U.S. Congress: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:04, 9 January 2012

ICANN was created via actions by the U.S. Government in 1997; heretofore, the Internet was managed by THe U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), The National Science Foundation, and American universities and research institutions. On July 1st, 1997, President Bill Clinton directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the management of the DNS.^[1] The goal was to open the Internet to greater international participation, and to bolster it as a new medium of commercial competition and exchange.^[2]

On November 25th, 1998, after a process of seeking input from concerned and knowledgeable parties, The U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU),^[3] which officially recognized ICANN as the entity that would manage the IANA contract. That contract is renewable, and thus, created an ongoing relationship between the U.S. Department of Commerce and consequently the U.S. Congress. Since the creation of ICANN, the U.S. Congress has had multiple interactions and hearings on the organization.

New gTLD Senate and House of Representatives Hearings[edit | edit source]

On December 8, 2011 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.^[4] Senate officials present included: Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV); Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.),^[5] 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.^[6]

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.^[7]

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.^[8]

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.^[9]

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.^[10]

The following week, the US Congress sent a letter addressed to ICANN President and CEO Rod Beckstrom and 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. ^[11]

References[edit | edit source]

[1] NTIA Green Paper

[2] ICANN DOC MoU

[3] ICANN MoU

[4] US Senate Committee Holds Hearing on ICANN's New TLD Expansion, circleid.com

[5] Senate Implores ICANN to Slow Its Roll but Admits It Can't Do Anything to Stop It, adage.com

[6] Notes from the Senate new gTLDs hearing, domainincite.com

[7] Senate Implores ICANN to Slow Its Roll but Admits It Can't Do Anything to Stop It, adage.com

[8] New gTLD industry pleads with senators

[9] What the House testimonies tell us, dot-nxt.com

[10] Congressmen ask for new gTLDs delay, domainincite.com

[11] Congressmen ask ICANN to delay new gTLDs

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

Revision as of 16:04, 9 January 2012 view source Andrew (talk \| contribs) Administrators 27,652 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:04, 9 January 2012 view source Andrew (talk \| contribs) Administrators 27,652 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[ICANN]] was created via actions by the U.S. Government in 1997; heretofore, the Internet was managed by THe U.S. Department of Defense's [[Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency]] (DARPA), [[~~The~~ National Science Foundation]], and American universities and research institutions. On July 1st, 1997, [[Bill Clinton\|President Bill Clinton]] directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the management of the [[DNS]].<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.htm NTIA Green Paper]</ref> The goal was to open the Internet to greater international participation, and to bolster it as a new medium of commercial competition and exchange.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref>		[[ICANN]] was created via actions by the U.S. Government in 1997; heretofore, the Internet was managed by THe U.S. Department of Defense's [[Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency]] (DARPA), The [[National Science Foundation]], and American universities and research institutions. On July 1st, 1997, [[Bill Clinton\|President Bill Clinton]] directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the management of the [[DNS]].<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.htm NTIA Green Paper]</ref> The goal was to open the Internet to greater international participation, and to bolster it as a new medium of commercial competition and exchange.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref>

	On November 25th, 1998, after a process of seeking input from concerned and knowledgeable parties, The U.S. [[DOC\|Department of Commerce]] and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ([[MoU]]),<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN MoU]</ref> which officially recognized ICANN as the entity that would manage the [[IANA]] contract. That contract is renewable, and thus, created an ongoing relationship between the U.S. Department of Commerce and consequently the U.S. Congress. Since the creation of ICANN, the U.S. Congress has had multiple interactions and hearings on the organization.		On November 25th, 1998, after a process of seeking input from concerned and knowledgeable parties, The U.S. [[DOC\|Department of Commerce]] and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ([[MoU]]),<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN MoU]</ref> which officially recognized ICANN as the entity that would manage the [[IANA]] contract. That contract is renewable, and thus, created an ongoing relationship between the U.S. Department of Commerce and consequently the U.S. Congress. Since the creation of ICANN, the U.S. Congress has had multiple interactions and hearings on the organization.