staff
8,858
edits
Changes
no edit summary
On July 2nd, the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] requested public input regarding [[DNS]] administration and structure, policy input regarding new registrars and the creation of new [[TLD]]s, and concerns regarding trademarks. More than 1,500 pages of comments were received.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 June 5.</ref>
On July 2nd, the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] requested public input regarding [[DNS]] administration and structure, policy input regarding new registrars and the creation of new [[TLD]]s, and concerns regarding trademarks. More than 1,500 pages of comments were received.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 June 5.</ref>
In January 1998, an agency of the [[DOC|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm ICANN White Paper]. ICANN.</ref> 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.<ref name="greenwhite">[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00800.html The Green Paper vs. The White Paper]. ICANN. Published 1999 October 18.</ref> 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.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/principles.html How do the NTIA White Paper and the ICANN By-Laws Impact Membership?]. Harvard Law. Published 1999 January 19.</ref> 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.<ref name="greenwhite"</ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/bosgrp/submission-letter.html Letter from Boston Working Group to Ira Magaziner]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 September 28.</ref>
In January 1998, an agency of the [[DOC|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm ICANN White Paper]. ICANN.</ref> 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.<ref name="greenwhite">[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00800.html The Green Paper vs. The White Paper]. ICANN. Published 1999 October 18.</ref> 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.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/principles.html How do the NTIA White Paper and the ICANN By-Laws Impact Membership?]. Harvard Law. Published 1999 January 19.</ref> 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.<ref name="greenwhite"></ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/bosgrp/submission-letter.html Letter from Boston Working Group to Ira Magaziner]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 September 28.</ref>
===The Memorandum of Understanding===
===The Memorandum of Understanding===