14,326
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 162:
Line 162: + Line 171:
Line 172: + − − ===Anti-New gTLD Sentiment=== − A number of high profile opponents came out against ICANN and its new gTLD program. These include: [[Association of National Advertisers]] (ANA), the [[Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse]] (CADNA), the [[Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight]] (CRIDO), the National Retail Federation,<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/icann-facing-growing-pressure-over-new-domain-name-plan-20111025 ICANN Facing Growing Pressure Over New Domain Name Plan, NationalJournal.com]]</ref>, and others. Major corporations involved with these organizations include: adidas, Dell, Toyota, Wal-Mart, Kraft Foods, and other prominent American and internationally known brands.<ref>[http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/22399 ANA.net]</ref> ICANN's new gTLD program also recieved negative Op-Eds by the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/opinion/expanding-internet-domains.html?_r=3&ref=internetcorpforassignednamesandnumbers Exapnding Internet Domains, NYTimes.com]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO_story.html What's the .rush, WashingtonPost.com]</ref> ICANN was also the subject of the hearings within the [[U.S. Congress]], detailed below, and they consequently received letters from Senators and Congressmen asking them to delay or reevaluate their program, other government criticism included a petition for delay by the [[FTC]].<ref>[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/12/icann.shtm ICANN, FTC.gov]</ref> Many of these critics were not explicitly anti-ICANN, but anti-new gTLDs. The most common complaint was coming from trademark owners and their lobbying groups, which believed that the new program would create significant costs for them without adding any value to their marketing and commercial outreach programs. However, some saw this as a result of miseducation given that many trademark protections are built into the new gTLD program. Other concerns, such as that as former ICANN Chair, [[Esther Dyson]], were focused on the potential confusion for the end-user.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c81ce454-f519-4373-a51d-234c61755e39 Testimony of Esther Dyson, Commerce.Senate.gov]</ref> − − ===New gTLD Senate and House of Representatives Hearings=== − On December 8, [[U.S. Congress|the U.S. Senate]] Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing, lobbied for by [[ANA]], regarding to ICANN's new gTLD program. Speakers included Senior Vice President of ICANN, [[Kurt Pritz]]; [[Fiona Alexander]], Associate Administrator of the Office of International Affairs at [[NTIA]]; [[Dan Jaffe]], Executive Vice President of Government Relations for ANA; [[Esther Dyson]], who served as ICANN's Founding Chairman (1998-2000), speaking as an independent investor; and Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the YMCA [[Angela Williams]], speaking on behalf of [[NPOC]].<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111208_us_senate_committee_holds_hearing_on_icanns_new_tld_expansion/ US Senate Committee Holds Hearing on ICANN's New TLD Expansion, circleid.com]</ref> Senate officials present included: Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV); Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.),<ref>[http://adage.com/article/digital/senate-implores-icann-slow-roll/231478/ Senate Implores ICANN to Slow Its Roll but Admits It Can't Do Anything to Stop It, adage.com]</ref> and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash). − − Sen. Rockefeller stated his support of the new gTLD program, claiming that he believed it was pro-competition and pro-innovation, but that the roll-out should be slower and more cautious. He cited the potential for fraud, consumer confusion, and cybersquatting as massive, requiring a phased implementation.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/notes-from-the-senate-new-gtlds-hearing/ Notes from the Senate new gTLDs hearing, domainincite.com]</ref> − − One of biggest the concerns expressed was that companies, including not-for-profits, would have to spend a lot of money to prevent [[cybersquatting]] and typosquatting. Dyson argued that the new TLD program "create[s] opportunities for entrepreneurs but [doesn't] really create any value for the economy." Pritz explained that defensive registration will likely not be as necessary as companies believe, as many of the new TLDs will not be big or open enough for cybersquatters to take advantage. Additionally, several new trademark protections had been built into the expansion strategy, making the new TLDs better protected against cybersquatters than those currently available. − − Sen. Ayotte expressed concerns that adding significantly more TLDs would create a challenge for law enforcement officials to police websites. − − Another major concern, voiced by ANA, was that there was no consensus on the program, and that the date for the application period to open was arbitrary.<ref>[http://adage.com/article/digital/senate-implores-icann-slow-roll/231478/ Senate Implores ICANN to Slow Its Roll but Admits It Can't Do Anything to Stop It, adage.com]</ref> − − In a letter dated December 8th, the same day as the Senate hearing, twenty-eight domain name industry participants wrote to Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to support the new gTLD program. They supported ICANN's argument that the program would be innovative and economically beneficial, and that the program had taken lots of people a long time to develop, hence it had not been rushed.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/new-gtld-industry-pleads-with-senators/ New gTLD industry pleads with senators]</ref> − − On December 14, a second hearing was held, hosted by the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee. Those speaking at this hearing were Fiona Alexander from NTIA, Dan Jaffe from ANA, Kurt Pritz from ICANN, [[Employ Media]] CEO [[Thomas Embrescia]], and [[Joshua Bourne]] representing [[CADNA]].<ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/13/house-hearing-testimonies What the House testimonies tell us, dot-nxt.com]</ref> − − The result of the House hearing was the suggestion that the program be delayed until there is a consensus between all relevant stakeholders, made by Rep. Eshoo. Pritz and Alexander came to the defense of ICANN's [[Multistakeholder Model]], arguing that the process had not been rushed. It had taken ICANN seven years to get to the point where all the issues had been discussed and no new issues were being raised, during which time they had consulted all the relevant stakeholders. Alexander made the point that "consensus" does not always mean "unanimity." − − [[CADNA]], a long-time opposer to ICANN and the new gTLD program, also came to the support of ICANN. CADNA's change of heart came about as their sister group, [[FairWinds Partners]], decided to provide new gTLD consultancy services. Bourne praised [[.xxx]]'s novel trademark protection mechanisms, saying they should be mandatory for all new gTLDs, and claimed that Congress could help in fighting cybersquatters by revising the old US [[Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act]]. He did, however, request that ICANN announce dates for subsequent application rounds, in order to relieve the "condition of scarcity" that this uncertainty created.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/congressmen-ask-for-new-gtlds-delay/ Congressmen ask for new gTLDs delay, domainincite.com]</ref> − − The following week, the US Congress sent a letter addressed to ICANN President and CEO [[Rod Beckstrom]] and [[ICANN Board|Board]] Chairman [[Steve Crocker]], asking ICANN to delay the new gTLD program. The letter was signed by seventeen Congressmen, lead by Rep. Fred Upton. The letter cited their concern about the significant uncertainty about the process for businesses, non-profit organizations, and consumers. The suggested delay would serve to allow time for these groups to have their concerns alleviated. − <ref>[http://domainincite.com/congressmen-ask-icann-to-delay-new-gtlds/ Congressmen ask ICANN to delay new gTLDs]</ref> − − There was also a letter sent by two Congressman, Bob Goodlatte and Howard Berman, to the [[Department of Commerce]], in which they asked for a delay to the new gTLD program, and asked a number of questions on the Department's own preparedness and handling of the affair. They ask if ICANN is actually following its [[Affirmation of Commitments]] with the Department, and what the Department is doing to ensure that ICANN is following these commitments and protecting American businesses.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2011/12/20/two-congressmen-ask-commerce-department-for-delay-to-new-tlds/ Two Congressmen Ask Commerce Department For Delay to New TLDs, DomainNameWire.com]</ref> − − In response to all of this, [[Lawrence Strickling]], of the [[Department of Commerce]]'s [[National Telecommunications and Information Administration]], sent a letter to ICANN chastising it for its poor outreach program and the miseducation going on about its new gTLD program. In his letter, addressed to [[ICANN Chairman|Chairman]] [[Steve Crocker]], Mr. Strickling urged ICANN to more successfully showcase their new gTLD expansion program, and especially emphasize the number of built-in protections for trademark owners.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf NTIA Letter on gTLD Program Jan 3 2012, ntia.doc.gov]</ref> − − Mr. Strickling notes that NTIA has no plan or desire to actually interfere in the process after the 6 years of work and the imminent launch, but he does lament the number of problems that have been created largely by [[ICANN]]'s poor outreach and education. NTIA identified 3 specific things to address: to educate trademark owners about measures in place allowing them to forego [[Defensive Registration|defensive registrations]]; to immediately implement consumer protections it has already devised; and to generally better educate all stakeholders. However, NTIA did suggest and open up the possibility of adding further protections once the application pool is closed and NTIA, alongside [[ICANN]]'s [[GAC]], had a chance to review the pool of applicants and reflect on what further steps could be taken in the [[SLD|second level]].<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf NTIA Letter on gTLD Program Jan 3 2012, ntia.doc.gov]</ref> − − The full letter can be seen [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf here].
→New gTLDs
==New gTLDs==
==New gTLDs==
: ''Main article: [[gTLD]]''
The discussion of creating new [[gTLD|Generic Top-Level Domains]] has been around since the inception of ICANN; there was no set number fixed, and the fact that the [[.com]] extension has long been the most widely used and recognizable top-level domain was encouraged by ICANN's slow policy development process. It was underwritten in the 2001 amendments to their [[MoU]] with the U.S.' [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] that ICANN was to "collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs".<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm NTIA.doc.gov]</ref>
The discussion of creating new [[gTLD|Generic Top-Level Domains]] has been around since the inception of ICANN; there was no set number fixed, and the fact that the [[.com]] extension has long been the most widely used and recognizable top-level domain was encouraged by ICANN's slow policy development process. It was underwritten in the 2001 amendments to their [[MoU]] with the U.S.' [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] that ICANN was to "collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs".<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm NTIA.doc.gov]</ref>
===New gTLD Program===
===New gTLD Program===
: ''Main article: [[New gTLD Program]]''
After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion of new gTLDs, a [[PDP|Policy Development Process]] in connection with the introduction of new [[gTLD]]s was developed by the [[Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO), which lasted from 2005 until 2007. During the Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all the constituencies within the ICANN global internet community. In 2008, 19 Specific Policy Recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board for the implementation of new gTLDs, which describe the specifics of allocation and the contractual conditions. ICANN involved the global internet community in an open, inclusive and transparent implementation process to comment, review and provide their input toward creating the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs. The protection of intellectual property, community interests, consumer protection, and DNS stability were addressed during the process. Different versions and multiple drafts of the Applicant Guidebook were released in 2008. By June 2011, the ICANN Board launched a New gTLD Program and at the same time approved the [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook]].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]</ref> They announced the possibility of another version of the Guidebook in January 2012, the current version is the 8th, but there is little chance that there would be more than clarification in the new version, as opposed to new rules and policies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion of new gTLDs, a [[PDP|Policy Development Process]] in connection with the introduction of new [[gTLD]]s was developed by the [[Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO), which lasted from 2005 until 2007. During the Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all the constituencies within the ICANN global internet community. In 2008, 19 Specific Policy Recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board for the implementation of new gTLDs, which describe the specifics of allocation and the contractual conditions. ICANN involved the global internet community in an open, inclusive and transparent implementation process to comment, review and provide their input toward creating the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs. The protection of intellectual property, community interests, consumer protection, and DNS stability were addressed during the process. Different versions and multiple drafts of the Applicant Guidebook were released in 2008. By June 2011, the ICANN Board launched a New gTLD Program and at the same time approved the [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook]].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]</ref> They announced the possibility of another version of the Guidebook in January 2012, the current version is the 8th, but there is little chance that there would be more than clarification in the new version, as opposed to new rules and policies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
==2011 Developments==
==2011 Developments==