Re: Testimony to US Commerce Committee

"Fred Baker (fred)" <> Wed, 25 May 2016 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84CF12D754 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 18:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.947
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bUNRczevr2s9 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 18:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79E0212B03D for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 18:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3871; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464140849; x=1465350449; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=az9dBST5XG0R5hizr3KbDkzp7r9B4Y1zkiYOaRdE3uo=; b=W2MWb1+ogxL1Os3JdGHlf7M5suybCLCx4VgBTl7PKU1tLEpzawntMeD+ uRg7Y37wWxGlTPEAjdpqc46ryZCYX28zjnahTNlovhZr9zRH64wKHbVT4 5Tyk+uJagZ4xfrAJ7p469cJ/DwsHDDikxFbZHWTar71AQnOjmLmzdzHM5 c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,362,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="111570993"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 25 May 2016 01:47:06 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4P1l6lQ014632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 May 2016 01:47:06 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 24 May 2016 20:47:05 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 24 May 2016 20:47:05 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
To: IAB Chair <>
Subject: Re: Testimony to US Commerce Committee
Thread-Topic: Testimony to US Commerce Committee
Thread-Index: AQHRtgzp9TPuZeiSbk6jUHCUGgrPAZ/JNmOA
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 01:47:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3D0444B5-39F7-4951-BF7F-924D70E2CA00"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: " Discussion" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 01:47:31 -0000

Thanks, Andrew. I read your remarks and listened to the Q&A part of the recording. From my perspective, a good job was done.

I thought Senator McCaskill had some excellent questions for those opposed to the transition. She pointed to a bipartisan bill that she and Senator Rubio had written that passed without a negative ballot in both the House and Senate, that said that the US is interested in an open Internet in which government has a voice but no control, and asked them what changed. Their answer was not a good one.

I believe that Senator Fischer and Cantwell, if I'm not mistaken, also had some excellent questions for you and others, that were frankly at the heart of USG's real concerns. Instead of one ccTLD, they have a cluster - notably .us, .mil, and .gov. They wanted to be sure that their ccTLD(s) would remain theirs. The answer came from one of the other panelists, and said that if DoD and GSA wanted to write a contract, as opposed to depending on precedent, they were sure that could be worked out - and in any event, he foresaw no action that would compromise that any more than and other ccTLD.

And the point was made repeatedly, by you and others, that further delay served no useful purpose. From the sound of the members speaking, that viewpoint was accepted.

So - well done.

> On May 24, 2016, at 3:36 PM, IAB Chair <> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> Today I was invited to appear before the United States Senate
> Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation at the hearing on
> “Examining the Multistakeholder Plan for Transitioning the Internet
> Assigned Number Authority.”  I spoke in my role as IAB Chair.  Still,
> I should emphasise that my remarks are not a consensus position of the
> IAB, so if you think I said something boneheaded, blame me and not the
> IAB as a whole.
> My submitted tesimony is available on the IAB site at
> <>.
> Video of the hearing is archived at
> <>
> The transition of IANA stewardship is still proceeding.  If you want
> to follow more, I suggest discussing it on the IANAPLAN WG list,
> Best regards,
> Andrew
> --
> IAB Chair (Andrew Sullivan)