ICANN

Type:	Private, Non-Profit
Industry:	Internet Protocol Management
Founded:	1998
Headquarters:	4676 Admiralty Way # 330, Marina del Rey, CA, USA
Employees:	140 employees
Revenue:	63.6 million (2010)
Website:	icann.org
Blog:	blog.icann.org
Key People
Rod Beckstrom, CEO and President Steve Crocker, Chair of the Board

ICANN is an acronym for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a global multi-stakeholder organization that was created and empowered through actions by the U.S. government and its Department of Commerce. It coordinates the Internet DNS, IP addresses and autonomous system numbers; which involves a continued management of these evolving systems and the protocols that underly them.

While ICANN has its roots in the U.S. government, it is now, and continues to strive to be, an international, community driven organization. Their management of an interoperable Internet covers 180 million domain names, the allocation of more than 4 billion network addresses, and the support of approximately a trillion DNS look-ups everyday across 240 countries.

ICANN collaborates with companies, individuals, and governments to ensure the continued success of the Internet. It holds meetings three times a year, switching the international location for each meeting; one of these serves as the annual general meeting when the new ICANN Board members take their seats.

The Beginning

On July 1st, 1997, U.S. President Bill Clinton directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the management of the DNS, which had heretofore been managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other U.S. research agencies. The goal was to open the Internet to greater international participation, and to bolster it as a new medium of commercial competition and exchange.

On July 2nd, the Department of Commerce requested public input regarding DNS administration and structure, policy input regarding new registrars and the creation of new TLDs, and concerns regarding trademarks. More than 1,500 pages of comments were received.

In January, 1998, an agency of the Department of Commerce (NTIA) issued what has become known as the "Green Paper." The document was a proposal which made clear that the agency intended to empower a non-profit entity to take control of the Internet and its DNS system. The proposal drew criticism from some American lawmakers and other concerned individuals who saw the American-fostered Internet about to be handed over to a Swiss entity. The revised "White Paper" addressed some of those concerns but still posited the need for an Internet organization which could respect and foster stability, competition, bottom-up coordination, and international representation, while also establishing appropriate protocol and administrative mechanisms. The "White Paper" did not clarify all of the divisive issues but instead called for the proposed entity to utilize its self-governance to decide on the issues at hand itself. The White Paper spurned the creation of the International Forum on the White Paper, which involved the creation and meeting of four globally regional forums, and brought together some 1,000 Internet stakeholders. The IFWP did not create any specific proposal in response to NTIA's White Paper, but it did create a valuable body of thought and laid the foundations for future Internet governance and multi-stakeholder conferences and organizations.

The Memorandum of Understanding

On November 25th, 1998, The U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which officially recognized ICANN as the entity that would:

a. Establish policy for and direct the allocation of IP number blocks;

b. Oversee the operation of the authoritative root server system;

c. Oversee the policy for determining the circumstances under which new TLDs would be added to the root system;

d. Coordinate the assignment of other Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; and

e. Oversee other activities necessary to coordinate the specified DNS management functions, as agreed by the Department of Commerce and ICANN.

Once again, these responsibilities would be undertaken and guided by the principles of stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation. The agreement established ICANN as an entity that would encourage transparency in its dealings and would create ample room for appeals for any binding decisions it would make. The Department of Commerce later noted that it was comfortable ceding its control to ICANN, as it seemed like the best step towards true privatization while still binding the authority of the institution to the American policies found within the MoU. The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000. The MoU has been amended several times.

Initial Issues

ICANN was immediately faced with two pressing, opposing issues: the task of reigning in cybersquatting by creating policies necessary to protect recognized trademarks, and conversely the need to expand the number of entities accredited to function as registrars. Following the release of the White Paper, WIPO began its own research into how to protect trademarks and intellectual property within the changing DNS. A congressional hearing some 7 months after the empowerment of ICANN recognized the steps that the new entity had already taken to protect intellectual property, recognized the headway WIPO had made in creating further proposals, and called on intellectual property owners to become involved in ICANN.

WIPO's report, submitted to ICANN at their 1999 meeting in Berlin, supported the Whois system, but also recommended that, should the Whois system fail to provide adequate contact information for the trademark holder to contact the domain name holder, the registrar should be obliged to rectify the situation by canceling the domain name holder's rights to the name. ICANN immediately took steps to develop the nascent Whois system.

The report also made recommendations regarding the process of accrediting new registrars, called for the creation of a concrete dispute resolution process for intellectual property issues within the DNS, and also recommended that the creation of any new gTLDs should proceed slowly and with caution. These recommendations precipitated ICANN's Accreditation Guidelines, the creation of the UDRP, and the continued debate over how and when to increase the number of gTLDs.

Registrar Accreditation

A month before the MoU officially recognized ICANN, the Department of Commerce and NSI amended their cooperative agreement. The agreement had previously maintained the NSI as the only registrar for the .com, .org, and .net domains. The three amendments to the agreement removed the exclusive rights of NSI; amendment 11 called for the creation of a Shared Registry System, whereby an unlimited number of competitive registrars would have access to one system managed by NSI. Amendment 12 gave more time to NSI to complete important milestones in the liberalization of registry services; the final phase, which called for equal access to the SRS by all accredited registrars, was now given a deadline of about one year, October 25th, 1999. Amendment 13 attached a $9 fee for each second level domain name registered, payable as $18 for new registrations and $9 per year on the anniversary of the original registration.

On February 8th, 1999, ICANN posted its Draft Guidelines for Registrar Accreditation for public commentary. The guidelines were formed through consultation with the DOC and NSI, and further tailored after the session of public commentary. Some issues raised during the period of public commentary include: concerns regarding the inherent bureaucracy, inadequate protections for intellectual property, and the reasoning behind accrediting registrars before the DNSO was constituted. The ICANN board accepted the revised Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy at their March, 1999 meeting in Singapore.

The initial policy called for registrars to provide secure access to the registry, be operationally capable of handling significant registration volume, maintain electronic transaction records, handle and provide prompt service to SLD requests, provide security, handle seamless transfers of customers who desire to switch registrars, employ an adequately sized staff, and have measures in place to protect the interests of their customers should the registrar fail. The registrar would also have to demonstrate that it had a sufficient liability insurance policy and store of liquid assets. A concern over creating and maintaining a valid registry service is evidenced in the requirement that information regarding each registrant of a SLD would have to be submitted by the registrar to NSI for inclusion in its registry. Providing a searchable Whois service was also required. Application fees for those applying to be included in the Phase 1 testbed cost $2,500, the general application fee was $1,000. Annual accreditation fees, amounting to $5,000, would also be assessed.

The Registration Accreditation Agreement was unanimously amended by the ICANN board in May, 2009.

The Testbed Period

Numerous technical problems plagued the testbed period of the SRS. The aforementioned Amendment 12 established the testbed period as Phase 1 of the deployment of the SRS, and set a start date of April 26th, 1999, and an end date of June 25th, 1999. Register.com finally became the first of the 5 competitive testbed registrars to successfully implement its interface with the SRS, which happened 6 weeks into the 2 month testbed period. The technical difficulties also extended to the deployment of the required Whois system. Throughout the testbed period general applications for the later phases were being accepted. The Department of Commerce and the NSI extended the testbed period about 4 times, the final extension finally expired on November 5th, 1999.

UDRP

On September 29th, 1999, ICANN posted the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy for public comments. The process aimed to address problems arising from cybersquatting and protect intellectual property rights. This process was not solely a concern or product of ICANN,given WIPO's earlier, and continued, effort on the UDRP. The policy asserts that it will transfer, delete, or asses other changes to any domain name held by a domainer which:

1. Is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

2. The domainer no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

3. The domain name in question has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The same day, ICANN also issued the Rules for the UDRP, which set forth the procedure for filing and responding to complaints. This was also open for a period of public commentary. Some of the public comments can be found here.

ICANN adopted the UDRP at its November, 1999, meeting in Los Angeles.

Organization & Structure

It is central to ICANN's mission that the organization itself is structured in a way that welcomes a variety of voices and seeks to represent the extremely diverse constituencies with continued interest in the Internet's development, from registries, to corporations, to individual Internet users. Naturally, throughout ICANN's structural development there have been critics who have taken issue with closed-door sessions, the role of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and other structural and procedural rules. ICANN has recently been described as being in a contentious oversight situation; with some countries calling for all U.S. influence to be removed from the organization by subordinating it to the U.N.'s jurisdiction, or suggesting similar solutions.

Board of Directors

ICANN is governed by a Board of Directors made up of 15 voting members, and the President and CEO, who is also a voting member. The board is further aided by 5 non-voting liaisons. From its inception until December, 2011, being a board member was a voluntary position. At that time, the ICANN Board responded to mounting pressure regarding conflicts of interest and the notion that compensation would create a more professional and accountable body by awarding themselves a $35,000 annual salary.

Selection of Voting Members

ICANN's bylaws stipulate the makeup of the board, stating:

• 8 seats selected by the NomCom
• 2 seats selected by the ASO
• 2 seats selected by the ccNSO
• 2 seats selected by the GNSO
• 1 seat selected by the At-Large Community
• The President

The board then selects a Chairman and vice-Chairman from among its voting ranks, although the President and CEO is excluded from consideration from either of these posts. Directors selected for the board must be: individuals of intelligence and integrity, aware of ICANN and the effects of its existence and decisions, representative of cultural and geographic diversity, familiar with Internet protocols and the roles of its important entities, volunteers (excluding the CEO), and capable of working in written and spoken English. They also must disclose any external affiliations they have that could be perceived as affecting a conflict of interest as they are charged with representing ICANN's best interests and not those of the group which nominated them or their professional affiliations.

At any one time each global region must have at least one director on the board, with no more than 5 allowed for any one region. The international regions are: Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean islands; Africa; and North America. This rule is in place to ensure holistic international representation.

Current Board of Directors

The 15 current directors, and the current CEO, are listed below, along with the organization which nominated them and the length of their term:

• Rod Beckstrom, President and CEO
• Steve Crocker (Chair), selected by the NomCom, Nov. 2008 - Oct. 2011.
• Bruce Tonkin (Vice-Chair), selected by the GNSO, June 2007 - May 2012.
• Katim Touray, selected by the NomCom, Nov. 2008 - Oct. 2011
• Rajasekhar Ramaraj, selected by the NomCom, Dec.2006 - Oct. 2012.
• George Sadowsky, selected by the NomCom, Oct. 2009 - Oct. 2012.
• Gonzalo Navarro, selected by the NomCom, Oct. 2009 - Oct. 2012.
• Cherine Chalaby, selected by the NomCom, Dec. 2010 - 2013.
• Bertrand de la Chapelle, selected by the NomCom, Dec. 2010 - 2013.
• Erika Mann, selected by the NomCom, Dec. 2010 - 2013.
• Sebastien Bachollet, selected by the ALAC, Dec. 2010 - 2013.
• Chris Disspain, selected by the ccNSO, June 2011 - June 2014.
• Bill Graham, selected by the GNSO, June 2011 - June 2014.
• Raymond A. Plzak, selected by the ASO, May 2009 - April 2012.
• Kuo-Wei Wu, selected by the ASO, April 2010 - 2012.
• Michael Silber, selected by the ccNSO, May 2009 - April 2012.

Non-Voting Liaisons

An additional 5 seats are held for non-voting liaisons. These liaisons are given access to the same materials and are a part of the board's debates; they represent various specialty and advisory organizations and provide valuable input and reactions to ICANN deliberations. The seats are determined as follows:

• One liaison is to be appointed by the Governmental Advisory Committee
• One liaison is to be appointed by the Root Server System Advisory Committee
• One liaison is to be appointed by the Security and Stability Advisory Committe
• One liaison is to be appointed by the Technical Liaison Group
• One liaison is to be appointed by the Internet Engineering Task Force

Current Non-Voting Liaisons

• Heather Dryden, GAC liaison
• Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC liaison
• Ram Mohan, SSAC liaison
• Reinhard Scholl, TLG liaison
• Thomas Narten, IETF liaison

Review Processes

ICANN has mechanisms in place for any individual or entity to solicit a reappraisal of any board decision that affects them. The Board Governance Committee is in charge of reviewing all reconsideration requests, which are submitted electronically and must be responded to within 30 days. The boards actions are also reviewed by an Independent Review Panel, which has the power to call attention to discrepancies between the bylaws and actions taken by the board, and recommend that the board readdress certain issues. Furthermore, ICANN's structure and operations, including every supporting organization and committee, is also subject to occasional reviews.

Meetings

ICANN holds week-long meetings 3 times per year; one of these meetings serves as the organization's annual meeting, where new board directors take their appointed seats. These meetings are held in a different location each time, with each global region hosting a meeting before the regional cycle is started anew. The next meeting will be the 41st meeting in Singapore. The 41st meeting was scheduled to be held in Amman, Jordan, before it was moved due to security concerns. Singapore was then selected to host that meeting.

Meetings officially begin on a Monday, though some supporting organizations meet prior to this, and run through Friday.

A fellowship program is in place to bring in individuals who have a desire or need to attend but do not have the financial backing to attend on their own.

ICANN 2.0

ICANN's bottom-up focus and its periodic structural reviews lead to revision of its bylaws and the introduction of new entities and policies. One such rush of changes happened in and around the year 2000, when the prospective changes and the discussions surrounding them spurned people to talk of "ICANN 2.0".

The Introduction of the ALAC

One of the discussions and propositions which was involved in the debate surrounding "ICANN 2.0" was the introduction of a body which could represent individual Internet users. This became known as the At-Large Committee, or ALAC, and while it was finally introduced through amendments to the bylaws in 2002, it had been a hot topic for debate for years.

Other Committees

Many of the other new developments at ICANN were accomplished through the introduction of review teams; such as the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform. Other Committees intent on expanding and specializing the role of ICANN were also created, such as the Security Committee, which eventually became the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. Both of these committees were given official recognition in 2002. The push for reform was also significantly aided by Stuart Lynn's "President's report: The Case for Reform," which they credited for starting the dialogue on reform and leading to the creation of the more formal committee.

ICANN adopted a new set of by-laws, which were first laid out by the aforementioned Evolution and Reform Committee, before being revised in response to Public Forums. Those by-laws can be read here. The by-laws not only more clearly defined ICANN's mission and core values, but it also put in place and improved apparatuses for review and greater transparency. The Reconsideration Committee, Independent Review Panel, and the Ombudsman all were strengthened as a part of this move towards a more transparent organization that is able to defend its actions and decisions.

Further Developments

• IDN Committee is established, 2001.
• The approval of LACNIC as a RIR, 2002.
• Approval of RegistryPro's .pro TLD, 2002.
• Creation of Executive Search Committee, 2002.
• New TLD evaluation process began, 2002.
• The Board Governance Committee was created, 2003.
• The ccNSO was officially created, 2004.
• AfriNIC provisionally recognized as a RIR, 2004; officially recognized, 2005.

New gTLDs

The discussion of creating new 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.' 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".

In 2000, a number of Working Groups that had been created the year before submitted reports on their take on the introduction of new TLDs; most notably, Working Group C called for a limited number of extensions to be introduced. The Board continued to move ahead with new TLD introduction, creating this application process. The task force that worked with the process helped .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, and .pro all become recognized extensions in 2000.

At the October, 2003 meeting in Carthage, the Board passed its most significant resolution to date on fully opening the gTLD creation process. In it they recognized their obligation to develop new gTLDs in an effective, transparent, and stable manner, the overdue nature of a formal process for gTLD expansion, and the problems they faced when introducing the last round of extensions in 2000. Thus, they resolved to begin to dedicate significant resources to the issue and to establish a public forum in order to receive community input.

In 2003, important new sTLDs began being proposed. While these domains are different from gTLDs in that they are sponsored by a given constituency, this can be seen as another way in which the wider community was pressing for a greater variety of domain space. Applications came from .asia, .xxx, .net, .cat, .mobi, .jobs, and .travel.; they all went on to approval in 2005-2006, except for the controversial .xxx, which went through a much more contentious and drawn out process but was still approved in March, 2011 at ICANN 40.

New gTLD Program

After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion of new gTLDs, a Policy Development Process in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs 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. 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.

New gTLD Senate and House of Representatives Hearings

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 second level.

The full letter can be seen here.

2011 Developments

Physical Expansion

In September, 2011, the ICANN Board approved resolutions to secure new office space for the organization. It is possible they will negotiate for more space at their current location, or that they find a new space at their headquarters of Marina Del Rey. It was also decided to begin permanently leasing its office space in Brussels instead of continuing to rent their space month-to-month. Much of its expansion is related to the new gTLD program. At the time of the board's decision, ICANN staff numbered 124, with 21 open positions to be filled. The 2012 budget includes $2.1 million for office space acquisition and maintenance for its offices in Marina Del Rey, Brussels, Sydney, Paolo Alto, and Washington D.C..

Conflicts of Interest

ICANN has never had a clear conflicts on interest policy, or any regulations in place that would prevent its most important staff members and its directors from moving directly into employment within the industry. This is an issue given the fact that these people of power influence the decisions and market-power of ICANN, and thus they could help create programs and policies that they could then go on to financially benefit from. This notably came to a head in 2011, when a prominent staffer and the Chairman of the Board left ICANN for employment in the industry. Both were involved in developing ICANN's new gTLD program, and both went on the be employed in new gTLD related ventures.

The Chairman of the board in question was Peter Dengate Thrush, who led the directors to the historic approval of a new gTLD program and timeline at ICANN 41 in Singapore. This was his final meeting as Chairman of the board due to the determined term limits. Mr. Thrush went on, weeks later, to become the Executive Chairman of Top Level Domain Holdings, the parent company of new gTLD registry and consultancy, Minds + Machines. He was the first chair to move directly into a high-paying, domain name industry job.

Following Mr. Thrush's move to Minds + Machines, a number of outside organizations and ICANN stakeholders called for a concrete ethics policy to be set in place, these include: U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, the Association of National Advertisers, The European Commission, The U.S. Department of Commerce, the French government, and other IP and industry organizations. ICANN's CEO, Rod Beckstrom had previously noted at the opening ceremony to ICANN 42, even before Peter Dengate Thrush moved on, that he was encouraged by the fact that the ICANN community was moving to fix the lack of clear ethics rules within the organization. AusRegistry's CEO, Adrian Kinderis, later noted the converse fact that without clear ethics policies he and his industry would continue to go after ICANN's most knowledgeable and prepared individuals for their own gain.

Following these developments, ICANN announced it would hire outside ethics experts to review its policies and make recommendations. The decision was made during a September, 2011 meeting of the board governance committee.

A new Conflict of Interest Policy was released on December 8th, 2011, effective immediately. The policy requires that all Board Members, as well as those in various other postions, disclose any and all potential conflicts of interest to the Board Governance Committee. They must then abstain from any ICANN activities related to the conflict of interest, Board members also may not join business with a new gTLD registry until 12 months after the registry's application has been voted on.

Time Zone Database

On October 14th, 2011, ICANN announced that it would take over the management of the Internet Time Zone Database, which contains the code and data that computer programs and operating systems rely on to determine a given location's correct time. It agreed to pick up this new responsibility after a request from IETF. Prior to this, the Time Zone Database was managed by a group of volunteers, namely its coordinator, Arthur David Olson at the US National Institutes of Health.

Manwin Anti-Trust Lawsuit

Manwin, one of the most prominent adult content producers on the Internet, filed an Anti-Trust suit against both ICM Registry and ICANN over the creation and implementation of the .xxx TLD. This legal action took place in November, 2011, well after the TLD's approval and just before its general availability. It also filed an Independent Review Panel (IRP) Request with ICANN, making it only the second company ever to do so (the first being ICM Registry itself). Manwin felt that ICANN's decision to allow .xxx into the root did not “adequately address issues including competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse and rights protection prior to approving the .xxx TLD."

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, ICANN's new gTLD program also recieved negative Op-Eds by the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post. ICANN was also the subject of the aforementioned hearings within the U.S. Congress, 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. Many of these critics were not explicitly anti-ICANN, but anti-new gTLDs.

World Intellectual Property Organization

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

At-Large Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN related to the interests of individual Internet users (ICANN Bylaws). Not to be confused with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.

Top-Level Domain

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

Independent Review Process