United States Department of Commerce: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{CompanyInfo| | {{CompanyInfo| | ||
| logo =Doclogo.jpg | | logo =Doclogo.jpg | ||
| Line 28: | Line 26: | ||
The main goal of the DOC, set at its inception in 1903, was the development of commerce to provide new opportunities to Americans as well as American businesses. This remains the main goal of the department today.<ref name="commerce"></ref> | The main goal of the DOC, set at its inception in 1903, was the development of commerce to provide new opportunities to Americans as well as American businesses. This remains the main goal of the department today.<ref name="commerce"></ref> | ||
== Mission == | ==Mission== | ||
The main mission of the US Department of Commerce is to ensure advanced economic growth and provide jobs and opportunities to American people. It also has some major responsibilities in areas such as entrepreneurship, economic development, environmental stewardship, trade and statistical research and analysis.<ref name="commerce"></ref> | The main mission of the US Department of Commerce is to ensure advanced economic growth and provide jobs and opportunities to American people. It also has some major responsibilities in areas such as entrepreneurship, economic development, environmental stewardship, trade and statistical research and analysis.<ref name="commerce"></ref> | ||
== The | ==The Importance of DOC== | ||
The US Department of Commerce is assigned with the responsibility of supporting America’s economic growth and stability both at domestic as well as at international levels. This becomes more critical in times of domestic recession or global financial turmoil. The programs of the DOC are initiated with the motive of promoting trade, conducting research, developing technologies, and measuring featuring the financial success of the US economy on a regular basis. | The US Department of Commerce is assigned with the responsibility of supporting America’s economic growth and stability both at domestic as well as at international levels. This becomes more critical in times of domestic recession or global financial turmoil. The programs of the DOC are initiated with the motive of promoting trade, conducting research, developing technologies, and measuring featuring the financial success of the US economy on a regular basis. | ||
The research conducted by the DOC estimates the seats a state will get in the US House of Representatives. The DOC guides the government as well as industry experts in keeping track of the overall health of the economy and also helps them in framing economic policies. <ref>[http://www.whorunsgov.com/institutions/commerce Commerce], WhoRunsGov.com.</ref> | The research conducted by the DOC estimates the seats a state will get in the US House of Representatives. The DOC guides the government as well as industry experts in keeping track of the overall health of the economy and also helps them in framing economic policies. <ref>[http://www.whorunsgov.com/institutions/commerce Commerce], WhoRunsGov.com.</ref> | ||
== Relation with ICANN == | ==Relation with ICANN== | ||
The DOC and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ([[ICANN]]) signed an agreement known as the Joint Project Agreement ([[JPA]]) on September 29, 2006, with a view of developing methods, mechanisms and procedures mandatory to effect the transition of Internet domain name and addressing system ([[DNS]]) to the private sector. The Department of Commerce supports the work of ICANN and coordinates with it on the various technical functions associated with the management of Internet DNS. Preserving the security and stability of the Internet DNS is considered a major priority by both the DOC and ICANN.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/ICANNJPA_09292006.htm Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Commerce and The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], ntia.doc.gov.</ref> | The DOC and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ([[ICANN]]) signed an agreement known as the Joint Project Agreement ([[JPA]]) on September 29, 2006, with a view of developing methods, mechanisms and procedures mandatory to effect the transition of Internet domain name and addressing system ([[DNS]]) to the private sector. The Department of Commerce supports the work of ICANN and coordinates with it on the various technical functions associated with the management of Internet DNS. Preserving the security and stability of the Internet DNS is considered a major priority by both the DOC and ICANN.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/ICANNJPA_09292006.htm Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Commerce and The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], ntia.doc.gov.</ref> | ||
The DOC and ICANN also have a contract between them wherein they carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ([[IANA]]) functions together. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration ([[NTIA]]) have been assigned the responsibility of overlooking both these agreements on behalf of the DOC.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html ntia.doc.gov]</ref> According to [[Carlos Afonso]], a former member of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization ([[GNSO]]), which represents the non-commercial users<ref>[http://vecam.org/spip.php?page=auteur&id_auteur=222&lang=en&nemo=edm | The DOC and ICANN also have a contract between them wherein they carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ([[IANA]]) functions together. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration ([[NTIA]]) have been assigned the responsibility of overlooking both these agreements on behalf of the DOC.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html ntia.doc.gov]</ref> According to [[Carlos Afonso]], a former member of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization ([[GNSO]]), which represents the non-commercial users<ref>[http://vecam.org/spip.php?page=auteur&id_auteur=222&lang=en&nemo=edm Carlos Afonso], Vecam.org.</ref>, formal relation between ICANN and the DOC is such that ICANN works as an incumbent or concessionaire and is subject to regulation by the US Federal Government.<ref>[http://vecam.org/article533.html Internet Governance], vecam.org.</ref> | ||
===Ethics Policy=== | ===Ethics Policy=== | ||
| Line 51: | Line 49: | ||
ANA emphasized that due to the high number of TLDs to be unveiled by ICANN's [[new gTLD Program]], policing TLDs on one-by-one basis will be difficult, and that taking precautions beforehand will be an important step in preventing future [[cybersquatting]] and fraud difficulties. Cited difficulties include the fraudulent use of brand names in secondary domains -- such as when any brand name is paired with the generic domain [[.sucks]] -- or single company ownership of generic domains -- such as if L'Oreal owned [[.hair]], [[.makeup]], or [[.beauty]].<ref name="marketingvox"></ref> | ANA emphasized that due to the high number of TLDs to be unveiled by ICANN's [[new gTLD Program]], policing TLDs on one-by-one basis will be difficult, and that taking precautions beforehand will be an important step in preventing future [[cybersquatting]] and fraud difficulties. Cited difficulties include the fraudulent use of brand names in secondary domains -- such as when any brand name is paired with the generic domain [[.sucks]] -- or single company ownership of generic domains -- such as if L'Oreal owned [[.hair]], [[.makeup]], or [[.beauty]].<ref name="marketingvox"></ref> | ||
Continued Jaffe, "The cost to companies that want to defensively register domains at the second level could mount easily into the multi-millions of dollars. The costs of defensive registrations also could be economically unfeasible for small and medium sized companies that will face enhanced risks of cybersquatting, typosquatting and phishing in the expanding top level domain universe."<ref name="marketingvox"> | Continued Jaffe, "The cost to companies that want to defensively register domains at the second level could mount easily into the multi-millions of dollars. The costs of defensive registrations also could be economically unfeasible for small and medium sized companies that will face enhanced risks of cybersquatting, typosquatting and phishing in the expanding top level domain universe."<ref name="marketingvox"></ref> | ||
===DOC & Verisign=== | ===DOC & Verisign=== | ||
In June 2012, the [[ICANN Board]] went against community suggestions to approve Verisign's .com registry agreement for an additional seven years after its expiration on November 30th, 2012.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/9610-icann-gives-verisigns-com-contract-the-nod ICANN gives Verisign's .com contract the nod], DomainIncite.com. Published 25 June 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.</ref> The new policy was highly contested, and in August 2012, three of [[ICANN]]'s Constituencies ([[ALAC]], [[GNSO]] [[Business Constituency]], [[GNSO]] [[Intellectual Property Constituency]]) sent a letter to ICANN complaining that the organization held its renewal talks with Verisign behind closed doors and the result is that there are no [[Whois|Thick Whois]] requirements for the .com TLD.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/08/21/constituencies-blast-icanns-closed-door-verisign-com-contract-renewal/ Constituencies Blast ICANNs Closed Door Verisign Com Contract Renewal, DomainNameWire.com]</ref> | |||
In June 2012, the [[ICANN Board]] went against community suggestions to approve Verisign's .com registry agreement for an additional seven years after its expiration on November 30th, 2012.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/9610-icann-gives-verisigns-com-contract-the-nod ICANN gives | |||
The decision could not move forward without approval from the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]], which Verisign received on November 29th, 2012, with some changes to the original decision made by the [[ICANN Board]].<ref name="verisign2">[http://domainincite.com/10865-breaking-us-probing-verisign-price-hikes-com-contract-extended US probing Verisign price hikes, .com contract may be extended], DomainIncite.com. Published 25 October 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.</ref><ref name="verisign3">[https://investor.verisign.com/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=724216 Verisign Announces US Department of Commerce Approval of Newly Revised .com Registry Agreement], Verisign.com. Published 30 November 2012.</ref> | |||
Verisign is to serve as the registry operator for .com from December 2012 through November 2018, with new terms and conditions, including: | |||
* Verisign's current pricing of $7.85 per domain name registration will remain unchanged for the next six years; | |||
* Verisign no longer holds the right to increasing prices up to seven percent over the six-year term, and all new price increases will be circumstantial and subject to Commerce Department approval.<ref name="verisign3"></ref> | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
| Line 64: | Line 65: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Government Agencies]] | ||