Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, at IGF2015, the Internet Governance Forum 2015, at João Pessoa, Brazil, on November 10, 2015–as prepared for delivery–(emphasis added):
Thank you. At the outset, let me congratulate our host nation, Brazil, as the first country to have hosted two meetings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It is fitting that Brazil, with its strong tradition of supporting multistakeholder Internet governance, be the first country to earn this honor.
Over the past 10 years, the IGF has proven itself to be an indispensable platform for addressing Internet issues. I look forward each year to attending the IGF and meeting with this diverse collection of stakeholders to tackle the challenges facing the Internet. This year I am pleased to see important innovations in the IGF’s intersessional work on items such as the best practices forums and the IGF policy options document on connecting the next billion. These and other innovations will enrich the conversations this week in Brazil.
As we mark the 10-year anniversaries of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the IGF, it is important to take stock of where we have come and the challenges ahead. There is much to celebrate in how the Internet has evolved into a platform for global economic growth, innovation and free speech. The open Internet is helping the economies and societies of both developed and developing nations. Not only has it created a dynamic and growing digital economy, it has transformed just about every facet of our day-to-day lives. Every one of us has a stake in ensuring the continued growth, job formation and wealth creation that an open Internet brings.
In the United States, we attribute that success in large part to the bottom-up, multistakeholder approach to resolving technical and policy challenges facing the Internet. This is why we are such strong supporters of the IGF – one of the preeminent international examples of this approach – and have called for an extension of the IGF that is consistent with its original mandate. We are pleased that so many countries have echoed this call. If collectively, we continue to support multistakeholder Internet governance, if we make it more inclusive of developing countries and more responsive to all stakeholders, then we can truly achieve the Information Society we envisioned 10 years ago.
In the United States, we are committed to multistakeholder Internet governance, as convincingly demonstrated by our announcement in March 2014 that the U.S. government would transition its historical stewardship role over the Internet Domain Name System to the multistakeholder community. Since that time, the response from the community of technical experts, academics, civil society and industry has been inspiring. Over the past year and a half, stakeholders have worked hundreds of hours to complete a transition proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. We are hopeful the working groups will complete their work in the coming weeks.
This work is tiring; sometimes contentious; perhaps exasperating. No doubt, this is not an easy task. But it is an important one. All of us should appreciate the effort and level of commitment demonstrated by all the participants in this process. Most importantly, the process is working and I am confident it will be successful. It will be a testament to the strength of the multistakeholder process when the transition is completed.
But even with the growth of international support for multistakeholder governance, there is continued cause for concern. Freedom House’s 2015 report on Internet freedom finds that Internet freedom around the world is in decline for a fifth consecutive year. More governments are censoring information from their citizens and attempting to put up barriers to the open Internet within their borders.
The growth of sophisticated malware and other cyber security threats, the need to protect the privacy of Internet users and the mounting online theft of intellectual property online have challenged governments’ ability to balance these important interests with the equally important need for openness. Governments increasingly feel compelled to do something they see as meaningful – if not outright drastic – to protect their citizens and their businesses from these threats.
Regrettably, in their attempts to do something to protect their citizens and businesses, governments sometimes rush to put up digital walls between their countries and the rest of the world, between their citizens and people abroad. In recent years, we have seen governments institute data localization laws, as well as impose limitations on data storage and data transfer.
Historically, these kinds of restrictive policies have tended to be pursued by authoritarian governments that want to try to control information and monitor the activities of their citizens. In recent years, however, even democratic countries have considered restrictions on data flows.
Such proposals do far more harm than good. Restricting data flows and competition between firms increase costs for Internet users and businesses, retard technological innovation, and may curb freedom of expression.
This assessment may seem like common sense to many of us in this room. But it is not accepted by everyone. And that is why it is imperative that we continue multistakeholder venues like the IGF. They allow us – as representatives of diverse stakeholder communities – to come together, to offer our unique perspectives, to work through our most difficult problems, and to make a case for policies and practices that encourage the development of an open and innovative Internet.
In closing, I urge all nations to step up in support of the free and open Internet and the multistakeholder process that has led to its success. If we want to maintain a vibrant and growing Internet, we must all take action to ensure that the multistakeholder approach continues to define the future of Internet governance. Thank you for listening.
Source: US Government - NTIA
Showing posts with label Larry Strickling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Larry Strickling. Show all posts
03 May 2015
Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit
Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit | NTIA:
Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling--As Prepared for Delivery--
Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling--As Prepared for Delivery--
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
Internet2 Global Summit
Washington, D.C.
April 28, 2015
I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit. Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million Recovery Act broadband grant. With this grant, Internet2 has lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network. This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2’s partnership with regional research and education networks. Several of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of learning.
However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband. My topic today is Internet governance. This is an important and timely issue for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2. As your website states, “the commercial Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2 community.” Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic community decades ago.
The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the Internet evolved, were universities: UCLA, Stanford, the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah. The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford. We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history.
New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders. As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet? Who should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like? How can we ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today?
The debate has focused on two very different choices. One choice is that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the Internet. This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that want to restrict the information available to their citizens. The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.
What do we mean by the multistakeholder model? One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.[1]”
From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize: participation and consensus decision-making.
Let me start with participation. Internet policy issues draw a much larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues. One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage all interested parties. Such parties can include industry, civil society, government, technical and academic experts and even the general public. The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. Solving, or even meaningfully discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different parties. Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative problem solving.
The second key attribute is consensus decision-making. It is important that stakeholders come together on an equal footing. The best way to ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a consensus basis. Final decisions need to reflect the views of all stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder communities involved.
Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are directly responsible for its success. Within the Obama Administration, we believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet.
There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed. Congress agrees. Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the “United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a consensus fashion.”
Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture. We are continuing to oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision making with a process limited only to governments. This debate came to a head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. At this meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control over the Internet. A majority of countries there supported greater governmental control.
However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing countries. Democracies in the developed world have long supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation. The OECD principles state, “multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet policy challenges.”
What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing countries. A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government officials, all on an equal footing with each other. At this meeting not only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and innovation.
Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve multistakeholder Internet governance. The United States achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity issues.
This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time. Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that supports the routing of all traffic to websites.
The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector. A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community. We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination continues. Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control over how the Internet is governed.
When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions that must be addressed before this transition takes place. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet.
We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security and openness of the Internet. The community is in the process of developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.
I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.
Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder discussions to design the transition plan. Others of you are no doubt wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake for you. The members of Internet2, such as universities and research institutions, depend on the free flow of information. Completing the privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progress.
Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses. Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root.
The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the multistakeholder community. All of you can play a role to ensure a good outcome. First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning process. You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition progresses. Second, stay informed on the progress of the transition. When the community completes its consensus plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition. We all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the academic community played a central role in the development of the Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future. Thank you for listening.
[1] Mueller, M.2010. Networks and States, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, at 82, quoting Karen Banks.
Internet2 Global Summit
Washington, D.C.
April 28, 2015
I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit. Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million Recovery Act broadband grant. With this grant, Internet2 has lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network. This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2’s partnership with regional research and education networks. Several of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of learning.
However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband. My topic today is Internet governance. This is an important and timely issue for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2. As your website states, “the commercial Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2 community.” Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic community decades ago.
The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the Internet evolved, were universities: UCLA, Stanford, the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah. The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford. We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history.
New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders. As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet? Who should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like? How can we ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today?
The debate has focused on two very different choices. One choice is that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the Internet. This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that want to restrict the information available to their citizens. The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.
What do we mean by the multistakeholder model? One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.[1]”
From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize: participation and consensus decision-making.
Let me start with participation. Internet policy issues draw a much larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues. One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage all interested parties. Such parties can include industry, civil society, government, technical and academic experts and even the general public. The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. Solving, or even meaningfully discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different parties. Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative problem solving.
The second key attribute is consensus decision-making. It is important that stakeholders come together on an equal footing. The best way to ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a consensus basis. Final decisions need to reflect the views of all stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder communities involved.
Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are directly responsible for its success. Within the Obama Administration, we believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet.
There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed. Congress agrees. Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the “United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a consensus fashion.”
Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture. We are continuing to oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision making with a process limited only to governments. This debate came to a head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. At this meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control over the Internet. A majority of countries there supported greater governmental control.
However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing countries. Democracies in the developed world have long supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation. The OECD principles state, “multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet policy challenges.”
What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing countries. A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government officials, all on an equal footing with each other. At this meeting not only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and innovation.
Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve multistakeholder Internet governance. The United States achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity issues.
This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time. Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that supports the routing of all traffic to websites.
The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector. A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community. We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination continues. Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control over how the Internet is governed.
When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions that must be addressed before this transition takes place. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet.
We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security and openness of the Internet. The community is in the process of developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.
I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.
Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder discussions to design the transition plan. Others of you are no doubt wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake for you. The members of Internet2, such as universities and research institutions, depend on the free flow of information. Completing the privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progress.
Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses. Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root.
The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the multistakeholder community. All of you can play a role to ensure a good outcome. First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning process. You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition progresses. Second, stay informed on the progress of the transition. When the community completes its consensus plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition. We all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the academic community played a central role in the development of the Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future. Thank you for listening.
[1] Mueller, M.2010. Networks and States, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, at 82, quoting Karen Banks.
28 January 2015
ICANN, IANA Transition, Larry Strickling, NTIA, State of the Net Conference
Remarks by Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
State of the Net Conference
Washington, DC
January 27, 2015
—As prepared for delivery—
I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you at this year’s State of the Net Conference. This conference has grown in importance in its years of existence as more and more people understand the importance of ensuring that the Internet remains a platform for innovation, free speech and economic growth.
As we previewed last January, the year turned out to be an important year for Internet governance, bookended by the NetMundial conference in Brazil in the spring and the International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference in Korea in the fall. Throughout the year, the United States remained a vocal advocate of the bottom-up, consensus-based approach to Internet governance known as the multistakeholder model. The successful outcomes at NetMundial and the Plenipotentiary demonstrate that more and more nations are joining the United States in showing their support for this model of Internet governance. They do so not because the multistakeholder model is an end in and of itself, but because it holds the greatest proven potential for promoting both innovation and inclusion.
This year promises to be another critical year for Internet governance, centering in part on efforts to complete the privatization of the Internet domain name system (DNS), currently managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This process began in 1998, when ICANN took over important technical functions related to the domain name system, known as the IANA functions, under a contract with NTIA. Last March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to transition the U.S. stewardship role over the IANA functions to the international community.
We turned to the Internet’s stakeholders to drive this transition because we believe businesses, technical experts, and civil society groups are best equipped to continue to set the future direction of the Internet. We believe this transition is critical to preserving and enhancing this model going forward. We are pleased that the community responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition plan. Stakeholders have organized two major work streams to develop the overall plan. One is focused on the specifics of the IANA functions themselves and the second is addressing questions of the overall accountability of ICANN to the global community of Internet stakeholders. Both groups are well under way—you will hear first-hand from some of the participants in the panel following my remarks—and are working according to a schedule that would deliver a transition plan to us in the summer.
Today, I would like to answer some of the questions that have arisen in recent weeks about NTIA’s role in the transition and then, to pose some questions of our own for stakeholders to consider as they continue their work to develop the plan. We do so in good faith and in appreciation of the hard work of the volunteer community engaged in these discussions
At the outset, let me address the impact of last December’s appropriations act on the transition planning process. From the day of our announcement last March, some, including members of Congress, have raised questions and concerns about the transition. We welcome their interest and acknowledge the validity of many of these concerns. We think it is important that questions about the transition be addressed and answered. We also believe that a robust, open and transparent multistakeholder process is the best vehicle for ensuring that result. Nothing in the appropriations act affects the activities of industry, civil society and the technical community to develop the transition plan we called for last March. We expect their work to continue and look forward to its conclusion.
The act does restrict NTIA from using appropriated dollars to relinquish our stewardship during fiscal year 2015 with respect to Internet domain name system functions. We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract’s current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA’s role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity.
The legislative language, however, makes it equally clear that Congress did not expect us to sit on the sidelines this year. The act imposes regular reporting requirements on NTIA to keep Congress apprised of the transition process. To meet those requirements, NTIA will actively monitor the discussions and activities within the multistakeholder community as it develops the transition plan. We will participate in meetings and discussions with ICANN, Verisign, other governments and the stakeholder community with respect to the transition. We will continue to represent the United States at the meetings of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee.
We will provide informal feedback where appropriate. We are as aware as anyone that we should not do anything that interferes with an open and participatory multistakeholder process. We support a process where all ideas are welcome and where participants are able to test fully all transition options. Nonetheless, the community should proceed as if it has only one chance to get this right. Everyone has the responsibility to participate as they deem appropriate. If, by asking questions, we can ensure that the community develops a well-thought-out plan that answers all reasonable concerns, we will do so.
I have been asked on numerous occasions: “What is the United States looking for in a plan?” I have consistently answered that we are looking for a plan that preserves ICANN as a multistakeholder organization outside of government control which the community develops through an open and transparent multistakeholder process and that has the broad support of stakeholders. No stakeholder or set of stakeholders has a veto over this process whether it be governments, industry or civil society. However, they all need to have a voice, including ICANN leaders, who are stakeholders and community representatives, in helping to inform a proposal that has broad support.
Let me repeat, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.
In addition, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. The proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet.
Now that we are more than ten months past our announcement, it is important to take stock of where this transition process stands. As I mentioned earlier, there are two parallel work streams proceeding at the moment. These work streams are directly linked, and we have repeatedly said that both tracks must be addressed before any transition takes place.
In the first track, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), representing more than a dozen Internet stakeholder communities, issued a call for proposals last fall for each of the three primary IANA functions – protocol parameters, numbering, and domain names – to be developed by the communities and parties most directly affected by each of the primary functions.
Two of the three groups have already finished their draft proposals. The Internet Engineering Task Force, which is shepherding the protocol parameter proposal, finalized and submitted its plan to the ICG on January 6. The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), which worked collaboratively in developing the numbering proposal, announced their final plan on January 15. An ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on the naming related functions released a draft proposal on December 1 and is continuing to work through the comments received in response.
We have taken a look at the December 1 proposal and the ensuing comments and discussion it has engendered. As the CWG on the naming-related functions continues its work to finalize its draft proposal, NTIA would like to offer the following questions for the stakeholders to consider:
All of these questions require resolution prior to approval of any transition plan.
The second process is addressing how to enhance ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community in the absence of the contractual relationship with NTIA. Stakeholders are working through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG - Accountability). Early reports indicate the CCWG is making significant progress on an agreement on the definition of the problem, a list of “stress tests”, and the specific short term issues that need to be addressed prior to the transition. As we have consistently stated, it is critical that this group conduct “stress testing” of proposed solutions to safeguard against future contingencies such as attempts to influence or take over ICANN – be it the Board, staff or any stakeholder group--that are not currently possible given its contract with NTIA. We also encourage this group to address questions such as how to remove or replace board members should stakeholders lose confidence in them and how to incorporate and improve current accountability tools like the reviews called for by the Affirmation of Commitments.
As both groups continue their work, it is important that the draft proposals are tested and validated. This will give confidence that any process, procedure or structure proposed actually works. It also will help facilitate NTIA’s review of the final transition proposal. Finally, the plan must be comprehensive and complete. The proposal needs to address all the functions included in the IANA contract, including management of the .int top-level domain name.
I want to reiterate again that there is no hard and fast deadline for this transition. September 2015 has been a target date because that is when the base period of our contract with ICANN expires. But this should not be seen as a deadline. If the community needs more time, we have the ability to extend the IANA functions contract for up to four years. It is up to the community to determine a timeline that works best for stakeholders as they develop a proposal that meets NTIA’s conditions, but also works.
There is a lot for stakeholders to consider. But I am confident that the community will get this right and will come out stronger at the end of the process. We all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress.
On a final note, as you can see, NTIA has a busy Internet policy agenda, both on the international front and domestically. This is challenging and exciting work. To help us deal with this work load, we have just posted openings for several positions in our Office of International Affairs and Office of Policy Analysis and Development. I encourage you to spread the word. We are looking for bright, energetic folks who are eager to tackle cutting-edge Internet policy issues.
So with that, we can get on to the panel. Thank you for listening.
source:
Remarks by Assistant Secretary Strickling at the State of the Net Conference 1/27/2015 | NTIA
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
State of the Net Conference
Washington, DC
January 27, 2015
—As prepared for delivery—
I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you at this year’s State of the Net Conference. This conference has grown in importance in its years of existence as more and more people understand the importance of ensuring that the Internet remains a platform for innovation, free speech and economic growth.
As we previewed last January, the year turned out to be an important year for Internet governance, bookended by the NetMundial conference in Brazil in the spring and the International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference in Korea in the fall. Throughout the year, the United States remained a vocal advocate of the bottom-up, consensus-based approach to Internet governance known as the multistakeholder model. The successful outcomes at NetMundial and the Plenipotentiary demonstrate that more and more nations are joining the United States in showing their support for this model of Internet governance. They do so not because the multistakeholder model is an end in and of itself, but because it holds the greatest proven potential for promoting both innovation and inclusion.
This year promises to be another critical year for Internet governance, centering in part on efforts to complete the privatization of the Internet domain name system (DNS), currently managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This process began in 1998, when ICANN took over important technical functions related to the domain name system, known as the IANA functions, under a contract with NTIA. Last March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to transition the U.S. stewardship role over the IANA functions to the international community.
We turned to the Internet’s stakeholders to drive this transition because we believe businesses, technical experts, and civil society groups are best equipped to continue to set the future direction of the Internet. We believe this transition is critical to preserving and enhancing this model going forward. We are pleased that the community responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition plan. Stakeholders have organized two major work streams to develop the overall plan. One is focused on the specifics of the IANA functions themselves and the second is addressing questions of the overall accountability of ICANN to the global community of Internet stakeholders. Both groups are well under way—you will hear first-hand from some of the participants in the panel following my remarks—and are working according to a schedule that would deliver a transition plan to us in the summer.
Today, I would like to answer some of the questions that have arisen in recent weeks about NTIA’s role in the transition and then, to pose some questions of our own for stakeholders to consider as they continue their work to develop the plan. We do so in good faith and in appreciation of the hard work of the volunteer community engaged in these discussions
At the outset, let me address the impact of last December’s appropriations act on the transition planning process. From the day of our announcement last March, some, including members of Congress, have raised questions and concerns about the transition. We welcome their interest and acknowledge the validity of many of these concerns. We think it is important that questions about the transition be addressed and answered. We also believe that a robust, open and transparent multistakeholder process is the best vehicle for ensuring that result. Nothing in the appropriations act affects the activities of industry, civil society and the technical community to develop the transition plan we called for last March. We expect their work to continue and look forward to its conclusion.
The act does restrict NTIA from using appropriated dollars to relinquish our stewardship during fiscal year 2015 with respect to Internet domain name system functions. We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract’s current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA’s role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity.
The legislative language, however, makes it equally clear that Congress did not expect us to sit on the sidelines this year. The act imposes regular reporting requirements on NTIA to keep Congress apprised of the transition process. To meet those requirements, NTIA will actively monitor the discussions and activities within the multistakeholder community as it develops the transition plan. We will participate in meetings and discussions with ICANN, Verisign, other governments and the stakeholder community with respect to the transition. We will continue to represent the United States at the meetings of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee.
We will provide informal feedback where appropriate. We are as aware as anyone that we should not do anything that interferes with an open and participatory multistakeholder process. We support a process where all ideas are welcome and where participants are able to test fully all transition options. Nonetheless, the community should proceed as if it has only one chance to get this right. Everyone has the responsibility to participate as they deem appropriate. If, by asking questions, we can ensure that the community develops a well-thought-out plan that answers all reasonable concerns, we will do so.
I have been asked on numerous occasions: “What is the United States looking for in a plan?” I have consistently answered that we are looking for a plan that preserves ICANN as a multistakeholder organization outside of government control which the community develops through an open and transparent multistakeholder process and that has the broad support of stakeholders. No stakeholder or set of stakeholders has a veto over this process whether it be governments, industry or civil society. However, they all need to have a voice, including ICANN leaders, who are stakeholders and community representatives, in helping to inform a proposal that has broad support.
Let me repeat, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.
In addition, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. The proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet.
Now that we are more than ten months past our announcement, it is important to take stock of where this transition process stands. As I mentioned earlier, there are two parallel work streams proceeding at the moment. These work streams are directly linked, and we have repeatedly said that both tracks must be addressed before any transition takes place.
In the first track, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), representing more than a dozen Internet stakeholder communities, issued a call for proposals last fall for each of the three primary IANA functions – protocol parameters, numbering, and domain names – to be developed by the communities and parties most directly affected by each of the primary functions.
Two of the three groups have already finished their draft proposals. The Internet Engineering Task Force, which is shepherding the protocol parameter proposal, finalized and submitted its plan to the ICG on January 6. The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), which worked collaboratively in developing the numbering proposal, announced their final plan on January 15. An ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on the naming related functions released a draft proposal on December 1 and is continuing to work through the comments received in response.
We have taken a look at the December 1 proposal and the ensuing comments and discussion it has engendered. As the CWG on the naming-related functions continues its work to finalize its draft proposal, NTIA would like to offer the following questions for the stakeholders to consider:
- The draft proposes the creation of three or four new entities to be involved in the naming related processes. Could the creation of any new entity interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Given that the community will need to develop, implement and test new structures and processes prior to a final transition, can it get all this done in a timeframe consistent with the expectations of all stakeholders?
- Does the proposal ensure a predictable and reliable process for customers of root zone management services? Under the current system, registry operators can be confident of the timing of review and implementation of routine root zone updates. If a new committee takes up what is currently a routine procedural check, how will the community protect against processing delays and the potential for politicization of the system?
- In response to the December 1 draft, other suggestions have emerged. Are all the options and proposals being adequately considered in a manner that is fair and transparent?
- How does the proposal avoid re-creating existing concerns in a new form or creating new concerns? If the concern is the accountability of the existing system, does creating new committees and structures simply create a new set of accountability questions?
All of these questions require resolution prior to approval of any transition plan.
The second process is addressing how to enhance ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community in the absence of the contractual relationship with NTIA. Stakeholders are working through the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG - Accountability). Early reports indicate the CCWG is making significant progress on an agreement on the definition of the problem, a list of “stress tests”, and the specific short term issues that need to be addressed prior to the transition. As we have consistently stated, it is critical that this group conduct “stress testing” of proposed solutions to safeguard against future contingencies such as attempts to influence or take over ICANN – be it the Board, staff or any stakeholder group--that are not currently possible given its contract with NTIA. We also encourage this group to address questions such as how to remove or replace board members should stakeholders lose confidence in them and how to incorporate and improve current accountability tools like the reviews called for by the Affirmation of Commitments.
As both groups continue their work, it is important that the draft proposals are tested and validated. This will give confidence that any process, procedure or structure proposed actually works. It also will help facilitate NTIA’s review of the final transition proposal. Finally, the plan must be comprehensive and complete. The proposal needs to address all the functions included in the IANA contract, including management of the .int top-level domain name.
I want to reiterate again that there is no hard and fast deadline for this transition. September 2015 has been a target date because that is when the base period of our contract with ICANN expires. But this should not be seen as a deadline. If the community needs more time, we have the ability to extend the IANA functions contract for up to four years. It is up to the community to determine a timeline that works best for stakeholders as they develop a proposal that meets NTIA’s conditions, but also works.
There is a lot for stakeholders to consider. But I am confident that the community will get this right and will come out stronger at the end of the process. We all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress.
On a final note, as you can see, NTIA has a busy Internet policy agenda, both on the international front and domestically. This is challenging and exciting work. To help us deal with this work load, we have just posted openings for several positions in our Office of International Affairs and Office of Policy Analysis and Development. I encourage you to spread the word. We are looking for bright, energetic folks who are eager to tackle cutting-edge Internet policy issues.
So with that, we can get on to the panel. Thank you for listening.
source:
Remarks by Assistant Secretary Strickling at the State of the Net Conference 1/27/2015 | NTIA
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
21 October 2014
US Delegation to the ITU Plenipotentiary Trying to Prevent a Vote
Here’s how the U.S. plans to avoid a U.N. vote on the future of the Internet - The Washington Post: "The latest battle over who should run the Internet will be waged in the South Korean port city of Busan over the next three weeks. For U.S. officials headed to the United Nation's International Telecommunication Union's Plenipotentiary Conference, the goal is simple: prevent a vote... Complicating matters further is that the rest of the world isn't standing still while the U.S. team is in Busan. The head of ICANN, Fadi Chehadé, has been scampering around the globe in a bid to gain support for a proposal to create a global body to govern Internet content, including privacy and spam, while ensuring that the U.S. doesn't have an unduly dominant role in the process. Throw into the mix the potential for more disclosures about government surveillance programs, and the State Department's efforts become even more complex...." (read more at link above)
U.S. Delegation to the International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Republic of Korea:
More information: ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014, Busan, Republic of Korea
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
U.S. Delegation to the International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Republic of Korea:
- Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, is leading the U.S. delegation to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference, which takes place from October 20-November 7 in Busan, Republic of Korea. Other members of the U.S. delegation include:
- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler
- FCC Commissioner Michael O’Reilly
- ,Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva Pamela Hamamoto
- State Department Coordinator for Cyber Issues Christopher Painter
- Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Lawrence E. (Larry) Strickling
- Dr. Andy Ozment, Assistant Secretary, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, Department of Homeland Security
- Officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense.
More information: ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014, Busan, Republic of Korea
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
15 September 2014
World Economic Forum + Larry Strickling + China + Fadi Chehade?
World Economic Forum, NTIA's Larry Strickling, China, ICANN's Fadi Chehade--Internet governance politics certainly makes strange bedfellows! China's internet censorship is among the worst in the world--see video below--
Bloomberg’s Mia Saini examines the history of Alibaba’s relationship with China and United States investors weighing the risks of doing business with Alibaba. She speaks with Betty Liu on “In The Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg Sept. 12, 2014)
World Economic Forum press release - Internet Rules Should Be Made by All, Not Only by Governments: "A governments-only International Telecommunications Union conference in October may let governments set the rules of the internet and push other stakeholders to the side, US official Lawrence Strickling warned participants at the eighth Annual Meeting of the New Champions that is taking place in Tianjin, China, on 10-12 September 2014... “What has driven the internet is the absence of government in much of the process,” said Strickling, who is Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), USA. “We need to find a way to keep governments participating, but must take great care to avoid having governments take over.” China, which now accounts for one out of every five internet users worldwide, supports multistakeholder decision-making, said Lu Wei, Minister, Cyberspace Administration of the People's Republic of China. “We must seek common ground while serving our differences.” But national sovereignty must be respected. While China welcomes all internet companies, they must respect its laws, protect the national interest and safeguard the rights of consumers. “Freedom and order are twins,” he said. “But your freedom should not come at the pain of others. We need to have public security. We need to respect the laws and regulations of host countries to ensure the orderly development of the internet.” Fadi Chehade, Chief Executive Officer, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), USA, urged governments, civil society, the business community, technologists and other parties to come together. “We don’t need 15 years to finalize a treaty,” he said. “Some solutions are local, some are global. We have to accept and understand this reality.”..."Bloomberg’s Mia Saini examines the history of Alibaba’s relationship with China and United States investors weighing the risks of doing business with Alibaba. She speaks with Betty Liu on “In The Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg Sept. 12, 2014)
ref. International Telecommunications Union (ITU) conference in October
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
21 July 2014
LIVE Tuesday, Internet Governance, Steve Crocker, Larry Strickling
Replay Video Above
Who governs the Internet? A conversation on securing the multistakeholder process - Economics - AEI: ".... As the US government prepares to end its oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, how might we strengthen the multistakeholder process and ensure that rogue governments or actors do not threaten the traditional openness and innovation of the Internet? Please join AEI’s Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy for a conference to address key steps we can take, as members of the global community, to maintain a free Internet." Twitter #igfAEI --see Twitter embed below-- Live Video Replay Above
Conference Agenda - Tuesday, July 22, 2014 (all times ET): Who governs the Internet? A conversation on securing the multistakeholder process - Economics - AEI: ".... As the US government prepares to end its oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, how might we strengthen the multistakeholder process and ensure that rogue governments or actors do not threaten the traditional openness and innovation of the Internet? Please join AEI’s Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy for a conference to address key steps we can take, as members of the global community, to maintain a free Internet." Twitter #igfAEI --see Twitter embed below-- Live Video Replay Above
8:50 AM Opening Remarks: Jeffrey Eisenach, AEI
9:00 AM Conversation: Danny Sepulveda, US Department of State Interviewer: David McAuley, Bloomberg BNA
10:00 AM Panelists: Steve Crocker, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN); Steve DelBianco, NetChoice; Laura DeNardis, American University; David Gross, Wiley Rein LLP; Moderator: Shane Tews, AEI
11:00 AM Keynote Address II: Larry Strickling, National Telecommunications and Information Administration
#igfAEI Tweets
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
#igfAEI Tweets
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
09 April 2014
Letter from US Senators to NTIA's Strickling about IANA Transition
On April 2, 2014, U.S. Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and 33 of their Senate Republican colleagues sent a letter to Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Strickling, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), seeking clarification regarding the recent announcement that NTIA intends to relinquish responsibility of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global multistakeholder community. The full letter can be found here, excerpt below --
" . . . .Because this issue is so important to the future of the Internet and for the protection of American values and interests, we request expeditious responses to the following questions and requests for information about the proposed IANA transition.
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
" . . . .Because this issue is so important to the future of the Internet and for the protection of American values and interests, we request expeditious responses to the following questions and requests for information about the proposed IANA transition.
- A 2000 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office stated that “it is unclear if the Department [of Commerce] has the requisite authority” to transfer control of the IANA functions to a private entity. Please provide us with the Administration’s legal views and analysis on whether the United States Government can transition the IANA functions to another entity without an Act of Congress.
- Please explain why it is in our national interest to transition the IANA functions to the “global multistakeholder community.”
- You have stated that NTIA believes “the timing is right to start the transition process.” Why does the Administration believe now is the appropriate time to begin the transition, and what was the specific circumstance or development that led the Administration to decide to begin the transition now?
- What steps will NTIA take to ensure the process to develop a transition plan for the IANA functions is open and transparent?
- Will NTIA actively participate in the global multistakeholder process to develop a transition plan for the IANA functions, or will the Administration leave the process entirely in the hands of ICANN?
- You have stated that NTIA “will not accept a proposal that replaces NTIA’s role with a government-led or an inter-governmental solution,” but NTIA has been silent on how it will ensure the IANA functions do not end up being controlled, directly or indirectly, by a government or inter-governmental entity. What specific options are available to NTIA to prevent this from happening?
- How can the Administration guarantee the multistakeholder organization that succeeds NTIA will not subsequently transfer the IANA functions to a government or intergovernmental organization in the future, or that such successor organization will not eventually fall under the undue influence of other governments?
- NTIA asked ICANN to lead the transition process. However, ICANN has a potential self-interest in increasing its own autonomy and reducing its accountability to other entities. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that ICANN may seek to control the IANA functions on its own, without oversight from anyone else. How did NTIA determine that ICANN is the appropriate entity to lead the transition process, and how will NTIA ensure that ICANN does not inappropriately control or influence the process for its own self-interest?
- Does NTIA believe ICANN currently is sufficiently transparent and accountable in its activities, or should ICANN adopt additional transparency and accountability requirements as part of the IANA transition?
- Is it realistic to expect that an acceptable transition plan can be developed before the IANA functions contract expires on September 30, 2015? Is there another example of a similar global stakeholder transition plan being developed and approved in just 18 months?
- How will NTIA ultimately decide whether a proposed transition plan for IANA, developed by global stakeholders, is acceptable? What factors will NTIA use to determine if such a proposal supports and enhances the multistakeholder model; maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System; meets the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and maintains the openness of the Internet?
- Will NTIA also take into account American values and interests in evaluating a proposed transition plan? How?
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
02 April 2014
Congressional Hearing April 2 on ICANN, IANA, and Internet Governance, Witnesses and Testimony
Live streaming video by Ustream
Ensuring the Security, Stability, Resilience, and Freedom of the Global Internet | Energy & Commerce Committee: The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology has scheduled a hearing on Wednesday, April 2, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. EDT, in 2322 Rayburn House Office Building. The title of the hearing is “Ensuring the Security, Stability, Resilience, and Freedom of the Global Internet.” The hearing webcast will be available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/.
Hearing Notice - Background Memo
Hearing Notice - Background Memo
Witnesses - Panel I: (go to links below for each witness's testimony)
The Honorable Larry Strickling
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
Mr. Fadi Chehadé
President and CEO
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
The Honorable David A. Gross
Partner
Wiley Rein, LLP
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
Witnesses - Panel II:
Mr. Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
Ms. Carolina Rossini
Project Director, Latin American Resource Center
Internet Governance and Human Rights Program
New American Foundation
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
The Honorable Larry Strickling
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
Mr. Fadi Chehadé
President and CEO
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
The Honorable David A. Gross
Partner
Wiley Rein, LLP
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
Witnesses - Panel II:
Mr. Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
Ms. Carolina Rossini
Project Director, Latin American Resource Center
Internet Governance and Human Rights Program
New American Foundation
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
