ICA Counsel Philip Corwin is quoted in a May 18th Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. The article, “Obama’s Bungled Internet Surrender’, was penned by L. Gordon Crovitz, whose weekly column addresses technology-related policy matters.
As the title suggests, Mr. Crovitz is not a fan of the Administration’s plan to relinquish its counterparty role on the IANA functions contract. His Op-Ed states:
President Obama’s plan to give up protection of the open Internet is wreaking havoc even though it will probably never be carried out. In anticipation of the end of U.S. stewardship, the organization the White House wants to give more power has become an abusive monopolist, refusing to be held accountable by the Internet’s stakeholders… The administration should tell Icann and the stakeholders to use the next two years to focus on creating accountability for Icann. If the White House persists in its wrongheaded idea to give up U.S. protection for the Internet, it should take the precaution of buying up ObamaInternetPlan.sucks.
The Op-Ed quotes ICA’s Counsel in regard to the .Sucks gTLD controversy and the ongoing work of ICANN stakeholders to fashion organizational accountability measures:
Judiciary chairman Bob Goodlatte says trademark holders are “being shaken down”—compelled to buy new addresses defensively to prevent their use…Mr. Goodlatte says the approval of .sucks “demonstrates the absurdity and futility of Icann’s own enforcement processes.” Instead of policing itself, Icann asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into whether the .sucks domain is abusive. Philip Corwin, a lawyer for the Internet Commerce Association, wrote on the CircleID website: “This is the equivalent of sending a message stating: ‘Dear Regulator: We have lit a fuse. Can you please tell us whether it is connected to a bomb?’ ”
Mr. Corwin told lawmakers the U.S. has been a “useful and corrective restraint on Icann” and a “first line of defense against any attempt at multilateral takeover and conversion to a government-dominated organization,” so “should exercise strong oversight in support of Icann’s stakeholders” in any transition of the contract. (Emphasis added)
An archived video of last week’s House Judiciary Committee Hearing and the full written statements of all eight witnesses is available at the Committee’s website.
Here is the five minute oral statement that the ICA’s Counsel presented at the hearing:
Oral Statement of Philip S. Corwin
Counsel, Internet Commerce Association
Before the House Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet
Regarding
“Stakeholder Perspectives on ICANN: The .Sucks Domain and Essential Steps to Guarantee Trust and Accountability in the Internet’s Operation”
May 13, 2015
Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Nadler, Subcommittee members, I‘m Philip Corwin on behalf of the Internet Commerce Association — a domain industry trade group and member of ICANN’s Business Constituency, which I represent on the GNSO Council.
I commend the Subcommittee for this hearing. Congress has a legitimate interest in an IANA transition and enhanced ICANN accountability that proceed soundly and effectively. The stakes include the security and stability of the DNS, and Internet free expression and uncensored information.
Two cliché’s are apropos today. The first is, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” The ICA consensus is that U.S. stewardship has been benign and beneficial, and that ICANN accountability should proceed on its own.
But the second is, “You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.” The NTIA’s announcement raised global expectations. Hundreds of ICANN community members have already expended thousands of hours in designing transition and accountability measures.
Therefore, Congress should not reflexively oppose the IANA transition — but should exercise strong oversight in support of ICANN’s stakeholders.
While enhanced ICANN accountability measures are overdue they will operate best only if ICANN’s Board and senior staff embrace a culture of accountability that assumes responsibility for the fallout of ICANN decisions and encompasses early consultation with the multistakeholder community that provides organizational legitimacy.
We’re some distance from that culture. The road to the NTIA’s announcement led through Montevideo and Brasilia and was paved by ICANN’s misappropriation of the Snowden disclosures. The CEO’s travels were backed by a secret September 2013 Board Resolution. Those actions were not transparent or accountable and reflected no community consultation.
ICANN’s community is on the right stewardship and accountability track. But a final package will not be ready by September 30th, much less the implementation of required pre-transition accountability measures. Therefore, NTIA should announce an IANA contract extension soon. The final package must set key community rights in tandem with ICANN accountabilities in its Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.
Turning to .Sucks, ICANN’s request that the FTC and OCA determine its legality was an abdication of responsibility rather than its embrace. ICANN had more than a year to explore and take appropriate action under multiple contract options.
There are other new TLD program issues. While the jury’s still out on ultimate success, the total number seems larger than market demand, and many TLDs are practically giving domains away which aids spammers and phishers. Major unresolved consumer protection and technical issues remain, as well as uncertainty about expending $60 million in auction fees.
The rights protection measures are working well. But any review of domain dispute procedures should set standard contracts between ICANN and arbitration providers that ensure uniform administration. ICANN must take responsibility for fair adjudication of domain disputes.
Finally, besides ensuring full satisfaction of NTIA’s principles, Congress should confirm that ICANN’s continued U.S. jurisdiction is accepted and not an “irritation” for those who would make ICANN a multilateral organization. You should also know that the transition does not mean ICANN assumption of technical operation of key Internet functions. ICANN lacks the technical capacity to do so, and is dependent on the experience and expertise of stakeholders for maintaining core functions. While the NTIA’s announcement requires stakeholders to address certain policies, there is no equivalent need to revamp DNS technical operations. Continued operational excellence will bolster the confidence of global users in the Internet’s stability, security and resilience.
I hope my testimony has been helpful and would be happy to answer your questions.