How The DOTCOM Act Could Endanger Rather Than Protect Internet Freedom

The recent announcement that the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) intends to transfer key Internet domain name functions to the international multistakeholder community has led to a politically polarizing debate in the United States. Today the topic was debated once again on Capitol Hill in a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, just one week after a similar hearing in the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

The political firestorm began within hours of the NTIA announcement on March 14, when former Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin accused President Obama of “relinquishing control” over the Internet. Others, such as former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, exclaimed that authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China were going to take over the Internet. In short, the NTIA’s monumental decision resulted in many overblown criticisms and responses.

Last Tuesday, Carolina Rossini, Project Director with the Internet Freedom and Human Rights Program at OTI, testified before the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee for its hearing on “Ensuring the Security, Stability, Resilience, and Freedom of the Global Internet.” Her message was to voice support for the NTIA’s decision and warn against stalling on the transition of power, whether real or symbolic, to the international community. In her testimony, Rossini noted that the NTIA’s decision has been in the making for over a decade and fulfills the promise made by the United States that it is “committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.”

The NTIA decision is also the first step in rebuilding trust in the United States in the Internet governance arena. One of the world’s foremost Internet governance scholars and authors, Dr. Laura DeNardis, discussed this theme along with a number of others from her new book The Global War for Internet Governance during a launch event at the New America Foundation last week. DeNardis and fellow panelists pointed to “trust” as being a major factor in the future “war” and series of “battles” over Internet governance.

Dr. DeNardis stated that in modern times there is a “loss of trust in technology, government, and the institutions that manage cyber infrastructure.” Similarly, Benoni Belli, current Minister Counselor of the Embassy of Brazil in Washington, cited “trust” as a major issue amongst developing countries who believe that developed countries, including the United States, have more say in Internet governance. Belli noted, though, that the NTIA announcement and active U.S. participation in upcoming fora, such as NETmundial, could turn that tide around and will foster “a good environment of trust in order to advance and make progress [in Internet governance].” According to the leaked Executive Stakeholder Committee for NETmundial Outcome Document, a document that consolidated primary areas of consensus among the 187 submissions made to NETmundial, one of the priorities of the NETmundial conference according to most stakeholders is that “The U.S. government's special role with regard to the IANA functions should end in a short term and the transition should be conducted in an open, participatory and responsible manner.”

Unfortunately, some domestic policymakers do not understand the urgency and necessity of the NTIA transition and the “big symbolic deal” made by the United States in its commitment to the transition process. On March 27, six House Republicans introduced the “Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2014’’ or the “DOTCOM” Act which would prohibit the NTIA from relinquishing the Internet domain name system functions until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts an investigation and produces a report to Congress on the impacts of the transition. Just two years ago, in 2012, both houses of Congress unanimously passed resolutions H. CON. RES. 127 and S. CON. RES. 50 which both promised to “preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived.” Interestingly enough, four of the six sponsors of the DOTCOM Act also sponsored these 2012 acts.

One of the biggest issues with the DOTCOM Act is that waiting for a GAO report could hold back the transition of IANA functions for up to a year. A coalition of civil society organizations including OTI, Human Rights Watch, and Public Knowledge warn that a delay could play into the hands of authoritarian governments that support the creation of a politically-based, multilateral international organization for Internet governance, possibly within the United Nations system.

According to Kevin Bankston, Policy Director of the Open Technology Institute at New America, "The DOTCOM Act, which seeks to block the transition in the name of human rights, would ironically empower nations that do not respect human rights and that are using the United States' historic role in the Internet's management as an argument for the United Nations to step into Internet governance. We share the DOTCOM Act sponsors' goal of a free and open Internet, but the bill actually threatens that goal and plays into the hands of those who want to use the Internet as an instrument of political control rather than preserve it as a global platform for free expression."

With the NTIA’s plan to transition key Internet domain name functions to the international community in September 2015, the DOTCOM Act could allow only five to six months for the United States to officially involve itself in negotiations, planning, and implementation of the transition if the GAO report takes one year to be produced. Yet in the coming months, there are a number of key multistakeholder meetings including NETmundial in Brazil later this month, the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September, and the ITU plenipotentiary in South Korea this October and November, where the transition can and should be a major topic of conversation. By preventing that process from proceeding, the DOTCOM Act would reinforce the image of the United State as not being truly committed to multi-stakeholderism, trying to renege on past promises, and seeking maintain control over a system that it has only been the symbolic steward over.

Despite our concerns about the DOTCOM Act, we are also aware and understanding of the concerns that the Act reflects. As Emma Llanso, Director of Center for Democracy and Technology's Free Expression Project stated in Thursday’s discussion, “It’s too easy to dismiss the rhetoric on IANA transition as entirely politically motivated or to write it off as the result of not understanding,” especially when there are legitimate concerns on what impact non-democratic countries could have on the future of this aspect of Internet. As Rossini mentioned in her testimony to Congress, “Less democratic countries would welcome a status quo approach from the US for a while, as it would only increase the pressure to concentrate Internet governance decisions in multilateral treaty venues such as the ITU, in which those countries have more control.”

Therefore, although the DOTCOM Act’s supporters seek to maintain the openness of the Internet and prevent power over it from falling into the hands of those who do not respect privacy, free expression, and online freedom, passage of the DOTCOM Act risks empowering those who oppose the global multistakeholder model that the United States has long championed as the most rights-respecting solution to the issue of Internet governance. We share the bill sponsors’ goal to protect human rights online and to foster the continued vitality of a free and open Internet. But the best way to serve that goal is to begin thoughtfully planning for a successful transfer of domain name functions to the multitstakeholder community, rather than seeking to block that transfer.