Emails, Milton L. Mueller, professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Sept. 12-13, 2016
From: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin)
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L
Subject: Urgent inquiry for a fact check in Texas
Professor Mueller:
I write because I’m fact-checking this Sept. 8 claim by Sen. Ted Cruz: “In 22 days, if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away control of the Internet to an international body akin to the United Nations.”
For our story, I am interested in how you assess the accuracy of this claim. What’s right, what’s wrong, what’s somewhere in the middle—and why?
Also, are there other authorities (perhaps in Texas) who you recommend we consult?
I appreciate your consideration.
g.
W. Gardner Selby
Reporter / News
Austin American-Statesman
PolitiFact Texas
(Mueller)
12:22 p.m.
Senator Cruz’s claim is completely false.
...
Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/
(Selby)
12:10 p.m.
Sept. 13, 2016
Hello again.
Phil Novack of Sen. Cruz’s office sent an email offering this 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.
(Mueller)
1:58 p.m.
Gardner:
Line by line below
Phil Novack of Sen. Cruz’s office sent an email offering this backup for the senator’s claim: “ICANN is an international consortium of global corporations, private organizations, and governments, including China, Russia, and Iran,
MM: Ok so they’ve backed away from the “organization akin to the UN” quite a bit. But it’s still inaccurate. ICANN is not an “international consortium” it is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of California. Participation is open to anyone, not just “global corporations.” It is not an intergovernmental organization like the UN or ITU, and was created specifically to shield the Internet from intergovernmental dominance. The governments who participate in it do so in an advisory capacity, and when they offer advice they can only do so with the consensus of all other governments in the GAC. So the implication that one or two “bad” governments can tell ICANN what to do post-transition is just wrong.
that is under contract with the United States Government to operate the Internet.
MM: False. Here the Cruz staffer shows that he really doesn’t know what ICANN does. ICANN is contracted to perform the IANA functions, not to “operate the Internet.” The claim that ICANN “operates the Internet” is ridiculous. ICANN is responsible for making policy and coordinating one specific part of the Internet, namely the domain name system. “The Internet” consists of about 50,000 different private networks worldwide who use the Internet protocols to interconnect. All of them operate their part of the Internet. All of them could bypass ICANN if they needed to or wanted to. They all use a common domain name root because it makes the system globally compatible.
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.
MM: Wrong again. The US does authorize changes to the authoritative root zone file, but the root zone file is not the “master address book” of the Internet, it is just a list of top level domain names (like .COM, .ORG or .EDU). The real numerical IP Addresses are allocated by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), not by ICANN. None of the RIRs are under contract to the US government. So have they been taken over by Russia and China etc? Obviously not.
By giving up those contracts, the United States is, in a very real sense, giving up control of the Internet.
MM: Again he confuses control of the DNS root zone with control of “the Internet.” It’s absurd. If control of ICANN gives us control of “the Internet,” why don’t we use that control to eliminate censorship in Russia, China and Iran? All the DNS root does is ensure that the domain names we use for websites and emails are globally consistent – if you type in an Iranian domain your browser knows where to find it. A lot of other aspects of Internet operations, such as routing, are completely separate from this.
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.”
MM: False Under the new bylaws adopted as part of the transition reforms, ICANN is prohibited from regulating content.
False, also because the US has never used its control of ICANN to protect freedom of speech. Not once. But it has used it to limit freedom of speech. When ICANN was set to create a .XXX top level domain in 2005, conservatives like Sen. Cruz tried to use NTIA’s control of the root to censor the domain. For a while they succeeded, until the decision was overturned by ICANN’s appeal process. The US government has also pressured domain name policy to limit free speech rights in order to shield trademark owners from criticism.
My point here is that the threat of censorship comes from governments, and the U.S. is a government.
From: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 5:00 PM
I’m in vocabulary over my head.
Novack followed up with us by saying: “This is an indisputable fact. The U.S. has ultimate control of the contents of the authoritative root zone file.” He then excerpted what he described as this 1998 agreement reached by the U.S. Department of Commerce stating, in part, that written direction from a government official shall be requested before “making or rejecting any modifications, additions or deletions to the root zone file.”
He have a solid point? I am going to need to unpack this term – root zone file.
g.
(Mueller)
5:39 p.m. (CDT)
Under the current system, the U.S. Commerce Department approves any modifications of the root zone file.
But it has outsourced the policy decisions about the content of the root zone file (RZF) to ICANN and its multistakeholder community. The US just reviews and rubber stamps what ICANN does. The transition is about ending that authority, which doesn’t do any good and could be abused to do harm.
Keep in mind, as I explained below, approving changes to the RZF is not the same as “operating the Internet,” or “controlling the Internet.”
This article we published some time ago contains a description of what the RZF is.