The WallStreetJournal.com, according to a letter in the Journal today , Commerce Department official Lawrence Strickling dismissed the importance of U.S. oversight of ICANN and said that there is no firm deadline for the U.S. to give up oversight of ICANN.
“In March the U.S. announced it would not renew its contract with ICANN next September. Mr. Strickling now says that’s not a firm deadline:
“We will not complete the transition absent an accountability plan that has the support of the community.”
In the rest of the article in the Journal continues to bash the plan in the article which quotes Philip Corwin, of the Internet Commerce Association (the ICA)
“The Obama administration is already on notice that this work will not be completed before it must decide whether to maintain U.S. stewardship of the Internet.”
“Mr. Strickling’s letter also fails to address a fundamental question: why the executive branch thinks it can act on its own. The Constitution says only Congress can transfer federal property, such as the Icann contract. The administration has not provided any legal argument to the contrary. Congress has voted unanimously to keep U.S. oversight and should block unilateral action by the White House.
“The U.S. can renew the ICANN agreement for another four years beyond September 2015.”
That would give everyone the chance to see if there is any way to protect the open Internet without U.S. stewardship. We know for sure that there will be no protection on the schedule set by the Obama administration.”
In my opinion, we already know there are a bunch of Republicans that are against the plan and with the GOP taking control of the Senate in January, it seems like its going to be a tough go to get this done in time for next September
Without getting overly political or making this about politics, I believe the United States should oversee the operations of ICANN indefinitely, regardless of which party holds the majority.
@ Mike said: “unfortunately the link to the letter is not right in the article.”
Here it is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-cause-for-alarm-on-internet-dns-letters-to-the-editor-1417979787
Here is the content of the letter:
No Cause for Alarm on Internet DNS
Internet policy decisions will continue to be made by the Internet’s stakeholders.
Dec. 7, 2014 2:16 p.m. ET
4 COMMENTS
Until now, I have refrained from responding to Gordon Crovitz’s many salvos against our proposal to finalize the privatization of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). Yet I am compelled to respond to his “Halfway to Wrecking Internet Freedom” (Information Age, Dec. 1) as it ignores the facts surrounding this transition.
Mr. Crovitz’s criticism is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. role in the DNS. No one entity controls the Internet. Policy decisions have been and will continue to be made by the Internet’s stakeholders, which include businesses, technical experts and civil society. This model is what has made the Internet an engine for innovation, free speech and economic growth. The transition will strengthen the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and will help promote Internet freedom. That is why it has the support of Internet luminaries such as Vint Cerf; tech companies such as Google, Microsoft and Verizon; and civil society groups such as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch.
I particularly object to Mr. Crovitz’s continued mischaracterization that there is a September deadline for this transition. NTIA’s current contract with Icann, which operates technical functions related to the DNS, expires on Sept. 30, 2015, but we have repeatedly stated that if the transition plan is not ready by then, we can extend the contract.
Despite Mr. Crovitz’s claims, the Internet community has been hard at work developing a multistakeholder transition plan. That does not happen overnight. Integral to this plan is a review of Icann’s accountability. We have said from the start that this accountability review must be part of the transition plan. We will not complete the transition absent an accountability plan that has the support of the community.
Contrary to Mr. Crovitz’s warning, Icann’s board is not subject to control by governments. Icann’s bylaws, not its contract with NTIA, prevent governments from holding a voting seat on the board. Moreover, Mr. Crovitz fails to mention that at the International Telecommunication Union’s plenipotentiary conference last month, governments took no action to bring the DNS under government control.
Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington
********************* End of Letter***********************************************
Comments on wsj
ALLAN BIRD
4 hours ago
There is no truth the be found in Mr. Strickling. We are assured of only one thing with this administration and those who work within it: even when say things that are factually true, the truth is in service of a lie.
By contrast, Mr. Crovitz has proven himself to be far more trustworthy.
Michael Gretchen
Michael Gretchen
10 hours ago
Another lie: “If you like your internet, you can keep your internet.”
Claude Rumsey
John East
John East
16 hours ago
We already know that lying and mischaracterization are the norm from the Obama administration. We also know that the administration disdains the very concept of American leadership. And we know that the administration likes to hide behind spin and a disingenuous flood of words. Given all that, there is one question for Strickling to answer as clearly as he is able: the current system is not broken, so why change it? Because the likes of China and Venezuela want us to? And how will the changes he wants to make be better for us and for the internet?
Claude RumseyMichael GretchenRoyal DellingerEllen Allard
KEVIN BURNS
KEVIN BURNS
22 hours ago
” I particularly object to Mr. Crovitz’s continued mischaracterization that there is a September deadline for this transition. NTIA’s current contract with Icann, which operates technical functions related to the DNS, expires on Sept. 30, 2015, but we have repeatedly stated that if the transition plan is not ready by then, we can extend the contract.”
Now we can see the logic, the current contract expires 9-30-15, Mr. Crovitz is lying when he says there is a deadline of September 2015, and “we can extend the contract” (but does not say that they will).
Obviously an Obama appointee.
I’m good at research. The link is broken, then the letter is subscription, but I googled using, site: with the address I found
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:wsj.com/articles/no-cause-for-alarm-on-internet-dns-letters-to-the-editor-1417979787
You can usually access at least one wsj article from Google directly, without the subscription notice.