Buzzing 'Bout IANA, Baking with Hans – Talking Tech w/ Matthew Shears & Gautam Hans
Host Brian Wesolowski first chats with Matthew Shears on what is IANA, shedding light on the "multistakeholder community" that it's transitioning into, and explaining why the U.S. government is transitioning out of it. Plenty of moving parts, but we swear – Matthew knows his stuff.<br><br>Then Gautam Hans joins to give us the scoop on his first Supreme Court brief, Spokeo vs. Robins, and how it impacts everyday Americans' rights via the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He explains how this case could, by limiting private claims, lead to an increase in inaccurate data, + more. (Oh, and he bakes cookies – isn't Gautam awesome?)<br><br>Attribution: sounds used from Psykophobia, Taira Komori, BenKoning, Zabuhailo, bloomypetal, guitarguy1985, bmusic92, and offthesky of freesound.org.
Top Keywords
- internet 0.017
- credit 0.014
- credit reporting 0.013
- iana 0.011
- internet governance 0.011
- transition 0.011
- icann 0.010
- court 0.010
- fair credit 0.009
- credit reports 0.009
- spokeo 0.009
- important 0.008
Transcript
Welcome to Tech Talk. Bye.
CT. Tea. Welcome to CDP's Tech Talk where we dish on tech and Internet policy and dig into what these policies mean to our daily lives. I'm Brian Wazilowski, and it's time to talk tech. We've got two fascinating but somewhat complex complex issues this week, or at least they were very complex for me. We'll be talking about the world of Internet governance and the role that civil society is playing in shaping the future of the Internet. And no, it's not a future where The U. S. Gives up control of the Internet to China or Russia. We are also going to discuss the case that will soon come before the U. S. Supreme Court, Spokeo v. Robins, where Spokeo is challenging an individual's right to file a claim for privacy violations. If you know about how important credit reports can be in making big determinations about our lives, you'll want to listen up on how the outcome of this case could affect you. And just one quick note, we had some sound quality issues in recording the podcast with our international guest, and I apologize for the slight buzzing you'll hear in the first segment. I promise the content is amazing and hope you'll bear with us and listen through to the very end. When the US government announced its plans to transition key Internet domain naming functions over to the global community, headlines and a number of numbers of Congress shouted that The US was giving up control of the Internet. Many even suggested that Russia or China would take control of the Internet. Thankfully, transitioning of the contracting authority of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA, in reality will not give control of the Internet to foreign governments. Instead, it will give more control to the global multi stakeholder community of Internet users. For many though, this is not comforting. What exactly is the multi stakeholder community and who is making decisions about the future of the Internet? One of the people who is certainly influencing decisions around the IANA transition and bringing to the fore the important role that civil society must play in Internet governance is our very own Matthew Shears. He joins Tech Talk to help explain what the IANA transition means, demystify some of the inner workings of Internet governance and chart the course ahead. Welcome, Matthew.
Thanks, Brian. It's a pleasure to be here.
So first, can you tell me what the IANA contract is and why this is a big deal?
It's interesting because in and of itself, the IANA contract is not a big deal and shouldn't be a big deal. The IANA contract is basically three things. It's been it's a contract that's been between the U. S. Government and ICANN, and it gives ICANN the responsibility for managing the domain name system route, for coordinating the global pool of Internet protocol addresses, that's the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. And also managing the Internet Protocol numbering systems, which are effectively the standards that allow the Internet and the DNS to function. So in a way, these are very administrative and technical functions. So in and of self, the contract is not, a big deal. What is a big deal? And this is the issue around the IANA transition is that the U. S. Government has historically played a small but important role in those IANA functions. And it's exactly that role that's being transitioned out of the IANA functions and that's what we're working on at the moment.
So why did the U. S. Government decide to transition out of it? And then who exactly are they planning to transition it to? You mentioned ICANN, but for listeners who don't follow Internet government, can you also say a little bit about what ICANN is?
Yes. So the it's interesting because Internet governance and ICANN and the IANA contract and the role the U. S. Government has played in it have really shaped the whole Internet governance policy discussion probably since back in around 2003, 2005. And when one talks about Internet governance, it's really about just about that is how is the Internet managed. And given that ICANN sits at kind of the center of the domain name system because of this contract, Zayana contract, it's very much a part of the discussion and very much a part of the Internet governance ecosystem. The big issue here is really transitioning out the U. S. Government. And to understand that, you really have to understand what the two roles that the U. S. Government had and is playing at the moment. One of them is pretty easy to understand, which is that the US government basically had a kind of tick box role, what they call a clerical role, which was to ensure that any changes that were proposed to be made to the domain name system met a certain set of criteria and gone through a certain process. And that was very much a clerical role. But the other role is the role of steward. And that's a little bit more complicated, and I think that's the the role that the US government has had that has, caused so many issues and concerns in the Internet governance space over time.
Okay. So it was just announced, a couple of weeks back that the by the NTIA, sorry, I'm messing this up, Administrator Larry Strickling that the IANA transition, which I think was supposed to happen this year, is now delayed until probably the mid to late twenty sixteen. Why did they delay this? And is this a sign that the transition is running off track at all?
No. It's not a sign of the transition running off track at all. It's a realization, that the community and the transition itself is taking a lot more time than expected. Not because we're not, as a community, delivering on what we're supposed to do, but I think the the complexity of the task of finding a way to enable the US government to step away from this clerical and stewardship role is actually proving to be more complex than we had anticipated. And there are many hoops and hurdles that we have to negotiate in that process, and that's why we have an extension. And I should say, by the way, that this is an extension that we've anticipated as a community that's been working on the transition. And it's very much a very practical and necessary extension. And it will take us from September year, as you said, through to September 2016.
Okay. So you used the word community quite a bit. For people that aren't familiar with Internet governance and even those that are, who is the community when we say that? Who are we talking about in this multi stakeholder model?
It's a fabulous question. It's one that continues to generate huge discussion and Internet governance. Well, there are two issues there. There's a community on the one hand and then there's multi stakeholder on the other. The community can mean different things. When I refer just now to the community, I've been mostly referring to it as the ICANN community. So the business community, the nonprofit community, the registry and registrar communities, that all comprise ICANN as an organization. Others talk about the community as a global Internet community, which tends to refer more to users around the world, users of the Internet around the world. And then you have also the multi stakeholder community. Multi stakeholder is a tricky term, but that typically means representation in a process, a multi stakeholder process from governments, civil society, business and the technical community and possibly academic community. So there are different terms for different things and I'm not sure that the community, so to speak, has ever really fully agreed on what they mean.
That makes sense. How does one become part of the community? I mean, it sounds like really important work, complicated work. How do you get involved in that?
It's a great question. And it's a kind of everybody says how much the Internet is a part of our daily life. And everybody talks about the Internet as a pervasive tool and a pervasive medium, and that's certainly the case. And And so when you talk about Internet governance, you're not talking just about kind of arcane DNS technical issues. You're actually also talking about some more fundamental things. And any aspect of the use of the Internet could well involve some kind of policy process. And so when you think about all the things that we're talking about, and I know there was another talk on digital assets, but, even the assets of individuals, once they've passed is an issue that is a policy issue. It's also a governance issue. And therefore, it's an Internet governance issue.
Fascinating. So let's go back to the IANA transition a little bit. What are the main components, that you're going to be working on over the next year that need to be addressed in this shift from stewardship and clerical side of it from the U. S. Government to the broader global community?
So we have, so there is a transition proposal. And the transition proposal, comprises, the three parts. So a part that relates to the domain names, a part that relates to Internet protocol numbers and a part that relates to the protocols. And each one of those communities has contributed a proposal for this overall transition. So that combined transition proposal is currently out for comment, for public comment. Once that's finalized, which will be in about a week and a bit, there will be a final transition proposal that will go to NTIA probably in late October, early November. The other part of the transition, which is equally important in many ways, is that there was a recognition that for ICANN to continue to provide the INF functions as the INF functions operator. And assuming that the U. S. Government was going to step away from its role, there was a recognition that ICANN's internal accountability needs to improve, needs to be more accountable to the community. And so there's this other piece of work that's ongoing at the moment as well, which is the accountability enhancements to ICANN. What NTIA has asked for is both the transition piece and also the accountability piece. So these two things are running in parallel. These two processes are running in parallel. And hopefully, those two processes will culminate
in documents that can be forwarded to NTIA in the next two months or so. That's great. And these public comments, is it the type of thing that a nontechnical person could read and access and understand and provide insight on? Or is it more of a technical document that you would need certain understanding about Internet governance and the working of the Internet to really the working of the Internet to really understand?
It's it's, it's a little of both. Okay. Obviously, there are Okay. It's it there are obviously, some bigger issues at stake here, obviously. The role of the US government, the stability of the Internet, the future of the domain name system. So those are things that everybody should, you know, if they wish, have a voice on and should give their thoughts on. To delve into the transition details, it can be a daunting task. These are documents that run 100 plus pages. They're very technical and full of governance issues. But it is very important. So we would certainly encourage people to take a look at the proposals and to give their opinions as to whether or not they think the proposals meet some key criteria that have been set down. One of those is how does the proposal continue to support and enhance the openness of the Internet, for example. So there are some very basic questions that people should be interested in and should look at these documents.
Great. Sounds like some very fun weekend reading or beach reading as we wind up the summer here. All right. So let's wrap it up. I mean, this is a fascinating issue. What I love, you know, with your work and working with you, you're just kind of all over the world. So let's you know, what are some of the most inspiring or the most inspiring story you have from your kind of world travels with Internet governance?
Well, I think the the one of the one of the fascinating things is how much, one appreciates that the policy world has changed over the past ten plus years. Back in the days when the issue of the U. S. Government's role in the DNS really kind of came to the fore and people governments in particular were complaining about the fact that one government, the U. S. Government was supposedly, ruling the Internet. Well, this changed a lot since then. That argument, we don't hear it so often. If we do hear it, it's usually for political purposes and not for technical purposes that it's used. And so I think that evolution over time, of the political landscape at the international level and importantly, the acceptance of openness and inclusivity in processes and policy processes, so the multi stakeholder model, I think are the two really big changes that we've seen over the past ten years or so. That's great. And as someone who loves traveling, what's the best place this job has taken you? And that should be on everyone's to visit list.
I know you don't spend a lot of time there outside of the conferences and meetings, but, yeah, I'm sure you get a little bit of time. No. We spend a lot of our time in
hotel basement conference, unfortunately. But, I have to say that, probably one of the most interesting I mean, there are many places, places, but probably one of the most interesting has been, a meeting that was held by the Freedom Online Coalition, this year in Mongolia.
Oh, awesome.
And that was truly a fascinating country to visit, certainly from a kind of a political and government perspective because you can see that the Mongolian government really wants to be an Internet country, one that has an open Internet and everything else, but at the same time, it's sitting between two very large neighbors to the North and South whose approach to the Internet is perhaps not so open. So you can see that dynamic and that tension in that when you visit there, but fascinating place.
We'll add the land of Genghis Khan to the list of places to visit. Thank you so much, Matthew. Pleasure talking to you and hope to have you on Tech Talk again soon. Thanks a lot, Brian. It's a pleasure. The Fair Credit Reporting Act was enacted nearly fifty years ago and was aimed at protecting individuals against inaccurate data about them being used in credit reports. Credit reports, as we all know, are often used to make incredibly important decisions about our lives, such as if we can get a home loan and, in some cases, if we'd make good employees. With more data than ever out there about us, it seems like the Fair Credit Reporting Act has become even more important. A case that will be heard by the Supreme Court is challenging part of this important legislation, though. The case, Spokeo v Robbins, hits the data broker Spokeo against Thomas Robbins, who claims that inaccurate information about him that was disclosed by Spokeo hurt his employment opportunities and violated his rights. The question the Supreme Court will need to address is can Congress confirm standing on a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm by authorizing a private right of action for a violation of a federal statute. Okay. So for me, that's a lot of legal speak, and that actually makes my head hurt a bit. But for our very own Gautam Hans, the director of CDT San Francisco, and our policy counsel. This is a hugely important issue, and he's here to help us make sense of it. CDT filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the case. This is in fact Gautam's first Supreme Court brief. So welcome, Gautam, and congratulations.
Thank you, Brian.
How's it feel to have a supreme court brief with your name on it?
Great. And relieved that it's done and signed, sealed, delivered.
Well, well done. And also, for the our listeners, Gautam is CDT's resident, baker. He sent me a batch of cookies today. He moved out to San Francisco a year ago now. We missed you desperately, but, thank you so much for sending me the cookies. Always happy to do so. Alright. So let's get to the real stuff here. As you know, I really, really struggled with understanding the legalese of this case, and you were so kind to walk me through it. So let's let's try this again. Why is it so important that the court rules in favor of Robins here?
Absolutely. And I wanna say that this is an issue that I also find challenging to think about because it is very theoretical, but it's also important. Really, this is about who gets to go to federal court. Under the constitution, you have to have an actual case for controversy in order to file a lawsuit in federal court. One of the ways that you need to prove that you have a case or controversy, the Supreme Court has ruled, is having something we call injury in fact. So the question here is, when congress creates, through a law, a way to file a way to file a case for an individual, is that enough if no other injury happened other than what congress set out in the statute. So in this case, what that means is congress passed a statute, the Fair Credit Reporting Act or FICRA, and if there is inaccurate information, I can go to court and say, congress said this allows me to go to court. I proved that there's inaccurate information. Do I need to prove anything else happened beyond the terms of the law?
Okay. So, I mean, I guess then what the gist of this is is that we believe, CDT believes, that an individual should have the ability to make a claim against the company that's regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act if an accurate information is shared about them. Is that correct?
Yes. So we need the ability of people to file claims. Usually, when congress passes a law, the way that they enforce that law is either through the federal government being able to file lawsuits, Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, other federal agencies, or private individuals or private parties can also do it sometimes under federal law. So sleeping is important in the context of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that private individuals are able to do it. And congress thought it was important too because they put it in the law when they passed it, you know, as you mentioned, almost fifty years ago. Mhmm. Relying on the government or self regulation isn't enough to get the goals of FICRA to be part of the credit reporting system.
Okay. So you mentioned I think you mentioned it earlier, but you did definitely mention it in the blog post you did on this topic, which is, of course, available at www.cdt.org. It's the concept of actual harm. And, you know, clearly, that's relevant in this case. Why is it important, you know, and why is it sometimes difficult to prove actual harm when it comes to false information?
Absolutely. So as you mentioned, credit reports are a big part of the economy and about and our lives. And one of the things that we wanna make sure is that credit reports are accurate. Because credit reports are used in ways that are often individual invisible to us as individuals, so, you know, you don't know why you didn't get a job or maybe why you didn't get a credit card, but it could have been because of your credit report. And, therefore, it's really important to make sure that those, credit reports are accurate as possible. So with so much more information online now than there was even ten years ago, twenty years ago, or fifty years ago when FICRA was being debated, it's really more important than ever that credit reports are accurate, that information about us that goes into those reports is accurate, and that there's an incentive for companies that are covered under FICRA to be accurate. And we feel that the private right of action under FICRA allows us as individuals to incentivize the companies to do a better job of promoting accurate information. With so many decisions being made about us every day because of information which we share and spread online, the necessity of having accurate information is just really important today.
Yeah. I mean, that's a great point. I mean, if you're applying for, say, a home loan or something, you you know that they're gonna be looking at your credit report. But let's just say you applied for a job. You don't necessarily know what someone has pulled up on you, and especially if these are credit report not officially sanctioned. Is there such thing as a non officially sanctioned credit reporting agency? I can just imagine that someone Googles you and finds some sort of credit report on you. Does that exist? I hope not.
So the way that FICRA is set up is that not every, you know, company that provides information is a credit reporting agency that's regulated by the law. So Google is not covered by that, but Spokeo is. And the Federal Trade Commission had determined that a few years ago, and the CDC actually filed a complete letter with the FTC about Spokeo and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. So, you know, we've been looking at this issue for a while. So FITRA doesn't have an infinite reach, and we don't think it should either. It's important. But when you are a credit reporting agency, you do have obligations under the law that are important.
Understood. That's a very helpful clarification. So you also, in your blog post mentioned that you believe the ruling in this case could go beyond the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to impact other privacy laws. How's though?
So the question that the court set out that they want to address in this case doesn't talk about the Fair Credit Reporting Act specifically. It talks about all federal laws. So that means that they're really interested in looking at all federal laws that authorize a private right of action. There are a lot of other privacy laws that we call out in our brief, including the Video Privacy Protection Act, Historic Communications Act, the Cable Communication Policy Act that allow private individuals to file claims. We think that those laws are also important today just as FICRA is and that the private right of action is important in those cases because all those industries, you know, video streaming, cable communications, email are still very important in our daily digital lives. So a broad ruling in this case could encompass not just the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but other privacy laws and maybe even other laws like environmental laws, civil rights laws, etcetera, that talk about private claims but don't always have to do with an injury that you can see in the real world.
Wow. So this is definitely a case we should all be watching. So what's the time frame on it?
So the court this week just set argument to happen on November 2. Okay. So the lawyers for Spokeo and the lawyers for Thomas Robbins will go to the court that day and argue the case. We probably expect there to be a ruling, I would say, sometime early next year, almost certainly by June when the term ends.
Do you have any I know it's always, you know, risky to predict how these things shake out. Do you have any thoughts on where the supreme court may go on this one?
You know, as you say, it's hard to say, and I think in part because as you mentioned at the beginning, this is a very theoretical challenge and case to get your mind around. I don't think this is a typical conservative liberal split. Sometimes we see that in other issues that people know about, obviously. But, it's certainly something that's very interesting to the court. A few years ago, they took up a case that was very similar about this question of private claims under federal law, but at the very last minute, they punted and decided not to issue a decision, which is very unusual. So the fact that they would pick up this issue again just a couple years later, I think, means that they think this is very important and they want to address it. So we're hopeful that it will come down, you know, allowing for private individuals. But as you say, it's, you know, it's hard to know what the justices are thinking, and we'll just have to see how it plays out.
Well, at a minimum, you've done an excellent job of convincing me just how important this is. So we'll wrap up here, but before we wrap up, I'd like to give a shout out to Marsha Hoffman, who worked with you on this, and she gave pro bono support in writing the brief, And then also, your cosigners on this, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the New America or New America's Open Technology Institute, and the World Privacy Forum all signed on to the brief. So fantastic, and thank you to all of them. And so many thank yous to you, Gautam, for, pushing this through. Congratulations again on your Supreme Court brief, and thank you so much for joining us on Tech Talk. Thanks so much. Talk to you soon.
Bye.
That's it for this week's CDT Tech Talk. You can find more information about today's topics at www.cdt.org. Thank you for listening throughout the entire podcast. And again, we apologize for any sound issues. We're sorting out this long distance thing. As always, though, tweet us any questions you have or topics you'd like us to cover to SendEmTech. Thanks so much for listening.
