*
*
*Remarks by Lawrence E. Strickling*
*Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information*
*Internet Governance Forum--USA*
* Washington, DC
July 18, 2011*
*
*
"Thank you for the opportunity to speak once again at the IGF-USA. I
want especially to thank Marilyn Cade for her work in pulling together
the third edition of this meeting and I am glad to have had the
opportunity to speak at each of these sessions.
We are at a critical time in the history of the Internet. Last month I
spoke at the Internet Society's INET meeting in New York City where the
question before the house was "What kind of Internet do I want?" I
answered that I wanted an Internet that is open, innovative, growing and
global and that continues to rely on the established global Internet
institutions for guidance and direction.
But in the last year we have seen more and more instances of
restrictions on the free flow of information online, disputes between
various standards bodies and even appeals from incumbent carriers in
Europe for government intervention on the terms and conditions for
exchanging Internet traffic. We have seen statements by international
organizations and even some governments to regulate the Internet more
directly. All of these events only strengthen my view that now is truly
a time for all to get involved who are concerned about maintaining a
vibrant and growing Internet and who want to preserve established global
Internet institutions. When we speak of global Internet institutions,
we are referring to multistakeholder organizations, like the Internet
Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C), that have played a major role in the design and
operation of the Internet.
A top priority of the Obama Administration, and in particular, NTIA, is
to preserve and enhance the multistakeholder model that has been a
hallmark feature of the global Internet institutions that have been
responsible for the success of the Internet. Maintaining the openness,
transparency, and user choice of today's Internet can only be sustained
and advanced in a world where all stakeholders participate in relevant
decision making, not one where governments, or other stakeholders,
dominate. We believe that preserving our existing institutions while
extending this model to other aspects of Internet policymaking is
important for ensuring the continued growth and innovation of the Internet.
Today, I would like to discuss some recent events where we have made
substantial progress on our goal to protect and enhance the
multistakeholder process for Internet governance.
First, many of you know that I have devoted a lot of time in speeches to
the accountability and transparency of ICANN, the multistakeholder
organization that coordinates the Domain Name System for the Internet.
Starting last year, as one of its commitments to the global Internet
community set forth in the Affirmation of Commitments, ICANN undertook a
detailed review of its accountability and transparency. I had the
privilege of participating on the team that conducted this review. It
was truly multistakeholder, with members from around the globe including
China, Egypt, and South America, representing elements of the global
Internet community such as registries, registrars, users, and
governments. The team completed its review last December and issued a
report with 27 recommendations to the ICANN Board for improving
accountability and transparency at ICANN.
A little more than three weeks ago, at its meeting in Singapore, the
ICANN Board adopted these recommendations as proposed by the review
team. I am very pleased by the Board's action, which demonstrates a
commitment to improving the accountability and transparency of ICANN and
to the multistakeholder process of Internet policymaking. Now the focus
turns to ICANN management and staff, who must take up the challenge of
implementing these recommendations as rapidly as possible and in a
manner that leads to meaningful and lasting reform.
These recommendations, when implemented in a thorough and meaningful
way, will measurably improve the accountability and transparency of the
organization. And while a lot of people worked very hard to get to this
point with ICANN, I think the success of the effort so far illustrates
an important point about multistakeholder organizations.
Multistakeholder institutions derive their legitimacy from the support
and active participation of all stakeholders. Accordingly, they are more
likely than regulatory or treaty-based organizations to adapt to change
and evolve when the stakeholders demand it. It is difficult to imagine
employing a similar process to reform more traditional regulatory
agencies as quickly or as thoroughly.
The other big news in Singapore was ICANN's decision to move forward to
expand the number of generic top level domains, or gTLDs. While that
decision may not have satisfied everyone, the process used by the Board
to reach its decision is worthy of note. In response to long-standing
concerns held by governments about the expansion proposal, the ICANN
Board held a number of focused exchanges with the Government Advisory
Committee to resolve as many of the issues as possible. These exchanges
represented the first meaningful interactions between the GAC and the
ICANN Board since ICANN's inception and it is critical that the lessons
learned through these recent interactions result in clear, predictable
processes for the ICANN Board and the GAC going forward. **
From our perspective, ICANN improved the new gTLD program by
incorporating a significant number of the GAC proposals. The fact that
not all of the GAC's proposals were adopted does not represent a failure
of the process or a setback to governments; rather, it reflects the
reality of a multistakeholder model.**More important is the fact that
the ICANN Board now recognizes the need to bring governments into its
multistakeholder policymaking in a more meaningful way. If we are to
combat the proposals put forward by others, such as to grant the
International Telecommunication Union the authority to veto ICANN Board
decisions, we need to ensure that our multistakeholder institutions have
provided a meaningful role for governments as stakeholders.
A second major achievement of the last month was the action taken by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris at
the end of June to adopt a set of Internet policymaking principles.**
The occasion was the OECD's High Level Meeting on the Internet Economy
for senior decision-makers from governments, the private sector, civil
society, and the technical community and it was an unprecedented
opportunity to advance the global consensus around the working
multistakeholder model that we believe is critical to the Internet's
continued success.
Participants at the meeting agreed to a communiqué on policy-making
principles that will create the conditions for an open, interoperable,
secure, and continually innovating Internet. The communiqué reflects a
growing global consensus on the value of the multistakeholder approach
towards addressing Internet challenges. The principles are not intended
to harmonize global law, but rather provide a common framework for
companies and governments as they consider Internet policy issues.
The OECD member nations endorsed the policymaking principles as did the
business and technical advisory committees. The civil society advisory
committee could not endorse the entire document due to its concern with
provisions relating to online protection of intellectual property.
However, everyone supported the plank encouraging multistakeholder
cooperation in policy development processes.
So, with these actions in Singapore and Paris, where do we go next?
What is the call to action for all of you?
First and foremost, do not take the OECD principles as the end of the
work. Really, we are just at the beginning. Reaching an agreement on
the OECD language was a challenge, but our history with those member
states and ideological similarities gave us confidence that we would
eventually reach consensus. However, some other nations, many with less
experience with the multistakeholder model, may be inclined instead to
support treaty-based structures for Internet governance. It is our job
to advocate for this model and highlight how this multistakeholder
process protects their national interests.
The United States is most assuredly opposed to establishing a governance
structure for the Internet that would be managed and controlled by
nation-states. Such a structure could lead to the imposition of
heavy-handed and economically misguided regulation and the loss of
flexibility the current system allows today, all of which would
jeopardize the growth and innovation we have enjoyed these past years.
The OECD's policymaking principles are perhaps the clearest statement
yet that the United States and like-minded nations oppose treaty-binding
regulation of the Internet.
Now our challenge is to convince the rest of the world of the advantages
of the multistakeholder approach. Next November, the United States will
participate in the ITU's World Conference on International
Telecommunications (WCIT). This treaty negotiation will conduct a
review of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), the
general principles which relate to the provision and operation of
international telecommunication services. We can expect that some
states will attempt to rewrite the ITRs in a manner that would establish
heavy-handed governmental control of the Internet and cybersecurity.
These are the countries that we, including all of us in this room, must
reach to promote the multistakeholder model, and our work must begin
right away.
The IGF in Nairobi will provide us all with an excellent opportunity to
get started on this important task. I will use speaking opportunities
at the IGF and the Government of Kenya's Ministerial meeting to explain
why we feel multistakeholder Internet governance is so valuable to
preserving and enhancing a dynamic Internet and how it can be most
useful in countries with little tradition of employing it. My team at
NTIA will also work extensively at the bilateral level over the next
year to spread the message. We ultimately hope to attain a global
consensus on Internet governance that will preserve an open,
interoperable, secure, and continually innovating Internet. But we need
your help.
Before I close, I would like to remind everyone of the July 29th
deadline for responses to NTIA's Further Notice of Inquiry on the IANA
functions contract. This process is the first comprehensive review of
the IANA functions contract since the award of the initial contract in
2000. We have been conducting what I hope the community agrees is an
open and transparent process on the contract. Based on comments
received to our original notice, we have gone back to the global
community to confirm that we interpreted correctly what was said in the
comments. We set forth our tentative conclusions in response to the
comments and then provided a draft Statement of Work for public
comment. This is the first time NTIA has sought public input on the
draft Statement of Work. In keeping with our commitment to the
multistakeholder model, NTIA is actively seeking the input of global
stakeholders. I encourage you to all carefully read the Further Notice
and submit comments by the deadline.
In closing, let me assure all of you that the United States government
is committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking. We
are encouraged by the fact that support for the model is the consensus
view of the participants in this conference and we look forward to
working with all of you to build a global consensus on this principle
with nations around the world. Thank you".
--
