A well-reasoned response to a poorly reasoned concern.
NTIA Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling has responded to Senator Marco Rubio and four other members of Congress who questioned plans to remove the U.S. government’s direct role in the IANA functions.
Strickling explains why the fears are unfounded, and how the new structure actually reduces the ability of governments to interfere with international internet policy. He also explains how the governance features can’t feasibly be stress tested. You can read the letter here (pdf).
It appears as a throwaway line, but I think when Strickly wrote “I understand your concerns about change,” he’s taking a bit of a punch at Rubio. He’s suggesting Rubio et al. are engaging in a bit of FUD about the transition.
Indeed, change can be scary. But politicians don’t want to be told they can’t embrace change.
Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is taking it to another level with a video that is full of falsehoods.
YamadaMedia says
ICANN peddles a lot of falsehoods Andrew. The biggest is claiming they are a “non-profit.” icann is a non-profit about as much as the NFL is a non-profit. 😀
Who agrees?
Andrew Allemann says
This isn’t ICANN peddling it.
The plan is what it is. I’ve read it and thought about it.
Internet.Domains says
In a rant of double talk, Strickling explains there is nothing to fear. Until he mentions, “Failing to follow through on the transition or unilaterally extending the contract will only embolden the authoritarian regimes that routinely advocate for government-led or intergovemmental management of the Internet via the United Nations.”…………….So based on the response, the transition is occurring so we don’t “embolden the authoritarian regimes”…..This is called appeasement.
John says
Yes, this sure looks “poorly reasoned” to me:
“OBAMA’S INTERNET ENDANGERMENT”
breitbart . com/big-government/2016/06/07/obamas-internet-endangerment/
And this:
“Dangerous Transfer: The President’s ICANN Internet Problem”
aclj . org/united-nations/dangerous-transfer-the-presidents-icann-internet-problem
And who can forget this “poorly reasoned” diatribe:
“Obama’s great internet giveaway”
thehill . com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/282761-obamas-great-internet-giveaway
AND FOR REALLY EXTRA SPECIAL CREDIT, who can forget how all along countries like China and Russia who have been pushing for this poorly reasoned transition and continually chanting the threat to “balkanize” the Internet if the US does not capitulate suddenly became “[t]he governments that oppose this transition are primarily China and Russia”:
“Cruz touts bill as ‘last chance’ to delay internet domain handoff”
thehill . com/policy/technology/282009-cruz-touting-bill-as-last-chance-to-delay-internet-domain-handoff
Andrew Allemann says
All of these are poorly reasoned. Read the transition plan and you’ll understand.
John says
Ha
Andrew Allemann says
Seriously. Read the damn thing rather than talking about something you haven’t researched.
John says
Did you read every official document pertaining to Net neutrality?
Do you need to read every document to know everything you need to know about human nature, especially when there is no real enforceable accountability or oversight?
Does it make sense to have an organization with no real oversight in charge of such a thing?
Is it so bad that the nation which invented the Internet and DNS and which happens to have kept it free and a place of liberty and opportunity retains oversight when so many other powerful nations who do not believe in such principles would seize undue influence and power at the first opportunity?
Does it guarantee that .com could never be transferred to a non-US company despite the “presumptive right of renewal” you have been mentioned in today’s posts, given the vast vested interest of US business in .com that makes it virtually the de facto US country domain even?
Does it guarantee that .gov could never be anything but the exclusive domain of US government organizations? Does it prevent ICANN from suddenly changing that if it wants?
Does it guarantee that .mil could never be anything but the exclusive domain of the US military? Does it prevent ICANN from suddenly changing that if it wants?