Emails, Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham senior research fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation, Sept. 13, 2016

3:32 p.m.

The transition would end the US contractual relationship with ICANN, which has served as a valuable backstop to make sure that ICANN does not abuse its authority or stray from its narrow mission. If the transition happens at the end of the month, the US oversight responsibilities will in theory be replaced by the multi-stakeholder community, which includes the technical community, businesses, civil society, and governments. While this would not lead to government “control” of ICANN as would be the case in a UN body, governments will have more authority in ICANN than they do currently.   It is unclear how the more powerful role of governments will affect ICANN. It is clear that some governments, including China and Russia, prefer UN governance of the Internet. There no reason whatsoever to think that the transition will satisfy them. This will be an ongoing fight regardless of what happens at the end of the month.

Hope this helps,

Brett

Brett Schaefer

Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs

Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy

The Heritage Foundation

On Sep 13, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Selby, Gardner wrote:

Also, how will governments “have more authority in ICANN than they do currently?”

(Schaefer)

6:32 p.m

There is a section in this paper discussing the expanded authority of the GAC: http://docs.techfreedom.org/TF_White_Paper_IANA_Transition.pdf