Emails, James Cole, senior global communications coordinator, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Sept. 12-13, 2016
12:05 p.m.
Sept. 12, 2016
Theresa Swinehart
Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives
David Conrad
Chief Technology Officer
Samantha Eisner
Deputy General Counsel
___
James Cole
2:40 p.m.
Here’s the materials you requested during our call:
· The red-lined version of the ICANN bylaws, showing the changes being made: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-bylaws-redline-20apr16-en.pdf
· Statements in support of the IANA Stewardship Transition: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-support-statements-31aug16-en.pdf
· An open letter from U.S. Business to Congress, April 21, 2016 (Updated May 23, 2016)
· U.S. Chamber Statement on NTIA Support of ICANN Transition Plan, from U.S. Chamber, June 10, 2016
· List of members of the Business Constituency:http://www.bizconst.org/bc-membership-list
· List of countries that participate in the GAC:https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Representatives
· Larry Strickling explains how the GAC operates:http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2016/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet-governance-forum-usa
And here’s a list of different articles about the Transition:
· Cutting U.S. Ties to the Net, by the LA Times Editorial Board, March 16, 2016
· How to Keep the Internet Free and Open, by Michael Chertoff and James Cartwright, June 7, 2016
· Here’s why we should go through with the IANA transition: Fully privatizing the Internet is a no-brainer by Eli Dourado, Mercatus Center, June 10, 2016
· To keep the Internet free of governmental control, Washington needs to cut its ties, by the LA Times Editorial Board, June 10, 2016
· Let the geeks rule over the Internet, by David Ignatius, Washington Post, August 2, 2016
· The U.S. is not ‘handing over’ the internet, by Andrew Sullivan, Tech Crunch, September 9, 2016
Let me know if you need any additional resources or links.
…
Best,
James
___
James Cole
3:01 p.m.
Happy to wrangle Theresa/David to get them on the phone again to discuss. There’s also this doc we published: https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions.
Let me know what works for you.
-James
From: "Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin)"
Date: Monday, September 12, 2016 at 3:50 PM
To: James Cole
Subject: FW: RELEASE: ICYMI: The Wall Street Journal's Information Age Column Echoes Cruz's Call to Save Internet Freedom
Thoughts?
From: Press, Cruz (Cruz)
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:05 AM
Subject: RELEASE: ICYMI: The Wall Street Journal's Information Age Column Echoes Cruz's Call to Save Internet Freedom
UNITED STATES SENATE
Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Cruz Press Office
Rachael Slobodien: Phil Novack
September 12, 2016
ICYMI: The Wall Street Journal’s Information Age Column Echoes Cruz’s Call to Save Internet Freedom
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Sunday, The Wall Street Journal’s ‘Information Age’ column, penned by L. Gordon Crovitz, highlighted Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) leadership in Congress to stop President Obama’s planned Internet giveaway. Crovitz detailed significant concerns about handing oversight of the Internet to authoritarian governments and cited growing support among lawmakers to save the Internet before the September 30 deadline.
Read the column in its entirety here. Excerpts are available below:
President Obama wants this to be the last month of an open, uncensored internet guaranteed by the U.S. government. His plan to end American stewardship would hand new power to authoritarian governments offended by the internet as we know it.
The good news is it appears congressional leaders have agreed to rescue the internet in time to prevent the Sept. 30 expiration of U.S. oversight. Sen. Ted Cruz, who has pushed hard against the plan since it was announced two years ago, told me last week he’s “cautiously optimistic” legislators will block it through a rider to the federal budget: “The basic proposition of keeping the internet free has united Republicans across the spectrum and should also unite Democrats with Republicans.”
Top Senate and House Republicans have signaled they will ensure U.S. oversight continues to protect the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, and its stakeholders. The leaders of the four congressional committees that oversee the internet—Sen. John Thune and Rep. Fred Upton (Commerce) and Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (Judiciary)—sent a detailed letter last week to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Attorney General Loretta Lynch: “This irreversible decision could result in a less transparent and accountable internet governance regime or provide an opportunity for an enhanced role for authoritarian nation-states.”
…
Icann’s stakeholders—developers, engineers, network operators and entrepreneurs—are free to operate an open internet because U.S. protection prevents Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and other authoritarian regimes from meddling. The Obama administration may not be comfortable with American exceptionalism, but the internet fosters free speech and innovation because it was built in the image of the U.S.
The administration has been reduced to arguing that having been promised an end to U.S. oversight, other countries will now be upset if this doesn’t happen. Too bad. Why make authoritarians happy by giving them the power to censor websites globally, including in the U.S.?
Sen. Cruz observed it was interesting that the Obama plan “doesn’t have much in the way of outspoken Democratic support,” though the Democratic platform supports the Obama handover, which the Republican platform opposes…
###
From: "Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin)"
Date: Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM
To: James Cole
Subject: More
Is the board of directors list accurate and up to date? https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors
7:12 p.m.
Yes, it is.
From: "Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin)"
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM
To: James Cole
Subject: Cruz office response
Hello again.
Phil Novack of Sen. Cruz’s office sent an email offering this as backup for the senator’s claim:
“ICANN is an international consortium of global corporations, private organizations, and governments, including China, Russia, and Iran, that is under contract with the United States Government to operate the Internet. The critical point is that under the relevant contracts, only the United States can authorize any changes to the authoritative root zone file, which is used to operate the Internet and is essentially the master address book. By giving up those contracts, the United States is, in a very real sense, giving up control of the Internet. Of course, the United States now generally lets ICANN operate the domain name system with very light oversight, but the power to be the final authority on changes to the authoritative root zone file is an extraordinary one. And giving up that authority to ICANN—which is not bound by the robust free speech protections of our First Amendment—could put the future of free speech on the Internet at risk. That’s a risk that Americans need not and should not accept.”
Thoughts?
G.
(Cole)
3:28 p.m.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Best,
James
From: "Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin)" <wgselby@statesman.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM
To: James Cole <james.cole@icann.org>
Subject: FW: Urgent inquiry for fact check of claim by Sen. Cruz
Is Kerpen correct that GAC recs sent the board can only be spurned by a supermajority? If so, how many members would that take?
From: Phil Kerpen [mailto:phil@americancommitment.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 3:34 PM
To: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) <wgselby@statesman.com>
Subject: Re: Urgent inquiry for fact check of claim by Sen. Cruz
In the context of Senator Cruz's other statements and work on this issue, we can conclude that:
1. by "control of the Internet" he means legal oversight of the IANA functions that translate Internet names to numbers, without which the World Wide Web could not function;
2. by "body akin to the United Nations," he means ICANN's 162-country Government Advisory Committee which under the new ICANN structure can only be overruled by a supermajority of the ICANN board.
Therefore I would judge Senator Cruz's statement accurate.
Suggest Berin Szoka of TechFreedom and George Landrith of Frontiers of Freedom as top experts on this issue:
Berin Szoka <bszoka@techfreedom.org>
George Landrith <gl@ff.org>
(Cole)
4:34 p.m.
Here’s our response:
Under the current model, it takes only a majority of the Board to reject GAC advice. Under the new bylaws, it would take 60% of the Board. There are 16 voting board members. That means the new bylaws require an increase in the threshold to reject GAC advice from nine to ten. By contrast, the threshold for rejecting advice from the private sector policymaking body, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), is 2/3. In the development of the transition proposal, there was a negotiation that led to the 60% compromise. In exchange, the bylaws for the first time now require the Board to consider GAC advice only when it is consensus advice; with consensus being defined as the absence of any objection. This gives the United States (and any other country) a veto on GAC advice to the Board.
The GAC provides advice to the ICANN Board only on public policy matters; the GAC is an advisory body only, and just one part of ICANN’s multistakeholder community. Other parts of the ICANN community include the Generic Names Supporting Organization, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization, the Address Supporting Organization, the At-Large Advisory Committee, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee and the Root Server Stability Advisory Committee. The GAC is but one voice, and does not have control over ICANN through its role. ICANN does not become a U.N.-like organization because it has a place where the governments in the world come together to provide non-binding advice in the organization.
Note, we disagree that it is in any way reasonable to expect the general public to understand the term “control of the Internet” in the manner in which it is described below. Using the clear, technical meaning of “control of the Internet”, Senator Cruz’s statements are false.