A House committee voted along party lines Thursday to delay the Obama administration’s plan to give up authority over the Internet’s address system.
The bill, the DOTCOM Act, now heads to the full House for consideration.
Republicans fear the administration’s plan could allow Russia, China, or other authoritarian regimes to seize new powers over the Internet and even censor websites.
Their legislation would require that the Government Accountability Office study the issue before the Commerce Department could give up its contractual authority over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — the nonprofit group that manages the technical procedures that allow computers around the world to connect to websites. The transfer of authority over ICANN to the “global Internet community” is scheduled to take place next year.
Rep. Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican, said the transition is “extremely important to the future of the Internet.”
“What we’re saying is can we just stop a minute and get GAO to take a look?”
He argued that once the U.S. gives up its role in Internet management, it will be impossible to ever get it back.
But Democrats argue the plan is just the latest step in the U.S. government’s longtime support of the “multi-stakeholder” model of Internet governance, in which decisions are made by an array of nonprofits, companies, academics, and engineers.
“I don’t know where these suspicions have come from that there’s some black helicopter something or other in this,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat.
The Democrats argued that the bill would undermine U.S. efforts to promote Internet freedoms around the world by making it appear that the U.S. wants to have control over the Internet.
The Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee defeated a Democratic amendment that would have still called for a GAO study without stalling the Internet power transfer.
The Obama administration announced its formal opposition to the DOTCOM Act earlier this week, and its chances in the Senate appear slim.
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.