

85 

ICANN is not doing that job well, we will dump the Board. We will 

get a new Board, rather than a new entity, to do the policymaking. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. Anybody else want to address that at all? 

Yes. 

Ms. PLONK. Just a follow-up, I appreciate Mr. DelBianco’s clarification that there is this separation between the policymaking 

function that ICANN has and the execution of the IANA functions, 

which are largely administrative. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. If I may—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Yes, please. 

Mr. SCHAEFER. One thing. In my testimony I make reference to 

an article, and several statements, by Mr. Woodcock, who is part 

of the CRISP group, and also commentary by Milton Mueller, who 

is instrumental in the stewardship process as well, and they give 

some evidence, or at least stories of ICANN resisting the separability process, and I think that is something that is, as mentioned 

on the panel, very important to the accountability and the long 

term interests of this process. 

And in that discussion, they indicated that some individuals at 

ICANN had said that Congress was opposed to separability as part 

of this process. If that is the case, and we don’t know whether it 

is or not. This is, again, a story, Congress should, I think, step forward and clarify whether it is or whether it is not opposed to this 

as part of the process. And I think, based on what I have seen and 

what I have heard in discussions that Congress is indeed not opposed to this, and in many cases is supportive of this process, and 

should state so. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And one proposal from ICANN accountability 

working group is to significantly change the appeals process for 

ICANN review. Can any of you elaborate on whether or how you 

think this will help improve accountability, and is there a better 

or more effective way of achieving the goal of accountability? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Mr. Kinzinger, it is just one of the new powers 

we are granting, but I will just focus on it, since you asked. But 

the independent review process has been pretty inaccessible for 

many aggrieved parties. It is phenomenally expensive. It is as 

much as a million dollars to hire counsel, to pay the panelists that 

are pulled together for the independent review panel. There is a 

limited scope of matters that can be taken up, and it is very difficult for a broader community of aggrieved people to have standing 

as a group. 

So we are relying upon some very smart lawyers not working for 

ICANN, but working for the community, to dramatically improve 

the independent review process. We call that the crown jewel of our 

powers. We are going to make it more accessible, and if it is the 

community that filed the independent review, ICANN will pay for 

the panelists, not the community. We wouldn’t be able to scrape 

that together. 

They have to use the standard of review that is baked into these 

newly improved bylaws, so the standard of review will be known, 

which includes a tight limitation on ICANN’s scope creep. And then 

finally, when the decision comes back from the independent review 

panel, we are seeking to ensure that it is a binding decision on 

86 

ICANN that will force them to do over a decision that the community has rejected. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I only have 10 

seconds left, so I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes 

to—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel’s testimony today as well. One of my greatest concerns with this 

transition is the susceptibility of the ICANN to manipulation by 

foreign governments. Mr. DelBianco, how will stakeholders protect 

the process from foreign governments if they continue a push for 

power or unjust control once the United States withdraws its stewardship role? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. This was one of the 

stress tests we discussed in front of your Committee last April. And 

it is a genuine concern that governments together would exert 

more influence over ICANN without actually having reached a consensus. Today the Government Advisory Committee, or GAC, G–AC, operates under its own self-imposed rule of consensus before it 

offers formal advice to ICANN. And when they offer formal advice 

at ICANN, ICANN is strongly presumed to be following the advice. 

And when it doesn’t follow the government advice, ICANN has to 

enter a period of trying to find a mutually acceptable solution with 

the Government Advisory Committee. No other advisor or stakeholder group has that kind of due deference with ICANN. I think 

it is a recognition of the power of governments. 

So many governments have said they would prefer to change to 

majority voting. It is a little messy to get consensus, and they 

would like a majority, and I have to express the concern about 

that. Sometimes there are only 60 or 70 countries at a GAC meeting. If you can scrape together 34 votes for an oppressive new policy that gets in the way of free expression, that would be bad. So 

we made a change to the bylaws as part of our proposal that we 

only have to give that due deference to the government advice if 

it is actually supported by consensus. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. DelBianco. Got it right that time. 

Next question, a number of U.S. companies, including yours, Ms. 

Plonk, have expressed support for this transition—— 

Ms. PLONK [continuing]. Process in much the same way that they 

do today, through the Government Advisory Council to ICANN, as 

well as the various communities within the United States, business, civil society, and academia will have as much, if not more, access to provide accountability for the—both the execution of the 

IANA functions, but also the overall policymaking role that ICANN 

has. So I view it as a very positive—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. What about congressional—— 

Ms. PLONK [continuing]. Thing for the U.S. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS [continuing]. Oversight? 

Ms. PLONK. So you will continue to have oversight over NTIA, 

and their work on this issue. If they continue to participate in the 

multi-stakeholder process, I don’t see dramatic changes in that regard. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Anyone else want to comment on that? 

87 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Bilirakis? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But we will lose the authority, or the oversight 

that we have today. I mean, it is not fair to say, it is the same 

thing. There is a definite—Mr. DelBianco? There is a definite shift. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. You are absolutely correct. A hearing like this 

would perhaps still happen post-transition, but the audience for 

your hearing is not going to be ICANN. The audience would be our 

NTIA, and we are one country’s vote among the hundreds of votes 

that are on the GAC. There is no special role anymore for the inventor—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right, and that is all the point I was trying to 

make. I will yield back to Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. PLONK. There is no voting on the GAC, though, just to make 

the point. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mister—— 

Mr. SCHAEFER. One other thing I would just emphasize, there is 

nothing stopping individual members of Congress, or Congress as 

a body, from submitting comments to various proposals, or any 

other changes through the comment process at ICANN. In fact, it 

could do so right now. And that is actually something I would think 

that Congress would be interested in engaging in during this process, while this is all going on. And that would continue to be an 

avenue in the future. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Right. Thank you very much. Mr. Shears, in the 

past some have argued that, through relinquishing or contractual 

relationship with ICANN, accountability might suffer in the transition. In your testimony you mentioned the current hybrid proposal 

separating functions and oversight. You conclude by saying this 

can work only if ICANN is held accountable to its own internal 

governance structures, and stressed the multi-stakeholder community needs to be more empowered than it is today for it all to work. 

Can you elaborate on this, and if you expect this approach to ensure accountability will be successful? 

Mr. SHEARS. Yes, thank you. So the current model that is part 

of the IANA transition does foresee that ICANN is the contractor, 

and a subsidiary of ICANN is the operator of the IANA functions. 

So in order for that to work, as I said in my testimony, it is absolutely essential that the oversight of the IANA operator is absolutely neutral, and transparent, and accountable. For that to be the 

case, it means that the community needs these additional powers 

that we are talking about. Because at the moment, those powers 

don’t exist. 

So at the end of the day, to hold ICANN true, and to ensure that 

that oversight exists over the IANA operator, we need these accountability measures that we have been talking about in this 

hearing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. Chair now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DelBianco, 

back to you. One proposal from the ICANN accountability working 

group is the incorporation of the agreements made between ICANN 

and NTIA, and the affirmation of commitments into the governing 

88 

documents of ICANN. Can you elaborate for us on whether or how 

you think this will help improve accountability? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. The affirmation of 

commitments was really an outstanding piece of work by the USA 

in 2009, and it came up with a set of principles that ICANN had 

to commit to, as well as reviews it had to commit to allow the community to perform. But these commitments were between ICANN 

and the U.S. Government. It is a bilateral agreement. It is exactly 

the kind of thing that the IANA contract was, that would be the 

next target for elimination by governments around the world who 

don’t want us to have a unique role. 

And that is why the very first stress test that I presented to this 

Committee last April was ICANN, if they were to cancel the affirmation of commitments, we would lose all of that. So this working 

group spent a good deal of time, it occupies about 15 pages in our 

proposal, of bringing over all of the relevant commitments from 

ICANN, and we improved them as we brought them over. And then 

we took a look at the reviews that are done, and gave the community more power to set who is on the review teams, to sunset old 

reviews, create new ones, and to more appropriately hold the Board 

accountable to the recommendations. So I hope that your reading 

of our proposal will concur that we have done, I think, an adequate 

job of bringing all of the key commitments from the affirmation 

into the bylaws. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. Another question for you, then. Another proposal from the ICANN accountability working group is 

greater power to the constituent communities within ICANN, particularly in regards to the group’s budget, operating plans, and bylaws. In addition, the community would be able to approve changes 

to the fundamental bylaws, and remove members of the ICANN 

Board. Can you share your thoughts on whether or how you think 

this will improve accountability? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Those five powers are simply essential, and they 

stop short of that fifth one of spilling the Board. That scene is the 

nuclear option, not the option that would operationally be very useful. But each of those interim steps are, amazingly, lacking today. 

The community has no ability to block a budget, a strat plan, no 

ability to block a Board approved bylaws change. 

And so the idea of building these powers in came very clearly to 

the community through a series of public comments that were conducted last summer, right after NTIA made this announcement. So 

it was very easy to gather a consensus of what powers the community needed, and they are all there, with the intent of being sure 

that we keep ICANN’s management and Board, which is really accountable to the fiduciary concerns of the corporation, to keep them 

from going off the rails. So I think we are going to be able to answer your question with a yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, good. Final question for you, are there 

better or more effective ways of achieving accountability that I 

haven’t talked to about here? You have got about 2 minutes to tell 

me some others, if you would like to. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. So far, and I will happily yield to other panelists, but so far the proposals are complementary. They are not competing proposals. There is a comVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-41 CHRIS
89 

plimentary set of proposals on the naming, and protocols, and numbers, and there is the accountability proposal. That is that big second blue bar. And the reason it starts a lot later than the first blue 

bar is that ICANN management Board didn’t want to admit that 

there needed to be a conversation about accountability. So a lot of 

this was over the objections of ICANN, but now we are all on 

Board, and we are all participating. 

As for other measures—if I were to start over and invent the 

next ICANN, and it is like when you ask an Irishman for directions, and he said, well, I wouldn’t start from here, it is not possible, I think, to accommodate all of the disruption it would take 

to tear up and rearrange all of the contracts that are written with 

all the registries and registrars, all of the arrangements, the policymaking, the compliance bureau. So we really don’t think we need 

to start over with a new model, with a new ICANN. We want to 

give new powers to the community to hold ICANN accountable to 

its mission. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, great. Mr. Chairman, I yield back a 

whole 46 seconds. 

Mr. OLSON [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And K-e-h-l, how do I pronounce that? 

Ms. KEHL. Like the vegetable, Kehl. 

Mr. LONG. Kehl, OK. That is what I thought it was. OK. I 

thought I heard that earlier, but I don’t always hear things correctly. But, Ms. Kehl, what if the transition doesn’t go through? 

What is the downside? 

Ms. KEHL. I think the downside, if the transition doesn’t go 

through, is the risk that there is immense pressure on this to happen in some other way without the U.S. Government’s ability to set 

the terms, right? So this idea that the wheels were in motion from 

other organizations to try to find—from other parts of the community, sorry, not other organizations, to try to make this happen. So 

to say, will we reach consensus, and try to force the U.S. Government’s hand? 

There is the risk that there have been governments that have 

tried to bring this into the International Telecommunications 

Union, which is a body of the United Nations. When I was a member of the U.S. delegation in South Korea in October, and when we 

were there, that was something that came up I think because of 

the existence of ICANN, and the ongoing process. That was not a 

serious proposal, but those proposals will be strengthened if the 

transition doesn’t go through. 

And I think the other risk—while I think this is not a nearly as 

likely one, is that you end up with the system fragmenting. You 

end up with multiple competing sources of authority because other 

people start to say, we want to take this away, and that almost 

happened in the ’90s, when—before the U.S. Government decided 

to do this. 

So that risk that it fragments, and then this system that works 

very efficiently and very well, that most people don’t even know exists, suddenly doesn’t work, right? And so that is a huge concern 

as well. I think that is a very unlikely scenario, but it is a possiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:22 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-41 CHRIS
90 

bility, if we sort of continue down—if we don’t resolve this, and we 

go down this alternative path. 

Mr. LONG. Say that again, now, on that last part? It is unlikely 

that what happened? 

Ms. KEHL. It is unlikely that the system would fragment, that 

you would end up with multiple competing sources of authority. 

But, if you did, the consequences would be incredibly significant. 

Mr. LONG. As they say, there is many a slip between the cup and 

the lip, so during this handoff, there is some chances of some pretty 

bad things happening also? 

Ms. KEHL. I think there are risks. There are risks that—again, 

that something fragmented, or that the DNS could be used, the domain name system, as leverage to impose other policies, or to expand ICANN’s role. And that is why I said the heart of this is the 

accountability process, and this idea that we have checks and balances to deal with ICANN’s authority, and also this concept of enumerating the powers, and so making it very clear that ICANN’s 

mandate is narrow, it is technical. Their job is to make sure that 

the system runs, and that it works, that it doesn’t fragment, and 

that most Internet users don’t know it exists. 

Mr. LONG. Anyone want to dispute what she said? I saw a lot of 

heads nodding in agreement. Anybody dispute what—yes, sir, Mr. 

Shears. 

Mr. SHEARS. Yes, thank you. I think one of the other things—the 

reasons why this transition is so important is because we are living 

the multi-stakeholder model right now in these working groups. We 

are living the multi-stakeholder model right now. These working 

groups are multi-stakeholder, and they are working very well. For 

the transition not to occur would undermine that commitment that 

the U.S. Government has to multi-stakeholder model, and international Internet policy issues, and I think that would be a damaging blow to the legitimacy of the model as a whole. So that is 

another consequence of this transition not going ahead. 

Mr. LONG. Mr. Schaefer? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I agree with the assessment there. There has 

been a concerted effort by a number of countries to try and shift 

authority away from the United States and ICANN into the international model, the multi-lateral model, ITU or other forms, over 

years. The U.S. has successfully pushed those back. The expectation now is so high that it is very unlikely that we can get away 

with not proceeding down the path toward the transition to our private sector overseeing, or withdraw from the U.S. oversight of 

ICANN. 

But one thing I will say is that we need to be very careful not 

to go down and agree to a transition proposal that is substandard 

just because we fear something else worse might come along. I 

think the United States needs to be very clear about what is and 

what is not acceptable, and hold to that line, because a substandard proposal could be just as bad as the other—— 

Mr. LONG. Well, shouldn’t .mil, .gov, shouldn’t those be exclusive, 

perpetual, and at no cost? Are we going to be able to do that? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. DelBianco talked about that a little bit earlier. I believe that the United States should make, condition on the 

transition, its exclusive ownership of those two TDLs. 

91 

Mr. LONG. You believe what now? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. That the United States should make, as a condition of the transfer, its ownership of those two—— 

Mr. LONG. Yes, I heard what Mr. DelBianco said earlier, but I 

just wanted to kind of figure out how to tie it into what you were 

saying. So, with that, I don’t have any time to yield back, but if 

I did, I would. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been interesting, 

as we have kind of deep dived this issue, to jump in. This would 

be your chance to take an extra 4 minutes as we are summing to 

see if, on the record, you would like to bring something up that we 

in Congress should be concerned about, worried about, or should 

take action on. So why don’t we maybe start with Mr. DelBianco, 

and see if you have got something to add here as we conclude? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. One of the concerns is keeping ICANN to its 

limited technical mission. So we have proposed a change to their 

fundamental bylaws to say that ‘‘ICANN shall not undertake any 

other mission not specifically authorized in these bylaws.’’ So it is 

a much tighter rein to put on it. And the importance of that making it through cannot be understated. We need to be sure that 

ICANN will accept and implement that change, and not mince 

words—— 

Mr. COLLINS. But who takes the leadership role to make sure 

that happens? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. That is a great question, because that role is 

going to end up falling to the community first, to NTIA, who will 

basically say whether they support the community transition plan 

that is up here. And that is why we said to this Committee, do your 

best to support and encourage that NTIA consistent—— 

Mr. COLLINS. So, to some extent, NTIA has a veto today that is 

the ultimate arbiter of this? They have got a veto, and they—— 

Mr. DELBIANCO. For the last time. 

Mr. COLLINS. For the last time? So they need to make sure they 

exercise that, and the community needs to make sure we in Congress know if there is something that is about to—— 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Secretary Strickley says all the time that it 

would be a failure of the entire process if we ended up having a 

veto. Just like I said to Representative Shimkus, it would be a failure if GAO studied it, and came back and said, this will never 

work. We have to be engaged now. And NTIA is, and, thankfully, 

Congress is as well. By engaging early, there is no risk that we get 

to the end of the road and say, this fails. 

Mr. COLLINS. Right, but it is our failsafe, if you will. Would anyone else like to comment here, as we are closing out? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I would like to—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. SCHAEFER [continuing]. Things. One, I just can’t emphasize 

enough that it is important that these changes be implemented before the transition. The leverage leaves once that transition occurs, 

and NTIA no longer is in the position that it currently is in. And, 

second, on the accountability track, there are two what they are 

calling work streams. There is work stream one, which there are— 

92 

the changes that they deem are so important they need to be in 

place before the transition occurs. That—there is also work stream 

two, which are deemed to be important, but not necessarily important enough to be in place before the transition occurs. 

Work stream two still has a lot of important things in there, and 

there needs to be a great deal of assurances from ICANN, and from 

the multi-stakeholder community, through this process that those 

work stream two items will not be forgotten once this transition—— 

Mr. COLLINS. So what is the timing? If you were to say, you 

know, there is not a date certain, a time certain, is there? I mean, 

so the clock is kind of ticking, but when do you see this reaching 

some endpoint? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. You know, first crack, as the chart I put up 

there showed, early next spring would be the earliest, and it might 

go as long as late next summer into next autumn. 

Mr. COLLINS. But we are talking about within a year? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Yes, sir. And I should answer, with respect to 

work stream one and two, the community believes that, this is in 

response to what Brett said, we aim to give the community sufficient powers in work stream one so that the Board management 

cannot block the implementation of our work stream two items. So 

if we have the powers we have described to you—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. 

Mr. DELBIANCO [continuing]. And we get to work stream two, not 

even 2017, and the Board is not going to concede, that is when we 

start invoking powers like spilling the Board, challenging their decisions. 

Mr. COLLINS. And who sets the Board? Are there going to be 20 

people on the Board, and who picks them? I know how shareholders work in private corporations. This is a little bit more confusing than that. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. The Board is a—well, it is kind of an interesting 

and complex structure. There is a Board member that is appointed 

by a technical community. There are two Board members that are 

appointed by the generic name supporting organization. We have 

the country code organizations, security stability advisory committee, the root server committee. The governments have a nonvoting Board member. There is the nominating committee—— 

Mr. COLLINS. So are we talking about 30, 40 people, 100 people? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. 20ish. 

Mr. COLLINS. 20ish people, and they could be replaced, I am assuming, by the nominating group? Does the NTIA get to put two 

people on, or nothing? Interesting. Well, I guess I have 3 seconds 

left or so, so I will yield that back, and thank the panelists for your 

dedication to this issue, which is pretty deep in the weeds, but a 

very important thing. So, yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. The Chairman has 5 

hours of questioning. Good, you are paying attention. 5 minutes. 

I want to sum up. Pretty clear that back home people are more 

concerned about what will happen if some foreign government that 

is hostile to our nation takes over the role played by ICANN right 

now. I am a former Naval aviator, so we plan the worst case scenario, what bad could really happen. So, if bad things happen after 

93 

this transition occurs, what is our recourse? What can we do to 

stop this from happening in the future? 

If ICANN goes into effect, all of a sudden some bad actors take 

over, can we stop it? Can we recover? Because that is what they 

are concerned about back home. We turn it over, and it goes over 

forever. I mean, do we have some sort of breaker, some sort of 

mechanism to say—— 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Right. 

We have several stress tests about that, and it can be most easily 

summed up by saying that if the community, the people that actually use the top level domain table, the root table, believe that it 

has gone off the rails, that governments are suppressing free expression, or commerce, it will take the IANA contract away from 

ICANN and give it to someone else. And that can be done in an 

instant. The root table is small enough to fit on an index card, and 

it can be hosted by others, and replicated around the world. 

So the ability of separability, Audrey talked about this earlier, 

everyone agreed we needed that. That is our ultimate trump card 

against the scenario you described. 

Mr. OLSON. And, Ms. Plonk, you are nodding your head. Do you 

agree with that? Want to add anything, ma’am? 

Ms. PLONK. I do. I would only add that the other two communities, numbers and protocols, also have plans for how they will internally, you know, transition, if that needs to happen. 

Mr. OLSON. Ms. Kehl? 

Ms. KEHL. I would also add that I think that this idea, it is always important to remember that we are a part of the community, 

and by that I mean the panelists here, and also the U.S. Government. So we are stakeholders in this system as it goes forward, and 

I think the shared goals of planning against that worst case scenario and the goals of protecting the free and open Internet, are 

ones that are broadly shared by members of the community in the 

United States and around the world. 

And there is this really active group of civil society, of companies, 

of academia, and of governments that are dedicated to these issues, 

and they are, I think very vigilant in making sure that we avoid 

those kinds of scenarios. And so we are still a part of that community, and that is really powerful. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Shears, your comments, sir? 

Mr. SHEARS. Thank you. I would say that the measures that we 

are trying to put in place on the accountability side are designed 

to militate against capture and mission creep, and that is part of 

that process, as you say, of—what happens when things go wrong? 

We are working in a system now where, hopefully, we will put in 

place measures where that will be very slim chance of that happening. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Schaefer, your comments, sir? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I would just like to echo a statement made by Mr. 

Shears in his opening statement, about how all these issues and 

these measures are intertwined, they are inter-reliant on each 

other, and I would highly recommend against moving forward on 

one without moving forward on all of them together. 

Mr. OLSON. So you all seem—if I just want to put words in your 

mouth, you all seem to think that this is OK, it is safe, we don’t 

94 

have to worry about it. There is all sorts of checks. You don’t know 

what will happen, but if bad things happen, we can stop it, control 

it. Yes, Mr. DelBianco, Ms. Kehl, Ms. Plonk? OK. 

Well, guys, I have one last comment. I want to follow up on the 

comments by former Chairman Barton and Mr. Doyle from Pennsylvania about moving the headquarters of ICANN to another 

country. Do those options include a state that was a former country? Is that considered another country, like the Republic of Texas? 

Does that work for there? Because, again, you have got me if that 

is what is going to happen. Is that—consideration? Laughter, OK. 

Members have 5 days to submit questions for the record. Without 

objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

The Internet is one of the most vibrant and dynamic drivers of the economy—both 

here and across the globe—and this committee has made it a priority to ensure that 

it will continue to thrive unfettered well into the future. Today the subcommittee 

takes another look at the future of Internet governance and the proposed transition 

of IANA oversight from the U.S. government to the multi-stakeholder model. 

Last Congress, we advanced the DOTCOM Act as a measure intended to press 

pause before NTIA relinquishes the United States’ role in overseeing the Internet’s 

root zone functions. The U.S. has held this important responsibility for many years, 

and before we take an irreversible leap, we must carefully look at and understand 

all of the risks and consequences. Last year, we requested that the nonpartisan 

GAO examine the proposed transition and they will be releasing a report later this 

year with their findings. Thorough and honest reviews like GAO’s are critical in 

helping all parties to make the most informed decision possible. 

Today’s hearing will show there has been a great deal of work within ICANN, 

NTIA, and the multistakeholder community to come up with a workable proposal 

that will preserve Internet openness and freedom. I appreciate the effort that has 

gone into developing a solution, and look forward to hearing more about the proposal in the months to come. However, I want to strongly reiterate the need for Congress to play a role in this transition, and to serve as a watchdog as we move forward. 

We are not seeking to prevent this transition, or to delay it for the sake of delay. 

We are exercising our oversight role over NTIA and ensuring that any successor solution will fit the criteria NTIA has established for a successful transition. We’ve 

said it time and again, and it bears repeating: the future of the Internet as we know 

it is at stake if we don’t get this right. 

95 


96987.050
96 


96987.051
97 

Æ 


96987.052