The Obama administration has come out against legislation that would temporarily keep certain Internet management functions under U.S. control.
The U.S. government plans to transfer oversight of the Internet’s address system to the “global community” next year.
Republicans fear the move could allow Russia, China, or other authoritarian regimes to seize power over the Internet and even censor websites. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is set to vote Thursday on the DOTCOM Act, which would block the Internet power transfer pending a study by the Government Accountability Office.
In a letter Tuesday, the Commerce Department said Congress is “well within its right to request a GAO report” even without legislation, but that the administration opposes the DOTCOM Act because it could derail the Internet oversight transfer.
Kelly Walsh, the Commerce Department’s general counsel, argued that the transition is part of the long-standing position of the United States to support the “multi-stakeholder” model of Internet governance, in which decisions are made by an array of nonprofits, companies, academics, and engineers.
By giving up authority over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — the nonprofit group that manages the Internet’s address system — the U.S. is strengthening the multi-stakeholder model and undercutting authoritarian regimes that are arguing for more government control of the Internet, she argued.
“By signaling a lack of confidence in the multistakeholder model, this legislation adversely impacts the ability of the United States and its allies to counter attempts by authoritarian regimes to obtain a greater role in Internet governance,” Walsh wrote.
She said the bill “sends the wrong signal to the global Internet community” and “reinforces the misapprehension that the U.S. government ‘controls’ the Internet.”
She emphasized that the U.S. won’t complete the power transfer until ICANN outlines a plan for Internet management that is free from control by any government.
The House committee is expected to approve the bill along party lines Thursday, but it’s unlikely to go anywhere in the Senate.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.