Jump to content

ICANN: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
m Added details on the fellowship program
 
(78 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
| linkedin        = [http://www.linkedin.com/company/icann ICANN]
| linkedin        = [http://www.linkedin.com/company/icann ICANN]
| twitter        = ICANN
| twitter        = ICANN
| keypeople      = [[Göran Marby]], CEO and President<br>
| keypeople      = [[Sally Costerton]], Interim CEO and President<br>
[[Cherine Chalaby]], Chair of the Board<br>
[[Tripti Sinha]], Chair of the Board<br>
[[Jeff Moss]] VP and Chief Security Officer <br>
[[John Crain]] VP and Chief Technology Officer <br>
}}
}}
'''ICANN''', or the '''Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers''', is a global multi-stakeholder organization that was created by the U.S. government and its [[DOC|Department of Commerce]].<ref name="icann-mou">[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU Memorandum of Understanding, Depart. of Commerce and ICANN]. ICANN. Published 1999 December 31.</ref> It coordinates the Internet [[DNS]], [[IP]] addresses and [[ASN|autonomous system numbers]], which involves a continued management of these evolving systems and the protocols that underlie them.
'''ICANN''', or the '''Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers''', is a global multi-stakeholder organization that was created by the U.S. government and its [[DOC|Department of Commerce]].<ref name="icann-mou">[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU Memorandum of Understanding, Depart. of Commerce and ICANN]. ICANN. Published 1999 December 31.</ref> It coordinates the Internet [[DNS]], [[IP]] addresses, and [[ASN|autonomous system numbers]] and involves the continued management of these evolving systems and the protocols that underlie them.


While ICANN began in the U.S. government, it is now, and continues to strive to be, an international, community-driven organization independent of any one government.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-01-en Stewardship of <abbr>IANA</abbr> Functions Transitions to Global Internet Community as Contract with U.S. Government Ends]. Retrieved 20 Nov 2017. </ref> Their management of an interoperable Internet covers over 330 million domain names, the allocation of more than 4 billion network addresses, and the support of approximately 95 million [[DNS]] look-ups everyday across 240 countries.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic/strategic-plan-2010-2013-19feb10-en.pdf ICANN Strategic Plan June 2010 June 2013]. ICANN.</ref><ref>[https://blog.verisign.com/domain-names/verisign-domain-name-industry-brief-internet-grows-to-330-6-million-domain-names-in-q1-2017/ VERISIGN DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY BRIEF: INTERNET GROWS TO 330.6 MILLION DOMAIN NAMES IN Q1 2017]. Retrieved 20 Nov 2017.</ref><ref>[https://system.opendns.com/ OpenDNS]. Retrieved 20 Nov 2017.</ref>
While ICANN began in the U.S. government, it is now and continues to be, an international, community-driven organization independent of any one government.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-01-en Stewardship of <abbr>IANA</abbr> Functions Transitions to Global Internet Community as Contract with U.S. Government Ends]. Retrieved 20 Nov 2017. </ref> ICANN's management of an interoperable Internet covers over 330 million domain names, the allocation of more than 4 billion network addresses, and the support of approximately 95 million [[DNS]] look-ups every day across 240 countries.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic/strategic-plan-2010-2013-19feb10-en.pdf ICANN Strategic Plan June 2010 June 2013]. ICANN.</ref><ref>[https://blog.verisign.com/domain-names/verisign-domain-name-industry-brief-internet-grows-to-330-6-million-domain-names-in-q1-2017/ VERISIGN DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY BRIEF: INTERNET GROWS TO 330.6 MILLION DOMAIN NAMES IN Q1 2017]. Retrieved 20 Nov 2017.</ref><ref>[https://system.opendns.com/ OpenDNS]. Retrieved 20 Nov 2017.</ref>


ICANN collaborates with a variety of stakeholders including companies, individuals, and governments to ensure the continued success of the Internet. It holds [[ICANN Meetings|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.<ref name="meetings">[http://meetings.icann.org/about ICANN About Meetings]. ICANN.</ref>
ICANN collaborates with a variety of stakeholders including companies, individuals, and governments to ensure the continued success of the Internet. It holds [[ICANN Meetings|meetings]] three times a year, switching the international location for each meeting; one of these serves as the annual general meeting, during which the new [[ICANN Board]] members take their seats.<ref name="meetings">[http://meetings.icann.org/about ICANN About Meetings]. ICANN.</ref>


==History: The Beginning==
==History: 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.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.htm Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 February 20.</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 name="icann-mou"></ref>
On July 1, 1997, U.S. President Bill Clinton directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the management of the [[DNS]], which had been managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ([[DARPA]]), the National Science Foundation ([[NSF]]) and other U.S. research agencies.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.htm Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 February 20.</ref> The goals were to open the Internet to greater international participation and bolster it as a new medium of commercial competition and exchange.<ref name="icann-mou"></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>
On July 2, the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] requested public input regarding [[DNS]] administration and structure, policy input regarding new registrars, 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 that 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 the IAHC, 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.


===The Memorandum of Understanding===
===The Memorandum of Understanding===
On November 25th, 1998, The U.S. [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ([[MoU]]),<ref name="icann-mou"></ref> which officially recognized ICANN as the entity that would:
On November 25, 1998, The U.S. [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ([[MoU]]),<ref name="icann-mou"></ref> which officially recognized ICANN as the entity that would:


# Establish policy for and direct the allocation of IP number blocks;  
# Establish policy for and direct the allocation of IP number blocks;  
# Oversee the operation of the authoritative root server system;  
# Oversee the operation of the authoritative root server system;  
# Oversee the policy for determining the circumstances under which new [[TLD]]s would be added to the root system;  
# Oversee the policy for determining the circumstances under which new [[TLD]]s would be added to the root system;
# Coordinate the assignment of other Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; and  
# Coordinate the assignment of other Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; and  
# Oversee other activities necessary to coordinate the specified [[DNS]] management functions, as agreed by the Department of Commerce and ICANN.
# 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.<ref name="icann-mou"></ref> 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]].<ref name="congress">[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing].Published 1999 July.</ref> The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.<ref name="icann-mou"></ref> The [[MoU]] has been amended several times.
Once again, these responsibilities would be undertaken and guided by the principles of stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation.<ref name="icann-mou"></ref> The agreement established ICANN as an entity that would encourage transparency and create 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]].<ref name="congress">[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing].Published 1999 July.</ref> The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.<ref name="icann-mou"></ref> The [[MoU]] has been amended several times.


===The First Three Supporting Organizations===
ICANN's bottom-up focus and its periodic structural reviews lead to a revision of its [[ICANN Bylaws|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".<ref>[http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue3/froomkin.pdf "ICANN 2.0 Meet the New Boss"]</ref>
The three original supporting organizations include: <ref name="caslon">[http://www.caslon.com.au/icannprofile2.htm#dnso ICANN Profile, Structure and Personnel Review]. Caslon Analytics.</ref>
* '''[[DNSO|Domain Names Supporting Organization]] (DNSO)''' provides policy advice to the [[ICANN Board]] on issues related to the [[DNS|Domain Name System]] (DNS) and IP addresses. The ICANN Board established the Bylaw provisions for the basic structure of the DNSO on March 31, 1999.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/dnso/dnso1.htm DNSO Background]. ICANN.</ref> The DNSO was composed of the Names Council, General Assembly and Constituencies including ccTLD registries, gTLD registries, commercial and business entities, [[ISP]]s and connectivity providers, registrars and intellectual property.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#1 Resolution on DNSO Constituencies]. ICANN.</ref> On July 9, 2003 the DNSO was restructured and its responsibilities were transferred to the [[GNSO|Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO).<ref>[http://www.dnso.org/ DNSO Website]</ref> The organization ceased operation after the ICANN Board adopted Article XX: Transition Article of the New Bylaws on December 15, 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-appb-15dec02-en.htm Appendix B to Minutes of Board Meeting]. ICANN. Published 2002 December 12.</ref>
* '''[[ASO|Address Supporting Organization]] (ASO)''' is responsible for providing advice to the [[ICANN Board]] on issues related to the operation, assignment and management of Internet addresses. It is composed of an Address Council and representatives from the [[RIR|Regional Internet Registries]] (RIRs), including the [[APNIC|Asia Pacific Network Information Centre]] (APNIC), [[ARIN|American Registry for Internet Numbers]] (ARIN) and [[RIPE|Reseaux IP Europeens]] (RIPE).<ref name="bylawsamended">[http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws/bylaws-29oct99-en.htm#V ICANN Bylaws As Amended and Restated]. ICANN. Published 1999 October 29.</ref><ref name="caslon"></ref>
* '''[[PSO|Protocol Supporting Organization]] (PSO)'''  advised the ICANN Board on issues related  to the assignment of parameters for Internet protocols through the PSO Council, which was composed of the [[IETF|Internet Engineering Task Force]] (IETF), [[W3C|World Wide Web Consortium]] (W3C), the [[ITU|International Telecommunications Union]] (ITU) and the [[ETSI|European Telecommunications Standards Institute]] (ETSI).<ref name="bylawsamended"></ref>


===Initial Issues===
====Registrar Accreditation Process====
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 [[registrar]]s. 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.<ref name="congress"></ref>
On February 8th, 1999, ICANN posted its Draft Guidelines for [[Registrar]] Accreditation for public commentary.<ref>ref name="accreditation"</ref> The guidelines were formed through consultation with the [[DOC]] and [[NSI]], and further tailored after the session of public commentary.<ref>[http://www.mail-archive.com/list@ifwp.org/msg01253.html Press Release: ICANN Releases Draft Accreditation Guidelines]. Mail Archive. Published 1999 February 8.</ref> 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.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/scribe.html ICANN Public Meeting Details]. Harvard Law.</ref> The ICANN board accepted the revised [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement|Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]] at their March, 1999 meeting in Singapore.<ref>ref name="accreditation"</ref>
 
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 [[gTLD]]s 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 [[gTLD]]s.<ref name="congress"></ref>
 
===Registrar Accreditation===
A month before the [[MoU]] officially recognized ICANN, the [[DOC|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.<ref name="accreditation">[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm Registrar Accreditation: History of the Shared Registry System]. ICANN.</ref> The three amendments to the agreement removed the exclusive rights of NSI; amendment 11 called for the creation of a [[SRS|Shared Registry System]], whereby an unlimited number of competitive registrars would have access to one system managed by NSI.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm Amendment 11]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 October 7.</ref> 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 [[Registrar|registrars]], was now given a deadline of  about one year, October 25th, 1999.<ref name="amend12">[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amend12.htm Amendment 12]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration.</ref> Amendment 13 attached a $9 fee for each [[SLD|second level domain]] name registered, payable as $18 for new registrations and $9 per year on the anniversary of the original registration.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amendment13.htm Amendment 13]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration.</ref>
 
On February 8th, 1999, ICANN posted its Draft Guidelines for [[Registrar]] Accreditation for public commentary.<ref name="accreditation"></ref> The guidelines were formed through consultation with the [[DOC]] and [[NSI]], and further tailored after the session of public commentary.<ref>[http://www.mail-archive.com/list@ifwp.org/msg01253.html Press Release: ICANN Releases Draft Accreditation Guidelines]. Mail Archive. Published 1999 February 8.</ref> 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.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/scribe.html ICANN Public Meeting Details]. Harvard Law.</ref> The ICANN board accepted the revised [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement|Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]] at their March, 1999 meeting in Singapore.<ref name="accreditation"></ref>


The initial policy called for [[Registrar|registrars]] to provide secure access to the [[Registry|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/policy_statement.html Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]</ref>
The initial policy called for [[Registrar|registrars]] to provide secure access to the [[Registry|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/policy_statement.html Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]</ref>


The [[Registration Accreditation Agreement]] was unanimously amended by the ICANN board in May, 2009.<ref name="accreditation"></ref>
The [[Registration Accreditation Agreement]] was unanimously amended by the ICANN board in May, 2009.<ref> ref name="accreditation"</ref>
 
===The Testbed Period===
Numerous technical problems plagued the testbed period of the [[SRS]].<ref name="andrewmclaughlin">[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/update-14jun99.htm Registrar Competition Testbed and Accreditation Update #2]. ICANN. Published 1999 June 14.</ref> 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.<ref name="amend12"></ref> [[Register.com]] finally became the first of the 5 competitive [[Testbed Registrars|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.<ref name="andrewmclaughlin"></ref> Throughout the testbed period general applications for the later phases were being accepted.<ref name="accreditation"></ref> The [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and the [[NSI]] extended the testbed period about 4 times,<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook/milestones.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook/milestones.html]. Harvard Law.</ref> the final extension finally expired on November 5th, 1999.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/nsi/factsheet.htm Fact Sheet on Tentative Agreements among ICANN, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc.] ICANN.</ref>
 
===UDRP===
''Main article: [[UDRP]]''
 
On September 29th, 1999, ICANN posted the [[UDRP|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|domainer]]  which:
 
# Is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
# The domainer no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
# The domain name in question has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-29sept99.htm Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy]. ICANN. Published 1999 September 29.</ref>
 
The same day, ICANN also issued the [http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm 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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy]]. ICANN. Published 1999 September 29.</ref> Some of the public comments can be found [http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/maillist.html here].
 
ICANN adopted the [[UDRP]] at its November, 1999, meeting in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/overview.html Overview of Domain Name Policy Development]. Harvard Law.</ref>
 
==History: ICANN 2.0==
ICANN's bottom-up focus and its periodic structural reviews lead to revision of its [[ICANN Bylaws|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".<ref>[http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue3/froomkin.pdf "ICANN 2.0 Meet the New Boss"]</ref>
 
===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.<ref name="caslon"></ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/ At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)]. ICANN.</ref>
 
===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 [[SSAC|Security and Stability Advisory Committee]]. Both of these committees were given official recognition in 2002.<ref name="accra">[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#EvolutionandReformCommittee ICANN Meeting in Accra Preliminary Report]. ICANN. Published 2002 March 14.</ref> The push for reform was also significantly aided by [[Stuart Lynn]]'s "President's report: The Case for Reform,"<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm President's Report: ICANN – The Case for Reform]. ICANN. Published 2002 February 24.</ref> which they credited for starting the dialogue on reform and leading to the creation of the more formal committee.<ref name="bucharest">[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN Meeting in Bucharest Preliminary Report]]. ICANN. Published 2002 June 28.</ref>
 
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 [http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm 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]], [[IRP|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm Appendix A to Minutes ICANN Board Meeting in Shanghai]. ICANN. Published 2002 October 31.</ref>


===Further Developments===
===Further Developments===
Line 112: Line 72:
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 [http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/application-process-03aug00.htm 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.
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 [http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/application-process-03aug00.htm 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, [[ICANN Board|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm ICANN Board Resolutions in Carthage, Tunisia]. ICANN. Published 2003 October 31.</ref>
At the October 2003 meeting in Carthage, [[ICANN Board|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm ICANN Board Resolutions in Carthage, Tunisia]. ICANN. Published 2003 October 31.</ref>


In 2003, important new [[sTLD]]s began being proposed. While these domains are different from [[gTLD]]s 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]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/index-2005.html 2005 Board Meetings]</ref>; they all went on to approval in 2005-2006, except for the controversial [[.xxx]],<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/ Information Page for Sponsored Top-Level Domains]. ICANN.</ref> which went through a much more contentious and drawn out process but was still approved in March, 2011 at [[ICANN 40]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/ .XXX Registry Agreement]. ICANN. Published 2011 March 31.</ref>
In 2003, important new [[sTLD]]s began being proposed. While these domains are different from [[gTLD]]s 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]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/index-2005.html 2005 Board Meetings]</ref>; they all went on to approval in 2005-2006, except for the controversial [[.xxx]],<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/ Information Page for Sponsored Top-Level Domains]. ICANN.</ref> which went through a much more contentious and drawn out process but was still approved in March, 2011 at [[ICANN 40]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/ .XXX Registry Agreement]. ICANN. Published 2011 March 31.</ref>


==Senate Hearing on New gTLD Program==
:''Main article: [[New gTLD Program]]''
On December 8, 2012, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation conducted a full committee hearing to evaluate the value and effects of the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD expansion program]] as well as ICANN's efforts in resolving the concerns raised by the Internet community. Witnesses present during the committee hearings included:<ref>
After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansions of new gTLDs, a [[PDP|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 this Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all 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 the New gTLD Program, at the same time approving the [https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb New gTLD Applicant Guidebook].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]. ICANN.</ref> The Board announced the possibility of a 9th version of the Guidebook in January 2012, but the industry speculated that there was little chance that the changes would be more than clarification, as opposed to new rules and policies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 January 4.</ref>
[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=22f4a71e-93e9-4711-acec-3ed7f52277cc&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a Hearings-ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains-Dec. 8, 2012]. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.</ref>
 
* [[Angela Williams]], Senior Vice President and General Counsel-YMCA USA
In November 2012, ICANN, [[Verisign]], and [[NTIA]] all confirmed that they were prepared with enough resources to begin launching 100 new gTLDs per week.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10961-icann-verisign-and-ntia-ready-for-100-new-gtlds-per-week ICANN Verisign and NTIA ready for 100 new gTLDs per Week]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 November 8.</ref>
* [[Dan Jaffe]], Executive Vice President, Government Relations, [[ANA]]-[[CRIDO]]
 
* [[Esther Dyson]], former ICANN chair /Independent Angel Investor
* [http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/investment-policy-new-gtld Investment Policy re: New gTLDs, Adopted Dec. 2012]
* [[Fiona Alexander]], Associate Administrator, Office of International Affairs, [[NTIA]]-[[DOC]]
 
* [[Kurt Pritz]], ICANN Senior Vice President
====Second Round of Applications====
On February 7, 2012, the [[ICANN Board]] approved the implementation of a second round and application window for the new gTLD program in response to the request of the global Internet community, particularly the members of [[CADNA]]. The board delegated the [[ICANN CEO]] to work with the Internet community to develop a work plan and the needed prerequisites to open the second round of applications for new gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb12-en.htm#4 Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board]. ICANN. Published 2012 February 7.</ref>
 
====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 its 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..<ref>[http://domainincite.com/as-new-gtlds-loom-icann-expands/ New gTLDs expand ICANN] Domain Incite. Published 2011 September 21.</ref> The Sydney office went on to be closed in 2012.
 
In February 2013, former CEO Fadi Chehadé announced that ICANN's office in L.A. would diminish in importance while two new "hubs" would be created to fill the gap and provide new means of outreach to ICANN's international constituents. The hubs are to be located in Singapore and Istanbul, and are to act with far more authority and purpose than a stand-alone office; it is clear that many senior staff from the L.A. office will be asked to move, and the CEO himself said he will be based in Singapore once that office is up and running.<ref>[http://nigel.je/2013/02/icann-la-to-be-broken-up-begging-letters-to-stop/ ICANN LA To be Broken Up Begging Letters to Stop, Nigel.je] Retrieved 25 Feb 2012</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/11967-icann-to-set-up-hubs-in-singapore-and-istanbul ICANN to Set up Hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 25 Feb 2013</ref> The news was announced during Mr. Chehadé's first comprehensive tour of Asia, with trips to South Korea, China, Japan, and Singapore. He noted that ICANN needed to apologize to Asia, as it had long not been given the attention it deserved within the organization.<ref>[http://www.zdnet.com/sg/icann-ceo-we-owe-asia-a-big-apology-7000011762/ ICANN CEO We Owe Asia a Big Apology, ZDnet.com] Retrieved 25 Feb 2013</ref>
 
As of 2017, ICANN has offices in Los Angeles, Singapore, Montevideo, and Brussels. It has engagement centers in Geneva, Beijing, Nairobi, and Washington, DC.<ref>[https://forms.icann.org/en/contact ICANN Contact Page]. Retrieved 22 Nov 2017.</ref>


===Witnesses' Testimonies===
====Time Zone Database====
[[Angela Williams]] represented the concerns of the members of [[ICANN]]'s [[NPOC|Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency]] (NPOC) during the Senate hearing. In her testimony, she raised budgetary, public confusion, and [[cybersquatting]] issues. According to her, the increased risk of public confusion compromises Internet security. She also noted that it would be more expensive for not-for-profit organizations to protect their brand names/trademarks against fraud, [[cybersquatting]] and trademark infringement. She also pointed out that not-for-profit-organizations cannot afford the amount of money needed to become a domain name registry to ensure brand protection. Williams encouraged [[ICANN]] to consider the concerns of the members of the NPOC. She also recommended that verified not-for-profit organizations be allowed to exempt their trademarks from any new TLD applicant at no cost or at a drastically reduced fee.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=56a49ede-865f-4bbe-9635-58d0b59add7b Testimony of Angela F. Williams, Senate Hearing, Dec. 8, 2012]. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.</ref>
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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-14oct11-en.pdf ICANN to Manage Time Zone Database]. ICANN. Published 2011 October 14.</ref>


During the hearing, [[Dan Jaffe]] testified that the new gTLD program is "bad for consumers, marketers and the entire online marketplace" and enumerated different reasons why it is necessary to the stop its implementation. According to him, there is no substantial evidence that the new gTLD program will promote competition, relieve the scarcity of domain name space and support differentiated services and new products. He also cited that the new gTLD program has a serious economic impact. Brand owners might be compelled to file for [[Defensive Registration|defensive registrations]] to protect their trademarks or [[Intellectual Property|intellectual property]] rights. There is a possibility of misappropriation of intellectual property rights, domain navigation dilution, increased risk of cybersquatting, reduced investments from intellectual property owners, and losses from failed TLDs. Jaffe supported his claims using the “Economic Considerations in the Expansion of Generic TopLevel Domain Names, Phase II Report: Case Studies,” a study commissioned by ICANN in December, 2010. In addition, he also emphasized that the new gTLD programs lacks consensus and ICANN failed to meet its "bottom-up, consensus-driven approach to policy development." Furthermore, he pointed out that the application fee is too expensive and harmful for brand owners and he also raised the concerns regarding the organization's conflict of interest policies after [[Peter Dengate Thrush]] decided to join [[Minds + Machines]] as Executive Chairman immediately after his term as chairman  of ICANN. Thrush strongly advocated approval of the new gTLD program.<ref>
====IANA Functions Stewardship Transition====
[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8c7e6c3b-a6b8-41a9-b59a-681dd278249f Testimony of Daniel L. Jaffe, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2012]. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.</ref>
: ''Main article: [[IANA Functions Stewardship Transition]]''


[[Esther Dyson]] testified that the new gTLD program is not necessary to promote innovation. She said, ''"The rationale is that there's a shortage of domain names... but actually, there's a shortage of space in people's heads."'' She recommended for ICANN to conduct further consultation regarding the program and make a broader public outreach. She concluded her testimony with the saying, ''"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"''<ref>
In March 2014, [[NTIA]] released a statement saying that they are intent on transitioning their part of the [[IANA]] functions away from NTIA and to the global stakeholder community. <ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions NTIA announces intent to transition key domain name functions]</ref> ICANN issued a press release supporting this shift. <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-03-14-en Press release, March 14 2014]</ref>
[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c81ce454-f519-4373-a51d-234c61755e39 Testimony of Esther Dyson, Hearing on ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2011]. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.</ref>


As representative of the U.S. [[NTIA]], [[Fiona Alexander]] informed the members of the Senate Committee that the agency is part of the [[Governmental Advisory Committee]] (GAC), which is actively involved in the policy development process within ICANN. She testified that the NTIA and its counterparts within the GAC provided consensus advice to ICANN during the policy development process for the new gTLD program for six years. She emphasized that the GAC developed a "scorecard" to address the different issues raised by governments, which include:
ICANN created a co-ordination group from nominations among 13 community stakeholder groups, totaling 27 individuals, which produced a draft transition document. On December 2, 2014, ICANN opened the public comment period on the draft transition document produced by the coordination group.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2014/12/02/icann-opens-comment-period-for-its-move-out-of-us-control-deadline-is-december-22nd/ ICANN opens comment period for its move out of US control]</ref>
* objection procedures for governments 
* procedures for the review of sensitive strings 
* root zone scaling
* market and economic impacts
* registry-registrar separation 
* protection of trademark rights and other intellectual property
* consumer protection issues
* post-delegation disputes with governments 
* use and protection of geographic names 
* legal recourse for applicants
* opportunities for stakeholders from developing countries 
* law enforcement due diligence recommendations
* early warning mechanism for applicants to identify if a proposed string would raise controversies or sensitivities


Ms. Alexander strongly emphasized NTIA's support of ICANN's [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]] of internet governance and dedication to maintaining the open Internet to promote economic growth, innovation and the free flow of information, products and services online.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=98c38242-c53f-438a-bb53-2d986e4bf168 Testimony of Fiona M. Alexander, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2011]. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.</ref>
====A New Approach to Africa====
On August 10, 2012, ICANN, with the support of [[AfriNIC]], announced an initiative to increase African participation in influence within ICANN. The initiative is the result of a meeting between [[Steve Crocker]], Chairman of ICANN's Board of Directors, ICANN's CEO-Designate [[Fadi Chehadé]], and Interim CEO [[Akram Atallah]], with African community members at [[ICANN 44]] in Prague, Czech Republic. Their goal is to develop a framework for ICANN's Africa strategy to be announced at [[ICANN 45]] in Toronto, Canada. A [[WG|working group]] was established, led by [[Nii Quaynor]] of Ghana, to contribute to the development of the strategy. The group is also to work with [[Tarek Kamel]], Head of Governmental Affairs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10aug12-en.htm A New Approach to Africa]. ICANN. Published 2012 August 10.</ref> The initiative has received strong support from African Internet stakeholders, including former Board Member [[Katim Touray]]. In March 2013, [[Fadi Chehadé]], expressed his desire to raise the number of registrars in Africa from 5 to 25, via personal and business relations with the banking and insurance sectors that would allow the African companies to more easily meet some form of tailored ICANN accreditation. His hope is to accomplish this in just a few months, with something implemented around ICANN 47 in Durban, in July 2013<ref>[http://domainincite.com/12181-chehade-commits-to-grow-the-number-of-domain-registrars-in-africa Chehade Commits to Grow The Number of Domain Registrars in Africa, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 8 Mar 2013</ref>


[[Kurt Pritz]] testified to the Senate committee that the introduction of new gTLDs has been one of the mandates of the Internet governing body since its establishment. Pritz pointed out that the new gTLD program was developed through the multistakeholder process; global internet stakeholders including brand and trade mark owners, domain name registries, registrars, registrants, governments, law enforcement agencies, governments, not-for-profit organizations, etc. participated in the policy development and implementation program for new gTLDs. He also emphasized the provisions in the Applicant Guidebook regarding new trademark protections such as the [[URS|Uniform Rapid Suspension]] (URS) and the [[Trademark Clearing House]], measures to mitigate malicious conduct, create objection processes, maintain [[DNSSEC|DNS Security]] (DNSSEC) and other relevant issues. He concluded his testimony by reiterating that the "ICANN community worked tirelessly to create the new gTLD program to promote competition and innovation..."<ref>
====UDRP====
[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=456113a0-c084-43d7-a1b8-979524fd74cf Testimony of Kurt Pritz, Hearing on Expansion of Top Level Domain Names, Dec. 8, 2012]</ref> <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-boxer-cantwell-et-al-25jan12-en.pdf Sen. Barbara Boxer to Kurt Pritz, Questions for the Record,ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domain Names, Dec. 8, 2011]. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.</ref>
''Main article: [[UDRP]]''


===ICANN's Answers to the Senate Committee ===
On September 29th, 1999, ICANN posted the [[UDRP|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|domainer]] which:
On Janury 25, 2012, Pritz answered the questions sent by members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation regarding the new gTLD expansion program. The questions were asked by Senators Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Claire McCaskill, Olympia Snowe and Mark Warner on January 8. The questions of the legislators were centered on the following issues:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-boxer-cantwell-et-al-25jan12-en.pdf Pritz to Boxer]. Published 2012 January 25.</ref>
* '''Intellectual Property Rights'''- In order to avoid consumer confusion and or violations of intellectual property rights, Pritz explained that the new gTLD program has mandatory intellectual property rights protection mechanisms for both first and second level domain names. He also added that strict reviews will be implemented and it will reject the applications of entities with a history of cybersquatting. In addition, the public and the various constituencies of ICANN will have the opportunity to review and raise their concerns regarding the proposed new gTLD strings. Pritz also enumerated the four available objection processes, which include:
# '''String Confusion Objection'''- the proposed new gTLD is confusingly similar to an existing or to another applied for gTLD string.
# '''Legal Rights Objection'''- the gTLD string being applied for infringes the existing legal rights of the objector.
# '''Limited Public Interest Objection'''- the proposed new gTLD string contradicts the generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under the principles of international law.
# '''Community Objection'''- a significant number of the target community is opposed to the new gTLD string being applied for.
Any objections should be filed to one of the three independent dispute resolution providers approved by ICANN, including the [[ICDR|International Centre for Dispute Resolution]] (string confusion objections), [[WIPO]] Arbitration and Mediation Center (legal rights objections), and the [[ICC|International Chamber of Commerce-International Center of Expertise]] (limited public interest and community objections). Moreover, Pritz also emphasized the appointment of an [[Independent Objector]], whose responsibility will be to review applications on behalf of the public interest and to file an objection if necessary.
* '''Sunrise Period'''- Pritz informed the members of the committee that a Sunrise Period is mandated for all approved new gTLDs. The [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] will serve as a central repository of trademark rights information to be authenticated, stored and disseminated. All trademark holders will have the chance to record all their nationally and multi-nationally registered word marks from all jurisdictions. All the authenticated trademark rights data in the Trademark Clearinghouse will be used to protect those related domains during the pre-launch of the Sunrise Period and the Trademark claims services.
* '''DNS Security ([[DNSSEC]])'''- Pritz confirmed that all new gTLD applicants are required to implement DNSSEC. He also informed them that 82% of existing TLD registries have already deployed DNSSEC to ensure the security and stability of the DNS.
* '''Crackdown on Rogue Websites'''- The new gTLD program is designed to prevent illegal activities and to easily remove malicious conduct through increased accessibility of information by law enforcement agencies. A [[Whois#Thick_Whois|Thick Whois]] data system will be implemented to allow faster search capabilities and to efficiently combat rogue websites. ICANN will also implement background checks on applicants and will review their history of bad faith or reckless disregard of  anti-cybersquatting law.
* '''Estimated Number of New gTLDs to be Created'''- Pritz explained that based on the Root Server Stability experts advise, ICANN is committed and limited to add 1,000 new gTLD to the root zone in one year.
* '''Plans on Excess Revenue from new gTLDs'''- ICANN is committed to using any excess funds to promote its non-profit missions for the benefit of the Internet community, such as the creation of a registry continuity fund for the protection of registrants, or establishment of a security fund to expand the use of secure protocols, support standards development organizations and other projects in accordance with the internet governing body's security and stability mission. Prits also emphasized that ICANN's budget is utilized in a transparent manner. The use of excess funds are subject to community discussions and consultations.
* '''Concerns Raised by [[ANA]] and other parties'''- Pritz explained that the new gTLD program was developed for more than six years with input from 10 or more experts and community working groups under the multistakeholder process. He pointed out that significant protection mechanisms were created to ensure protections for intellectual property rights, registry failures, etc. He also pointed out that all concerns raised by ANA and other parties were accepted, considered and responded to. He also reiterated that in the multistakeholder process not everyone will be satisfied with the result. He quoted NTIA Assitant Secretary [[Lawrence Strickling|Larry Strickling]]'s statement that ''"it is critical to respect the process and the outcome reached"''.
* '''Harm of Delaying the new gTLD program Implementation'''- According to Pritz, if the new gTLD program implementation were to be delayed it will upset the multistakeholder process, which was designed by the United States government to ensure the openness of the internet.
* '''[[FCC]] Concern on Rapid Exponential Expansion of new gTLDs'''- According to Pritz, the approved new gTLDs will be introduced in a measured and limited manner. No new gTLD will be operational before 2013 and the introduction will be distributed over time.
* '''Recommendations of Law Enforcement Agencies'''- Pritz emphasized that ICANN is actively working to address the 12 recommendations of law enforcement agencies. ICANN is negotiating with registrars to amend an strengthen the [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]] (RAA) to meet the recommendations before 2013.
* '''Registry Failure'''- One of the safeguards implemented by ICANN for the new gTLD program is the availability of an Emergency Back End Registry Provider in case of registry failure.
* '''United Nations Model on Internet Governance and its Impact'''- Pritz emphasized that the ICANN multistakeholder model is not perfect but ''"it has shown to be a powerful, dynamic model that is capable of reaching consensus positions on extremely difficult issues. A UN model will push the stakeholders outside the government to an inconsequential role." He also reiterated the statements of Sec. Strickling and Ambassador David Gross that abandoning the multistakeholder model will cause negative impact to the Internet  and its governance, and he said that an ''"internet constrained by an international treaty will stifle the innovators and entrepreneurs who are responsible for its awesome growth."''
* '''Internet Growth and DNS Expansion'''- Pritz affirmed that the internet and the DNS will continue to grow. ICANN is committed to carrying out its mandates- to promote competition in the DNS while protecting vital information as well as business and consumer interests.
* '''Status of [[IPv6]] Migration'''- Pritz explained that the [[IPv4]] and IPv6 protocols will be running side by side for years to come. Over 7,500 IPv6 had been allocated to network operators around the globe by the end of September 2011.


In early November 2012, Chehadé invited a group of business, IP, and noncommercial users, along with registrar and registry stakeholder groups, to discuss Clearinghouse-related issues. Resolutions and decisions for ICANN include<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clearinghouse/ Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse]. ICANN Blog. Published 2012 November 7. Retrieved 2012 November 13.</ref>:
# Is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
* Registration: How registration recording and verification are addressed
# The domainer no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
# Agreeing to map out trademark submission and verification components
# The domain name in question has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-29sept99.htm Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy]. ICANN. Published 1999 September 29.</ref>
# Developing a new system to offer timely and accurate information on new gTLD launches
# Implementing seminars between implementers and various users
* Sunrise Management: How to use Sunrise data files and offer flexibility for rights holders
# Offering model in which Clearinghouse data can be provided securely to rights holders for early sunrise registration
# Giving details on the degree of "matching" between a Clearinghouse record and a domain name's [[Whois]] data.
* Claims Management: How new gTLDs registries and registrars will facilitate Clearinghouse records during the registration process
# Agreeing to hybrid system of decentralized and centralized system for Trademark Claims
# Offering trademark claims service for at least first 60 days of general registration and all new gTLD registries must offer a minimum 30-day sunrise period
# Decided not to implement measures to address the potential mining of the Clearinghouse database for purposes not related to rights protection, on the basis that most controls would be ineffective


==Further Developments==
The same day, ICANN also issued the [http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm 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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy]]. ICANN. Published 1999 September 29.</ref> Some of the public comments can be found [http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/maillist.html here].
===New gTLD Program===
: ''Main article: [[New gTLD Program]]''
After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansions of new gTLDs, a [[PDP|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 this Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all 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 the New gTLD Program, at the same time approving the [https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb New gTLD Applicant Guidebook].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]. ICANN.</ref> The Board announced the possibility of a 9th version of the Guidebook in January 2012, but the industry speculated that there was little chance that the changes would be more than clarification, as opposed to new rules and policies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 January 4.</ref>


In November, 2012, ICANN, [[Verisign]], and [[NTIA]], all confirmed that they were prepared with enough resources to begin launching 100 new gTLDs per week.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10961-icann-verisign-and-ntia-ready-for-100-new-gtlds-per-week ICANN Verisign and NTIA ready for 100 new gTLDs per Week]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 November 8.</ref>
ICANN adopted the [[UDRP]] at its November 1999 meeting in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/overview.html Overview of Domain Name Policy Development]. Harvard Law.</ref>


* [http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/investment-policy-new-gtld Investment Policy re: New gTLDs, Adopted Dec. 2012]
====Review and Transparency Development====
Many of the other developments at ICANN have been accomplished through the introduction of review teams, such as the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform. The push for reform was also significantly aided by [[Stuart Lynn]]'s "President's report: The Case for Reform,"<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm President's Report: ICANN – The Case for Reform]. ICANN. Published 2002 February 24.</ref> which was credited with starting the dialogue on reform and leading to the creation of a formal committee.<ref name="bucharest">[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN Meeting in Bucharest Preliminary Report]]. ICANN. Published 2002 June 28.</ref>


===Physical Expansion===
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 [http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm here]. The by-laws more clearly defined ICANN's mission and core values and improved apparatuses for review and greater transparency. The [[Reconsideration Committee]], [[IRP|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm Appendix A to Minutes ICANN Board Meeting in Shanghai]. ICANN. Published 2002 October 31.</ref>
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..<ref>[http://domainincite.com/as-new-gtlds-loom-icann-expands/ New gTLDs expand ICANN] Domain Incite. Published 2011 September 21.</ref> The Sydney office went on to be closed in 2012.


In February 2013, former CEO Fadi Chehadé announced that ICANN's office in L.A. would diminish in importance while two new "hubs" would be created to fill the gap and provide new means of outreach to ICANN's international constituents. The hubs are to be located in Singapore and Istanbul, and are to act with far more authority and purpose than a stand-alone office; it is clear that many senior staff from the L.A. office will be asked to move, and the CEO himself said he will be based in Singapore once that office is up and running.<ref>[http://nigel.je/2013/02/icann-la-to-be-broken-up-begging-letters-to-stop/ ICANN LA To be Broken Up Begging Letters to Stop, Nigel.je] Retrieved 25 Feb 2012</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/11967-icann-to-set-up-hubs-in-singapore-and-istanbul ICANN to Set up Hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 25 Feb 2013</ref> The news was announced during Mr. Chehadé's first comprehensive tour of Asia, with trips to South Korea, China, Japan, and Singapore. He noted that ICANN needed to  apologize to Asia, as it had long not been given the attention it deserved within the organization.<ref>[http://www.zdnet.com/sg/icann-ceo-we-owe-asia-a-big-apology-7000011762/ ICANN CEo We Owe Asia a Big Apology, ZDnet.com] Retrieved 25 Feb 2013</ref>
==ICANN Organizational Issues==
:''See [[ICANN Bodies]] for a list of the key players in ICANN's [[Multistakeholder Model]].''


==Organization & Structure==
It is central to ICANN's mission that the organization is structured in a way that welcomes a variety of voices and seeks to represent diverse constituencies with continued interest in the Internet's development, from [[Registry|registries]], to [[:Category:Companies|corporations]], to individual Internet users. In relation to ICANN's structural development, there have been critics who have taken issue with its closed-door sessions, the role of the [[DOC|U.S. Department of Commerce]], and other structural and procedural rules.<ref>[http://sunburn.stanford.edu/~eroberts/courses/cs181/projects/the-domain-name-system/icannorg.html ICANN Organizational Structure]. Stanford University.</ref> ICANN has 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.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022803719.html?hpid=topnews Obama administration joins critics of U.S. nonprofit group that oversees Internet]. The Washington Post. Published 2011 March 1.</ref> ICANN's structure and process are outlined in the [[ICANN Bylaws]].
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 [[Registry|registries]], to [[:Category:Companies|corporations]], to individual Internet users. In relation to ICANN's structural development, there have been critics who have taken issue with its closed-door sessions, the role of the [[DOC| U.S. Department of Commerce]], and other structural and procedural rules.<ref>[http://sunburn.stanford.edu/~eroberts/courses/cs181/projects/the-domain-name-system/icannorg.html ICANN Organizational Structure]. Stanford University.</ref> ICANN has 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.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022803719.html?hpid=topnews Obama administration joins critics of U.S. nonprofit group that oversees Internet]. The Washington Post. Published 2011 March 1.</ref> ICANN's structure and process is outlined in the [[ICANN Bylaws]].


===Board of Directors===
===Board of Directors===
: ''Main article: [[ICANN Board]]
: ''Main article: [[ICANN Board]]''
ICANN is governed by a [[ICANN Board|Board of Directors]] made up of 15 voting members,<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/ Board Review]. ICANN.</ref> and the President and CEO, who is also a voting member. The board is further aided by five non-voting liaisons.<ref name="bylaws">[http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm ICANN Bylaws]. ICANN.</ref> From ICANN's inception to 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.<ref name="dotnxt">[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/13/icann-board-dec-minutes ICANN Board awards itself $35,000, developing countries $138,000, and adds to confusion with secondary timestamp]. dotnxt. Published 2011 December 13.</ref>
ICANN is governed by a [[ICANN Board|Board of Directors]] made up of 16 voting members (including ICANN's CEO) and four non-voting liaisons.<ref name="bylaws">[http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm ICANN Bylaws]. ICANN.</ref> From ICANN's inception to 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.<ref name="dotnxt">[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/13/icann-board-dec-minutes ICANN Board awards itself $35,000, developing countries $138,000, and adds to confusion with secondary timestamp]. dotnxt. Published 2011 December 13.</ref>
 
====Current Board of Directors====
The 19 current directors and the current CEO, are listed below, along with the organization which nominated them and the length of their term:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/board.html Board of Directors].</ref>
* [[Göran Marby]], '''President and CEO'''
* [[Cherine Chalaby]] ('''Chair'''), selected by the [[NomCom]], December 2010 - [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2019
* [[Chris Disspain]], ('''Vice-Chair)''' selected by the [[ccNSO]], June 2011 - [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2020
* [[Maarten Botterman]], selected by the [[NomCom]], November 2016-[[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2019
* [[Becky Burr]], selected by the [[GNSO]], November 2016 – [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2019
* [[Ron da Silva]], selected by the [[ASO]], October 2015 - [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2018
* [[Sarah Deutsch]], selected by [[NomCom]], November 2017 – AGM 2020
* [[Avri Doria]], selected by [[NomCom]], November 2017 – AGM 2020
* [[Lito Ibarra|Rafael Lito Ibarra]], selected by the [[NomCom]], Oct. 2015 - [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2018
* [[Khaled Koubaa]], selected by the [[NomCom]], November 2016 - [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2019
* [[Akinori Maemura]], selected by the [[ASO]], November 2016 - [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2019
* [[George Sadowsky]], selected by the [[NomCom]], Oct. 2009 - [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2015
* [[Leon Sanchez|Léon Felipe Sanchez Ambia]], selected by [[At-Large Advisory Committee|ALAC]], November 2017 – AGM 2020
* [[Matthew Shears]], selected by [[Generic Names Supporting Organization|GNSO]], November 2017 – AGM 2020
* [[Michael Silber]], selected by the [[ccNSO]], May 2009 - [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2018
* [[Lousewies van der Laan]], selected by the [[NomCom]], Oct. 2015 - [[Annual Meeting|AGM]] 2018


====Current Non-Voting Liaisons====
===Ombudsman===
* [[Kaveh Ranjbar]], [[RSSAC]] liaison
: ''Main article: [[Ombudsman]]''
* [[Ram Mohan]], [[SSAC]] liaison
The [[Ombudsman]] is required to offer independent, impartial, and neutral informal dispute resolution for those who want to lodge a complaint about ICANN staff, board, or supporting organizations. The independence of this office has been called into question, as the person in this role is hired and fired by the ICANN Board and reports to the ICANN Chair. The length of tenure has also been debated.
* [[Jonne Soininen]], [[IETF]] liaison
* [[Manal Ismail]], [[GAC]] liaison


===GNSO===
===GNSO===
: ''Main article: [[GNSO]]''
: ''Main article: [[GNSO]]''
 
The [[Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO) brings together representatives of constituencies concerning [[gTLD]]s.<ref>[http://gnso.icann.org/ Generic Names Supporting Organization]</ref> As such, it has received criticism on its policy development process. Namely, [[Working Group]] dynamics and how the GNSO determines that it has reached [[consensus]] have proved particularly problematic.
The [[Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO) brings together smaller stakeholder groups, which in turn bring together constituencies and other groups,  together into one [[SO|Supporting Organization]] to develop policies, form consensus, and make recommendations related to [[gTLD]]s to the [[ICANN Board]].<ref>[http://gnso.icann.org/ Generic Names Supporting Organization]. ICANN.</ref>


===ccNSO===
===ccNSO===
: ''Main article: [[ccNSO]]''
: ''Main article: [[ccNSO]]''
 
The [[Country Code Names Supporting Organization]] (ccNSO) was created by and for [[ccTLD]] managers, which are the entities that oversee a given nation's own Country Code Top Level Domain.<ref>[http://ccnso.icann.org/about About].</ref> The main issues it faces are a shortage of candidates and a lack of transparency and accountability in its [[PDP]].
The [[Country Code Names Supporting Organization]] (ccNSO) is an advisory body within ICANN created by and for [[ccTLD]] managers, which are the entities that oversee a given nation's own Country Code Top Level Domain. The ccNSO is a consortium of working groups and the ccNSO Council, and it works in conjunction with other supporting organizations and bodies within ICANN. It was founded in 2003. It is a forum for global discussions and debates regarding issues related to ccTLDs.<ref>[http://ccnso.icann.org/about About]. Country Code Names Supporting Organisation.</ref>


===ASO===
===ASO===
: ''Main article: [[ASO]]''
: ''Main article: [[ASO]]''
The [[Address Supporting Organization]] (ASO) reviews and develop [[IP|Internet Protocol]] recommendations.<ref>[http://aso.icann.org/ The Address Supporting Organization]</ref> It has been criticized for lacking a single, authoritative description of the process for global numbering policies and a lack of transparency on the difference between the roles of the [[ASO]] and the [[NRO]], which is a non-ICANN body that strongly overlaps with the ASO.


The [[Address Supporting Organization]] (ASO) is one of the supporting organizations that was formed, according to ICANN's bylaws, through community consensus in 1999. The main objective of the ASO is to review and develop [[IP|Internet Protocol]] recommendations, address policy, and advise the [[ICANN Board]].<ref>[http://aso.icann.org/ The Address Supporting Organization]. ICANN.</ref> Its members are appointed by the world's 5 [[RIR|Regional Internet Registries]] (RIRs), which manage and allocate IP addresses in their respective continental regions.<ref>[http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC About APNIC]. APNIC.</ref><ref>[http://aso.icann.org/people/address-council/address-council-members/ Adress Council Members]. ASO.</ref>
===GAC===
: ''Main article: [[GAC]]
The GAC advises the ICANN Board on how governments will react to potential policies. The GAC has come under fire for seemingly allowing the governments they represent a veto power over ICANN decisions.<ref>[https://cdt.org/insights/icann-must-follow-its-own-rules/ ICANN Must follow its own rules. CDT]</ref>
 
===ALAC===
: ''Main article: [[ALAC]]
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) advocates for the interests of individual Internet users. ALAC was recently criticized for spending too much time on process and administrative issues, and too little on policy advice, which was also considered of low quality. ALAC is also struggling with an uneven distribution of power.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-final-02may17-en.pdf 2017 At-Large Review]</ref>
 
===SSAC===
:''Main article: [[SSAC]]''
SSAC was originally intended to expand and specialize the role of ICANN, and it received official recognition in 2002.<ref name="accra">[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#EvolutionandReformCommittee ICANN Meeting in Accra Preliminary Report]. ICANN. Published 2002 March 14.</ref> SSAC as a body and its individual members have been criticized for their lack of communication and engagement with other ICANN bodies.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac-review-final-17dec18-en.pdf 2018 SSAC Review]</ref>
 
===RSSAC===
:''Main article: [[RSSAC]]''
RSSAC advises ICANN on the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System. It has come under fire for offering minimal, reactionary input rather than offering regular updates and being distrustful of non-RSO stakeholders.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-review-final-02jul18-en.pdf 2018 RSSAC Review]</ref>


==Process==
==Process==
ICANN generates and relies on a multitude of policies and practices. Some of the policies, such as those that govern [[DNS]],  undergo a formal [[PDP]] and must culminate in an [[ICANN Board]] approval. The processes through which ICANN functions are developed through extensive dialogue in an effort to reflect the perspectives of various stakeholders in the ICANN community, but they do not require a PDP. Operational policies and General practices are examples of the latter.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/policy#what_is_policy What is Policy?]</ref>
===Policy Development===
: ''Main article: [[PDP|ICANN Policy Development]]''
DNS Policies are developed through formal policy development processes (PDPs), as set forth by the Bylaws.
===Governance===
: ''Main article: [[ICANN Governance]]''
Governance refers to the operational policies that define how ICANN operates as an organization. These policies are not subject to PDPs and tend to depend on community input through less formal means.
===Meetings===
===Meetings===
: ''Main article: [[ICANN Meetings]]''
: ''Main article: [[ICANN Meetings]]''
ICANN holds week-long meetings three 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.<ref name="meetings"></ref> The next meeting will be the 53rd meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. <ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2011/02/middle-east-developments-interfere-with-icann-41-jordan-meeting/ Middle East Developments Cause Cancellation of ICANN Jordan Meeting]. ICANN Blog. Published 2011 February 18.</ref>  
ICANN holds meetings three times per year; one of these meetings serves as the organization's annual general 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.<ref name="meetings"></ref> The next meeting will be the 61st meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico.<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2011/02/middle-east-developments-interfere-with-icann-41-jordan-meeting/ Middle East Developments Cause Cancellation of ICANN Jordan Meeting]. ICANN Blog. Published 2011 February 18.</ref> Meetings are designated as A, B, and C, and each meeting has a varying length and purpose.


Meetings officially begin on a Monday, though some [[SO|supporting organizations]] meet prior to this, and run through Friday.  
===Fellowships===
:''Main article: [[Fellowship Program]]''
The goal of the ICANN Fellowship Program is to strengthen the diversity of the multistakeholder model by fostering opportunities for individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities to become active participants in the ICANN community. Fellows are exposed to the workings of the ICANN community, are assigned a mentor, and receive training across different areas of knowledge and skill building before, during, and after an ICANN Public Meeting. Travel assistance to attend the meeting is also provided.<ref>https://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram</ref>


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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/ Fellowship Program]. ICANN.</ref>
===Accountability===
: ''Main article: [[ICANN Accountability]]''


===Review Processes===
===Reviews===
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 [[IRP|Independent Review Panel]], which has the power to call attention to discrepancies between the [[ICANN Bylaws|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.<ref name="bylaws"></ref>
: ''Main article: [[ICANN Reviews]]''
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 board's actions are also reviewed by an [[IRP|Independent Review Panel]], which has the power to call attention to discrepancies between the [[ICANN Bylaws|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, are also subject to occasional reviews.<ref name="bylaws"></ref>


==Conflicts of Interest==
==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.<ref name="revolvingdoor">[http://domainincite.com/calls-to-fix-new-gtld-revolving-door-at-icann/ Calls to Fix Revolving Door]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 June 26.</ref>
ICANN adopted a Conflict of Interest policy in 2012.<ref>I[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/coi-en CANN Conflict of Interest Policy]. Retrieved 21 Nov 2017. </ref> The policy requires that all Board Members, as well as those in various other positions, 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,<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/coi/ ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy]. ICANN. Published 2012 May 6.</ref> Board members also may not join a business with a new gTLD registry until 12 months after the registry's application has been voted on.<ref name="dotnxt" /> Prior to the policy, ICANN did not have a clear position. 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.<ref name="revolvingdoor">[http://domainincite.com/calls-to-fix-new-gtld-revolving-door-at-icann/ Calls to Fix Revolving Door]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 June 26.</ref>
 
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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/former-icann-chair-joins-mm/ Former ICANN Chair Joins M + M]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 June 26.</ref>
 
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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/would-an-icann-ethics-policy-break-the-law/ Would an ICANN ethics policy break the law]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 October 3.</ref> 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.<ref name="revolvingdoor"></ref>


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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-to-hire-conflict-of-interest-experts/ ICANN to Hire Conflict of Interest Experts]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 October 6.</ref>
ICANN's CEO, [[Rod Beckstrom]] had previously noted at the opening ceremony of [[ICANN 42]], even before staff members 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. 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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-to-hire-conflict-of-interest-experts/ ICANN to Hire Conflict of Interest Experts]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 October 6.</ref>
 
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,<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/coi/ ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy]. ICANN. Published 2012 May 6.</ref> Board members also may not join business with a new gTLD registry until 12 months after the registry's application has been voted on.<ref name="dotnxt"></ref>
 
===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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-14oct11-en.pdf ICANN to Manage Time Zone Database]. ICANN. Published 2011 October 14.</ref>


===Manwin Anti-Trust Lawsuit===
===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]] [[sTLD]]. This legal action took place in November, 2011, well after the TLD's approval and just before its general availability.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/16/bbreaking-owner-of-youporn-com-plans-to-file-suit-against-icm-icann-over-xxx/ Owner of YouPorn.com Plans to File Suit Against ICM ICANN over XXX]. The Domains. Published 2011 November 16.</ref> It also filed an [[IRP|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 did not "adequately address issues including competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse and rights protection prior to approving the .xxx TLD."<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 November 17.</ref>
:: ''Main article: [[sTLD]]''
 
[[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]] [[sTLD]]. This legal action took place in November 2011, well after the TLD's approval and just before its general availability.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/16/bbreaking-owner-of-youporn-com-plans-to-file-suit-against-icm-icann-over-xxx/ Owner of YouPorn.com Plans to File Suit Against ICM ICANN over XXX]. The Domains. Published 2011 November 16.</ref> It also filed an [[IRP|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 did not "adequately address issues including competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse, and rights protection prior to approving the .xxx TLD."<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 November 17.</ref>
In January, 2012, ICANN and ICM both filed motions to dismiss the case. ICANN argued that since it is a not-for-profit organization and it is not engaged in "trade or commerce," the US anti-trust laws are not applicable; additionally, both ICM and ICANN argued that Manwin's filing was essentially complaining about the possible increase in competition. ICM cited that Manwin had approached the company earlier with a supposed mutually-beneficial agreement, in which Manwin would acquire various premium .xxx domains for free, in exchange for sharing the profits of these domains with ICM. When ICM turned down the agreement, Manwin Managing Partner Fabian Thylmann said that he would do whatever he could to stop .xxx.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-antitrust-law-does-not-apply-to-us/ ICANN: Antitrust Law Does Not Apply To Us]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 January 21.</ref> ICANN's and ICM's motions to dismiss can be found [http://domainincite.com/docs/icann-manwin-motion-to-dismiss.pdf here] and [http://domainincite.com/docs/manwin-icm-motion-to-dismiss-2.pdf here] respectively.
 
In mid-February, Manwin, ICANN and ICM Registry announced that they were in talks and hoping to resolve some or all of the outstanding complaints. The motions to dismiss the case filed by ICANN and ICM were temporarily put on hold.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icm-and-youporn-in-antitrust-settlement-talks/ ICM and YouPorn in AntiTrust Settlement Talks]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 February 14.</ref> On February 17, the company amended its anti-trust lawsuit against ICANN and ICM Registy. According to Manwin's counsel Kevin E. Gaut, two related state law claims were dropped to avoid potential risks of trial delays.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2012/02/21/manwin-amends-complaint-against-icm-icann-drops-2-state-claims-talks-of-settlement/ Manwin Amends Complaint Against ICM & ICANN & Drops 2 State Claims & Talks Of Settlement]. The Domains. Published 2012 February 21.</ref>


In August 2012, a mixed ruling by the Central District of California District Court accepted only 2 out of ICANN and ICM's 7 motions to dismiss. The court ruled that ICANN would be subject to anti-trust law, as ICM pays fees to them in order to be permitted to run the .xxx domain space, and that the trial would proceed with focus on the "defensive registrations" market.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10149-court-rules-youporn-can-sue-icann-for-alleged-xxx-antitrust-violations Court rules YouPorn can sue ICANN for alleged .xxx antitrust violations]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 August 14.</ref>
In January 2012, ICANN and ICM both filed motions to dismiss the case. ICANN argued that since it is a not-for-profit organization and it is not engaged in "trade or commerce," the US anti-trust laws are not applicable; additionally, both ICM and ICANN argued that Manwin's filing was essentially complaining about the possible increase in competition. ICM cited that Manwin had approached the company earlier with a supposed mutually-beneficial agreement, in which Manwin would acquire various premium .xxx domains for free, in exchange for sharing the profits of these domains with ICM. When ICM turned down the agreement, Manwin Managing Partner Fabian Thylmann said that he would do whatever he could to stop .xxx.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-antitrust-law-does-not-apply-to-us/ ICANN: Antitrust Law Does Not Apply To Us]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 January 21.</ref> ICANN's and ICM's motions to dismiss can be found [http://domainincite.com/docs/icann-manwin-motion-to-dismiss.pdf here] and [http://domainincite.com/docs/manwin-icm-motion-to-dismiss-2.pdf here] respectively.


===Employ Media Arbitration===
===Employ Media Arbitration===
[[Employ Media]] requested an arbitration proceeding to resolve the notice of breach on the [[.jobs]] registry agreement issued by ICANN on February 27, 2011 in connection with the universe.jobs website. The jobs board website was launched by Employ Media in partnership with the Direct Employers Association, which the registry operator allowed to register more than 40 thousand .jobs domain names used on the jobs board to advertise job opportunities for more than 5,000 leading companies in the United States. ICANN claimed that that universe.jobs appeared to be in competition with other companies offering the same service and Employ Media's actions violated its charter. ICANN directed the .jobs registry operator and the [[SHRM|Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the sponsoring organization, to resolve the issues mentioned in the notice of breach and to comply with its charter. ICANN threatened to terminate the .jobs registry agreement if the problems were not be resolved. Employ Media argued that the universe.jobs was launched in compliance with the Phase Allocation Program, which was approved by ICANN. Although the registry operator was disappointed with ICANN's actions Employ Media agreed to resolve the issue by invoking the cooperative agreement provisions in the registry agreement. During the cooperative negotiations, Employ Media agreed to stop registering non-company name domain names until May 6, 2011. However, the company abandoned the cooperative agreement proceedings when it learned that ICANN posted the information about their cooperative negotiations regarding the notice of breach. Employ Media also accused ICANN of "bad faith action." ICANN's legal counsel explained that the internet governing body is just performing its duty to maintain accountability and transparency. When ICANN responded to the Employ Media's arbitration request it reiterated its strong position the Employ Media violated its charter and its decision was appropriate. ICANN asked the court to deny the registry operator's request for relief. At present, both parties are still waiting for the the schedule of their arbitration proceedings from the [[ICC|International Chamber of Commerce]] (ICC) [[International Court of Arbitration]].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-threatens-to-shut-down-jobs/ ICANN threatens to shut down .jobs]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 February 28.</ref> <ref>
[[Employ Media]] requested an arbitration proceeding to resolve the notice of breach on the [[.jobs]] registry agreement issued by ICANN on February 27, 2011, in connection with the universe.jobs website. The jobs board website was launched by Employ Media in partnership with the Direct Employers Association, which the registry operator allowed to register more than 40 thousand .jobs domain names used on the jobs board to advertise job opportunities for more than 5,000 leading companies in the United States. ICANN claimed that the universe.jobs appeared to be in competition with other companies offering the same service and Employ Media's actions violated its charter. ICANN directed the .jobs registry operator and the [[SHRM|Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the sponsoring organization, to resolve the issues mentioned in the notice of breach and to comply with its charter. ICANN threatened to terminate the .jobs registry agreement if the problems were not resolved. Employ Media argued that the universe.jobs was launched in compliance with the Phase Allocation Program, which was approved by ICANN. Although the registry operator was disappointed with ICANN's actions Employ Media agreed to resolve the issue by invoking the cooperative agreement provisions in the registry agreement. During the cooperative negotiations, Employ Media agreed to stop registering non-company name domain names until May 6, 2011. However, the company abandoned the cooperative agreement proceedings when it learned that ICANN posted information about their cooperative negotiations regarding the notice of breach. Employ Media also accused ICANN of "bad faith action." ICANN's legal counsel explained that the internet governing body is just performing its duty to maintain accountability and transparency. When ICANN responded to Employ Media's arbitration request it reiterated its strong position that Employ Media violated its charter and that its decision was appropriate. ICANN asked the court to deny the registry operator's request for relief. At present, both parties are still waiting for the schedule of their arbitration proceedings from the [[ICC|International Chamber of Commerce]] (ICC) [[International Court of Arbitration]].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-threatens-to-shut-down-jobs/ ICANN threatens to shut down .jobs]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 February 28.</ref> <ref>
[http://goto.jobs/pdf/Response%20to%20ICANN%20Notice.pdf  Employ Media Response to ICANN'S Notice of Breach]. dotJobs. Published 2011 February 28.</ref> <ref>
[http://goto.jobs/pdf/Response%20to%20ICANN%20Notice.pdf  Employ Media Response to ICANN'S Notice of Breach]. dotJobs. Published 2011 February 28.</ref> <ref>
[http://domainincite.com/registry-avoids-jobs-shut-down/ Registry avoids .jobs shut-down]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 April 20.</ref> <ref>[http://www.ere.net/tags/dotjobs/ .Jobs Manager Seeks Arbitration by International Court]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/war-of-words-over-jobs-breach-claims/ War of Words Over Jobs Breach Claims]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 May 3.</ref>
[http://domainincite.com/registry-avoids-jobs-shut-down/ Registry avoids .jobs shut-down]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 April 20.</ref> <ref>[http://www.ere.net/tags/dotjobs/ .Jobs Manager Seeks Arbitration by International Court]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/war-of-words-over-jobs-breach-claims/ War of Words Over Jobs Breach Claims]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 May 3.</ref>
Line 293: Line 210:


===.JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition Criticism===
===.JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition Criticism===
One day before the implementation of the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]], the [[.JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition]], sent a letter to ICANN detailing the internet governing body's failure to evaluate and investigate all comments and information submitted by entities against the request of the [[.jobs]] registry operator to change its charter. It pointed out that ICANN failed to acknowledge its mistake and overturn its decision when complaints and evidence were filed for reconsideration that Employ Media violated its charter. The coalition chairman stated that ICANN was inefficient in dealing with the arbitration proceedings to immediately resolve Employ Media's charter violation, and consequently the company continues to exploit the .jobs TLD and expand the universe.jobs website. Furthermore, it said that the internet community is concerned that ICANN's new gTLD program's multiple stakeholder protection mechanisms might end up mismanaged just like the .jobs TLD and ICANN's promises are "empty words." Moreover, Bell requested the ICANN Board to publicly disqualify Employ Media and its partner, the Direct Employers Association ,from the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD expansion program]] because the registry operator has a "history of abuse." According to its Chairman, this is the only way for ICANN to regain a measure of regulatory authority.<ref>
One day before the implementation of the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]], the [[.JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition]], sent a letter to ICANN detailing the internet governing body's failure to evaluate and investigate all comments and information submitted by entities against the request of the [[.jobs]] registry operator to change its charter. It pointed out that ICANN failed to acknowledge its mistake and overturn its decision when complaints and evidence were filed for reconsideration that Employ Media violated its charter. The coalition chairman stated that ICANN was inefficient in dealing with the arbitration proceedings to immediately resolve Employ Media's charter violation, and consequently, the company continues to exploit the .jobs TLD and expand the universe.jobs website. Furthermore, it said that the internet community is concerned that ICANN's new gTLD program's multiple stakeholder protection mechanisms might end up mismanaged just like the .jobs TLD and ICANN's promises are "empty words." Moreover, Bell requested the ICANN Board to publicly disqualify Employ Media and its partner, the Direct Employers Association,from the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD expansion program]] because the registry operator has a "history of abuse." According to its Chairman, this is the only way for ICANN to regain a measure of regulatory authority.<ref>
[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/11/dot-jobs-could-kill-icann The case study that could kill ICANN]. dotnxt. Published 2012 January 11.</ref>
[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/11/dot-jobs-could-kill-icann The case study that could kill ICANN]. dotnxt. Published 2012 January 11.</ref>
===A New Approach to Africa===
On August 10, 2012, ICANN, with the support of [[AfriNIC]], announced an initiative to increase African participation in influence within ICANN. The initiative is the result of a meeting between [[Steve Crocker]], Chairman of ICANN's Board of Directors, ICANN's CEO-Designate [[Fadi Chehadé]], and Interim CEO [[Akram Atallah]], with African community members at [[ICANN 44]] in Prague, Czech Republic. Their goal is to develop a framework for ICANN's Africa strategy to be announced at [[ICANN 45]] in Toronto, Canada. A [[WG|working group]] was established, led by [[Nii Quaynor]] of Ghana, to contribute to the development of the strategy. The group is also to work with [[Tarek Kamel]], Head of Governmental Affairs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10aug12-en.htm A New Approach to Africa]. ICANN. Published 2012 August 10.</ref> The initiative has received strong support from African Internet stakeholders, including former Board Member [[Katim Touray]]. In March 2013, [[Fadi Chehadé]], expressed his desire to raise the number of registrars in Africa from 5 to 25, via personal and business relations with the banking and insurance sectors that would allow the African companies to more easily meet some form of tailored ICANN accreditation. His hope is to accomplish this in just a few months, with something implemented around ICANN 47 in Durban, in July, 2013<ref>[http://domainincite.com/12181-chehade-commits-to-grow-the-number-of-domain-registrars-in-africa Chehade Commits to Grow The Number of Number of Domain Registrars in Africa, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 8 Mar 2013</ref>
===IANA Functions Stewardship Transition===
: ''Main article: [[IANA Functions Stewardship Transition]]''
In March 2014, [[NTIA]] released a statement saying that they are intent on transitioning their part of the [[IANA]] functions away from NTIA and to the global stakeholder community. <ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions NTIA announces intent to transition key domain name functions]</ref> ICANN issued a press release supporting this shift. <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-03-14-en Press release, March 14 2014]</ref>
ICANN created a co-ordination group from nominations among 13 community stakeholder groups, totaling 27 individuals, which produced a draft transition document. On December 2nd 2014, ICANN opened the public comment period on the draft transition document produced by the coordination group.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2014/12/02/icann-opens-comment-period-for-its-move-out-of-us-control-deadline-is-december-22nd/ ICANN opens comment period for its move out of US control]</ref>
==House of Representatives Hearing on new gTLD==
On December 14, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Communications Technology-Committee on Energy and Commerce also conducted a similar hearing regarding the new gTLD program. Kurt Pritz and all the other individuals who testified in the Senate also served at witnesses at the House of Representatives who echoed the same views about the program. [[Josh Bourne|Joshua Bourne]], President of The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse ([[CADNA]]), [[Thomas Embrescia]], CEO of [[Employ Media]] and [[Anjali Hansen]], IP attorney at the Council of Better Business Bureaus joined the rest of the witnesses during the hearing.<ref>[http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/158500/Trademark/New+gTLD+Hearing+Round+2+A+Critical+House+But+to+What+End United States: New gTLD Hearing, Round 2: A Critical House, But To What End?]. Mondaq. Published 2011 December 22.</ref>
===Testimony of Witnesses===
Mr. '''Joshua Bourne''' expressed his concern over the program and suggested some recommendations including the availability of a second round of application ease the anxiety associated with the program, provide option to block trademarks, update the language of the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act ([[ACPA]]), reduce pricing for multiple gTLD applicants and to add conditions on the [[IANA]] contract.<ref>[http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-icann-s-top-level-domain-name-program Testimony of Josh Bourne-President, Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse]. Committee on Energy & Commerce. Published 2011 December 14.</ref> The call for second round of application was also expressed by Josh and the attendees of the CADNA gTLD Conference on November 2011.<ref name="worldtrademarkreview">[http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=1315ECFA-EEB1-4F32-B1BC-2BBCFAF1C9C3 International - Call for ICANN to announce second round of gTLD applications]. World Trademark Review. Published 2011 November 2.</ref>
In her testimony, Ms. '''Anjali Hansen''' expressed her concern regarding the level of abuses and fraud over the internet and the high costs of brand protection. She also pointed out the importance of a competitive, innovative and open internet and BBB is not requesting for excessive regulation of the Internet by governments but they encourage registries and registrars to implement application standards to help reduce costs to businesses and to restore consumer trust.<ref>[http://www.ana.net/getfile/17081 Testimony of Anjali K. Hansen-Intellectual Property Attorney, Council of Better Business Bureaus]</ref>
'''Thomas Embrescia''' testified in support of the ICANN new gTLD program. During the hearing, he pointed out that the private sector has a strong demand for new TLDs and the new gTLD program promotes competition, innovation. Furthermore he emphasized that it would help create more jobs and opportunities.He encouraged the members of the Congress to support the program. <ref>[http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-icann-s-top-level-domain-name-program Testimony of Thomas Embrescia, CEO of Employ Media]. Committee on Energy & Commerce. Published 2011 December 14.</ref>
===ICANN's Answers to Sub-Committee Members' Inquiries===
On January 5, 2012, Cong. Greg Walden, Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Communications and Technology, sent a letter to ICANN requesting answers to some issues related to the new gTLD program including:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-walden-20jan12-en.pdf ICANN's Response to Cong. Greg Walden]. ICANN. Published 2012 January 20.</ref>
* '''Process used by ICANN in achieving consensus through the [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]]'''
ICANN explained that consensus was achieved through community-driven policy development processes wherein working teams composed of members of the different internet stakeholders developed reports and recommendations and the public were given the opportunity to comment. The public comments were considered when drafting the final report and recommendations, before they were submitted it to the appropriate organization within ICANN such as the [[GNSO]] Council, which would in turn present their findings to the ICANN Board. ICANN emphasized that the GNSO Council is composed of all internet stakeholders and voted 19-1 in favor of the new gTLD policy. The internet governing body also pointed out that ICANN's Advisory Committees ([[GAC]], [[ALAC]], [[SSAC]], [[RSSAC]] etc.) were involved in the consensus development. ICANN reiterated the statement of Sec. [[Lawrence Strickling|Larry Strickling]] that the ICANN ''"multistakeholder does not guarantee that everyone will be satisfied with the outcome.But it is critical to preserving the model of Internet governance that has been so successful to date that all parties respect and work through the process and accept the outcome once a decision is reached..."''
* '''Rights Protection Mechanisms'''
Rights protection will be implemented in the first and second level domain names. The internet governing body mentioned the development of the [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] as one of the rights protection mechanisms and it is mandatory to all new TLDs.
* '''Request for a Second Round of Application'''
ICANN stated that it is committed to conducting additional rounds of new gTLD applications and it is working on determining that schedule.
* '''Transparency regarding Surplus Funds generated from the new gTLD applications'''
ICANN emphasized that it is committed to using the excess funds generated from the new gTLD applications to advance its missions in a transparent way, such as allocating funds to projects that are of interest to the greater Internet community.
* '''Bilateral Negotiations with registrars about the twelve Law Enforcement Due Diligence Recommendations'''
ICANN confirmed that it is conducting negotiations with its accredited registrars regarding the 12 recommendations of the enforcement agencies. Updates to the negotiation are available [https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement '''here''']
* '''Contingency Plan in case a registry operator goes out of business'''
ICANN told the Congress that an "[[EBERO|Emergency Backend Registry Operator]]" ([[EBERO]]) is in place to take-over the operations if a failed registry to ensure that the interest of domain name registrants are protected.
* '''[[Applicant Support Program]] (ASP)'''
ICANN explained that information regarding the new Applicant Support Program is available, which offers two types of financial assistance under ASP: a reduced application fee of $47,000 from $185,000, and a payment plan to deal with the whole $185,000 application fee. To qualify for financial assistance, entities must meet certain criteria. Financial Assistance applications will be evaluated by an independent [[SARP|Support Application Review Panel]] (SARP).
* '''[[Trademark Clearinghouse]]'''
ICANN explained that the Trademark Clearinghouse is a database of registered trademarks and other  types [[Intellectual Property|intellectual property]] rights, which will be used to provide protection during the "[[Sunrise]]" and "Trademark Claims" processes. ICANN notes that 60-days post launch operation of the Trademark Claims exceeds the final recommendation of the [[Special Trademark Issues]] (STI) team, which was involved in developing the service and suggested that no mandatory post-launch claims service is necessary.
* '''Possibility of subsidizing the costs of Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) using surplus funds'''
ICANN clarified that no commitment has been made regarding the use of surplus funds and that the issue is a matter of continued community consultations. ICANN will consider the proposal to subsidize costs of disputes under the UDRP.
* '''[[Whois#Thick_Whois| Thick Whois]] System'''
ICANN is dedicated to improving the access and accuracy of the [[Whois]] information; Thick Whois information requirements will be in place for all new gTLDs. Five studies regarding Whois services focusing on issues related to misuse, registrant identification, privacy and proxy services were conducted.
* '''New gTLD Application Fee'''
ICANN provided a breakdown of the current $185,000 application fee, which includes development costs ($26,950 per application), applications processing and evaluation costs ($97,800 per application), costs for risk mitigation steps ($60,000 per applicant). Further breakdown of the cost is available [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new--gtlds/cost--considerations--04oct09--en.pdf.'''here''']
* '''Revenue from second level domain name registrations under new gTLDs'''
ICANN said that it did not evaluate any additional revenue that might be generated from defensive second level domain name registrations. Registries are required to pay ICANN with annual fees with fixed components.
* '''Cost recovery model in assessing fees'''
The cost-neutral model was a direct response to the GNSO policy recommendation that application fees are designed to ensure that the implementation of the new gTLD program is self funding. Once the TLDs are operational, transaction based fees for registries and registrars will apply to domain registrations.
* '''Loser pays system against cybersquatting'''
The new gTLD dispute resolution under the new gTLD program implements the loser pays system. The [[IRT]] did not recommend a full loser pays system for domain name disputes related to [[cybersquatting]]. The loser pays system has exceptions on filing fees for disputes and URS claims of less than 15 domain names. Claims for 26 or more names in a URS claims might be done on a loser-pays basis.
* '''Auction process for multiple gTLD applicants'''
The auctions process in case of multiple gTLD applicants will be applied as a last resort. ICANN encourage applicants to work on developing a mutually-agreeable solution.
* '''[[Cybersquatting]] and other concerns raised by [[ANA]]'''
The new gTLD program offers heightened protection mechanisms against abuses, registry failure and other malicious conducts designed by intellectual property experts
* '''Law Enforcement Community Recommendations'''
ICANN is actively working on the 12 recommendations of the law enforcement community and negotiating with registrars to amend the [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]] (RAA), particularly the inclusion of a more improved and accurate Whois database.
* '''Cost/Benefit Analysis used by ICANN before implementing the new gTLD program'''
Five economic studies were commissioned by ICANN to examine the anticipated benefits and costs of the new gTLD program.
==Second Round of Application==
On February 7, 2012, the [[ICANN Board]] approved the implementation of a second round and application window for the new gTLD program in response to the request of the global Internet community, particularly the members of [[CADNA]]. The board delegated the [[ICANN CEO]] to work with the Internet community to develop a work plan and the needed prerequisites to open the second round of application for new gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb12-en.htm#4 Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board]. ICANN. Published 2012 February 7.</ref> <ref name="worldtrademarkreview"></ref>


==Awards==
==Awards==
In May, 2012, ICANN was recognized by The Board of Trustees of Sheikh Salem Al-Ali Al-Sabah Informatics Award with their 11th 'Informatics Medal'. The medal is given with appreciation for the organization's efforts at maintaining and strengthening the Internet's infrastructure. The Board also expressed gratitude for the role that ICANN has played in developing and deploying Arabic [[IDN]]'s, which allow Arabic populations to surf the web without relying on foreign characters or domains. The award has been given out since 2007, and is given to institutions or public figures that are influential in the fields of Informatics and Internet Development. It was received on behalf of ICANN by the company's President and CEO, [[Rod Beckstrom]].<ref>[http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2237530&language=en Informatics prize for ICANN - Salem Ali Prize panel]. Kuna. Published 2012 May 1.</ref><ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2012/05/icann-receives-arab-world-award/ ICANN Receives Arab World Award]. ICANN. Published 2012 May 22.</ref>
In May 2012, ICANN was recognized by The Board of Trustees of Sheikh Salem Al-Ali Al-Sabah Informatics Award with their 11th 'Informatics Medal'. The medal is given with appreciation for the organization's efforts at maintaining and strengthening the Internet's infrastructure. The Board also expressed gratitude for the role that ICANN has played in developing and deploying Arabic [[IDN]]'s, which allow Arabic populations to surf the web without relying on foreign characters or domains. The award has been given out since 2007 and is given to institutions or public figures that are influential in the fields of Informatics and Internet Development. It was received on behalf of ICANN by the company's President and CEO, [[Rod Beckstrom]].<ref>[http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2237530&language=en Informatics prize for ICANN - Salem Ali Prize panel]. Kuna. Published 2012 May 1.</ref><ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2012/05/icann-receives-arab-world-award/ ICANN Receives Arab World Award]. ICANN. Published 2012 May 22.</ref>


=References=
=References=
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
{{reflist}}</div>
{{reflist}}</div>
[[Category: Organizations]]
[[Category: Sponsor]]
[[Category: Sponsor]]
[[Category:Articles with Chinese]]
[[Category:Non-Profit Corporation]]
[[Category: Articles with Spanish]]

Latest revision as of 18:46, 13 June 2023

ICANNWiki Partner
Type: Private, Non-Profit
Industry: Internet Protocol Management
Founded: September 1998
Headquarters: 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA
Employees: 140 employees
Revenue: $217 million (2015)
Website: icann.org
Blog: blog.icann.org
Facebook: icannorg
LinkedIn: ICANN
Twitter: @ICANN
Key People
Sally Costerton, Interim CEO and President

Tripti Sinha, Chair of the Board
John Crain VP and Chief Technology Officer

ICANN, or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is a global multi-stakeholder organization that was created by the U.S. government and its Department of Commerce.[1] It coordinates the Internet DNS, IP addresses, and autonomous system numbers and involves the continued management of these evolving systems and the protocols that underlie them.

While ICANN began in the U.S. government, it is now and continues to be, an international, community-driven organization independent of any one government.[2] ICANN's management of an interoperable Internet covers over 330 million domain names, the allocation of more than 4 billion network addresses, and the support of approximately 95 million DNS look-ups every day across 240 countries.[3][4][5]

ICANN collaborates with a variety of stakeholders including 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, during which the new ICANN Board members take their seats.[6]

History: The Beginning[edit | edit source]

On July 1, 1997, U.S. President Bill Clinton directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the management of the DNS, which had been managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other U.S. research agencies.[7] The goals were to open the Internet to greater international participation and bolster it as a new medium of commercial competition and exchange.[1]

On July 2, the Department of Commerce requested public input regarding DNS administration and structure, policy input regarding new registrars, the creation of new TLDs, and concerns regarding trademarks. More than 1,500 pages of comments were received.[8]

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 that made clear that the agency intended to empower a non-profit entity to take control of the Internet and its DNS system.[9] The proposal drew criticism from some American lawmakers and other concerned individuals who saw the American-fostered Internet about to be handed over to the IAHC, a Swiss entity.[10] 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.[11] 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 Memorandum of Understanding[edit | edit source]

On November 25, 1998, The U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU),[1] which officially recognized ICANN as the entity that would:

  1. Establish policy for and direct the allocation of IP number blocks;
  2. Oversee the operation of the authoritative root server system;
  3. Oversee the policy for determining the circumstances under which new TLDs would be added to the root system;
  4. Coordinate the assignment of other Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; and
  5. 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.[1] The agreement established ICANN as an entity that would encourage transparency and create 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.[12] The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.[1] The MoU has been amended several times.

ICANN's bottom-up focus and its periodic structural reviews lead to a 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".[13]

Registrar Accreditation Process[edit | edit source]

On February 8th, 1999, ICANN posted its Draft Guidelines for Registrar Accreditation for public commentary.[14] The guidelines were formed through consultation with the DOC and NSI, and further tailored after the session of public commentary.[15] 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.[16] The ICANN board accepted the revised Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy at their March, 1999 meeting in Singapore.[17]

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.[18]

The Registration Accreditation Agreement was unanimously amended by the ICANN board in May, 2009.[19]

Further Developments[edit | edit source]

gTLD Expansion[edit | edit source]

Main article: gTLD

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".[28]

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.[29]

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.[30]; they all went on to approval in 2005-2006, except for the controversial .xxx,[31] which went through a much more contentious and drawn out process but was still approved in March, 2011 at ICANN 40.[32]

Main article: New gTLD Program

After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansions 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 this Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all 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 the New gTLD Program, at the same time approving the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook.[33] The Board announced the possibility of a 9th version of the Guidebook in January 2012, but the industry speculated that there was little chance that the changes would be more than clarification, as opposed to new rules and policies.[34]

In November 2012, ICANN, Verisign, and NTIA all confirmed that they were prepared with enough resources to begin launching 100 new gTLDs per week.[35]

Second Round of Applications[edit | edit source]

On February 7, 2012, the ICANN Board approved the implementation of a second round and application window for the new gTLD program in response to the request of the global Internet community, particularly the members of CADNA. The board delegated the ICANN CEO to work with the Internet community to develop a work plan and the needed prerequisites to open the second round of applications for new gTLDs.[36]

Physical Expansion[edit | edit source]

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 its 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..[37] The Sydney office went on to be closed in 2012.

In February 2013, former CEO Fadi Chehadé announced that ICANN's office in L.A. would diminish in importance while two new "hubs" would be created to fill the gap and provide new means of outreach to ICANN's international constituents. The hubs are to be located in Singapore and Istanbul, and are to act with far more authority and purpose than a stand-alone office; it is clear that many senior staff from the L.A. office will be asked to move, and the CEO himself said he will be based in Singapore once that office is up and running.[38][39] The news was announced during Mr. Chehadé's first comprehensive tour of Asia, with trips to South Korea, China, Japan, and Singapore. He noted that ICANN needed to apologize to Asia, as it had long not been given the attention it deserved within the organization.[40]

As of 2017, ICANN has offices in Los Angeles, Singapore, Montevideo, and Brussels. It has engagement centers in Geneva, Beijing, Nairobi, and Washington, DC.[41]

Time Zone Database[edit | edit source]

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.[42]

IANA Functions Stewardship Transition[edit | edit source]

Main article: IANA Functions Stewardship Transition

In March 2014, NTIA released a statement saying that they are intent on transitioning their part of the IANA functions away from NTIA and to the global stakeholder community. [43] ICANN issued a press release supporting this shift. [44]

ICANN created a co-ordination group from nominations among 13 community stakeholder groups, totaling 27 individuals, which produced a draft transition document. On December 2, 2014, ICANN opened the public comment period on the draft transition document produced by the coordination group.[45]

A New Approach to Africa[edit | edit source]

On August 10, 2012, ICANN, with the support of AfriNIC, announced an initiative to increase African participation in influence within ICANN. The initiative is the result of a meeting between Steve Crocker, Chairman of ICANN's Board of Directors, ICANN's CEO-Designate Fadi Chehadé, and Interim CEO Akram Atallah, with African community members at ICANN 44 in Prague, Czech Republic. Their goal is to develop a framework for ICANN's Africa strategy to be announced at ICANN 45 in Toronto, Canada. A working group was established, led by Nii Quaynor of Ghana, to contribute to the development of the strategy. The group is also to work with Tarek Kamel, Head of Governmental Affairs.[46] The initiative has received strong support from African Internet stakeholders, including former Board Member Katim Touray. In March 2013, Fadi Chehadé, expressed his desire to raise the number of registrars in Africa from 5 to 25, via personal and business relations with the banking and insurance sectors that would allow the African companies to more easily meet some form of tailored ICANN accreditation. His hope is to accomplish this in just a few months, with something implemented around ICANN 47 in Durban, in July 2013[47]

UDRP[edit | edit source]

Main article: 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.[48]

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.[49] Some of the public comments can be found here.

ICANN adopted the UDRP at its November 1999 meeting in Los Angeles.[50]

Review and Transparency Development[edit | edit source]

Many of the other developments at ICANN have been accomplished through the introduction of review teams, such as the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform. The push for reform was also significantly aided by Stuart Lynn's "President's report: The Case for Reform,"[51] which was credited with starting the dialogue on reform and leading to the creation of a formal committee.[23]

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 more clearly defined ICANN's mission and core values 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.[52]

ICANN Organizational Issues[edit | edit source]

See ICANN Bodies for a list of the key players in ICANN's Multistakeholder Model.

It is central to ICANN's mission that the organization is structured in a way that welcomes a variety of voices and seeks to represent diverse constituencies with continued interest in the Internet's development, from registries, to corporations, to individual Internet users. In relation to ICANN's structural development, there have been critics who have taken issue with its closed-door sessions, the role of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and other structural and procedural rules.[53] ICANN has 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.[54] ICANN's structure and process are outlined in the ICANN Bylaws.

Board of Directors[edit | edit source]

Main article: ICANN Board

ICANN is governed by a Board of Directors made up of 16 voting members (including ICANN's CEO) and four non-voting liaisons.[55] From ICANN's inception to 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.[56]

Ombudsman[edit | edit source]

Main article: Ombudsman

The Ombudsman is required to offer independent, impartial, and neutral informal dispute resolution for those who want to lodge a complaint about ICANN staff, board, or supporting organizations. The independence of this office has been called into question, as the person in this role is hired and fired by the ICANN Board and reports to the ICANN Chair. The length of tenure has also been debated.

GNSO[edit | edit source]

Main article: GNSO

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) brings together representatives of constituencies concerning gTLDs.[57] As such, it has received criticism on its policy development process. Namely, Working Group dynamics and how the GNSO determines that it has reached consensus have proved particularly problematic.

ccNSO[edit | edit source]

Main article: ccNSO

The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) was created by and for ccTLD managers, which are the entities that oversee a given nation's own Country Code Top Level Domain.[58] The main issues it faces are a shortage of candidates and a lack of transparency and accountability in its PDP.

ASO[edit | edit source]

Main article: ASO

The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) reviews and develop Internet Protocol recommendations.[59] It has been criticized for lacking a single, authoritative description of the process for global numbering policies and a lack of transparency on the difference between the roles of the ASO and the NRO, which is a non-ICANN body that strongly overlaps with the ASO.

GAC[edit | edit source]

Main article: GAC

The GAC advises the ICANN Board on how governments will react to potential policies. The GAC has come under fire for seemingly allowing the governments they represent a veto power over ICANN decisions.[60]

ALAC[edit | edit source]

Main article: ALAC

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) advocates for the interests of individual Internet users. ALAC was recently criticized for spending too much time on process and administrative issues, and too little on policy advice, which was also considered of low quality. ALAC is also struggling with an uneven distribution of power.[61]

SSAC[edit | edit source]

Main article: SSAC

SSAC was originally intended to expand and specialize the role of ICANN, and it received official recognition in 2002.[22] SSAC as a body and its individual members have been criticized for their lack of communication and engagement with other ICANN bodies.[62]

RSSAC[edit | edit source]

Main article: RSSAC

RSSAC advises ICANN on the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System. It has come under fire for offering minimal, reactionary input rather than offering regular updates and being distrustful of non-RSO stakeholders.[63]

Process[edit | edit source]

ICANN generates and relies on a multitude of policies and practices. Some of the policies, such as those that govern DNS, undergo a formal PDP and must culminate in an ICANN Board approval. The processes through which ICANN functions are developed through extensive dialogue in an effort to reflect the perspectives of various stakeholders in the ICANN community, but they do not require a PDP. Operational policies and General practices are examples of the latter.[64]

Policy Development[edit | edit source]

Main article: ICANN Policy Development

DNS Policies are developed through formal policy development processes (PDPs), as set forth by the Bylaws.

Governance[edit | edit source]

Main article: ICANN Governance

Governance refers to the operational policies that define how ICANN operates as an organization. These policies are not subject to PDPs and tend to depend on community input through less formal means.

Meetings[edit | edit source]

Main article: ICANN Meetings

ICANN holds meetings three times per year; one of these meetings serves as the organization's annual general 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.[6] The next meeting will be the 61st meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico.[65] Meetings are designated as A, B, and C, and each meeting has a varying length and purpose.

Fellowships[edit | edit source]

Main article: Fellowship Program

The goal of the ICANN Fellowship Program is to strengthen the diversity of the multistakeholder model by fostering opportunities for individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities to become active participants in the ICANN community. Fellows are exposed to the workings of the ICANN community, are assigned a mentor, and receive training across different areas of knowledge and skill building before, during, and after an ICANN Public Meeting. Travel assistance to attend the meeting is also provided.[66]

Accountability[edit | edit source]

Main article: ICANN Accountability

Reviews[edit | edit source]

Main article: ICANN Reviews

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 board's 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, are also subject to occasional reviews.[55]

Conflicts of Interest[edit | edit source]

ICANN adopted a Conflict of Interest policy in 2012.[67] The policy requires that all Board Members, as well as those in various other positions, 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,[68] Board members also may not join a business with a new gTLD registry until 12 months after the registry's application has been voted on.[56] Prior to the policy, ICANN did not have a clear position. 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.[69]

ICANN's CEO, Rod Beckstrom had previously noted at the opening ceremony of ICANN 42, even before staff members 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. 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.[70]

Manwin Anti-Trust Lawsuit[edit | edit source]

Main article: sTLD

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 sTLD. This legal action took place in November 2011, well after the TLD's approval and just before its general availability.[71] 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 did not "adequately address issues including competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse, and rights protection prior to approving the .xxx TLD."[72]

In January 2012, ICANN and ICM both filed motions to dismiss the case. ICANN argued that since it is a not-for-profit organization and it is not engaged in "trade or commerce," the US anti-trust laws are not applicable; additionally, both ICM and ICANN argued that Manwin's filing was essentially complaining about the possible increase in competition. ICM cited that Manwin had approached the company earlier with a supposed mutually-beneficial agreement, in which Manwin would acquire various premium .xxx domains for free, in exchange for sharing the profits of these domains with ICM. When ICM turned down the agreement, Manwin Managing Partner Fabian Thylmann said that he would do whatever he could to stop .xxx.[73] ICANN's and ICM's motions to dismiss can be found here and here respectively.

Employ Media Arbitration[edit | edit source]

Employ Media requested an arbitration proceeding to resolve the notice of breach on the .jobs registry agreement issued by ICANN on February 27, 2011, in connection with the universe.jobs website. The jobs board website was launched by Employ Media in partnership with the Direct Employers Association, which the registry operator allowed to register more than 40 thousand .jobs domain names used on the jobs board to advertise job opportunities for more than 5,000 leading companies in the United States. ICANN claimed that the universe.jobs appeared to be in competition with other companies offering the same service and Employ Media's actions violated its charter. ICANN directed the .jobs registry operator and the [[SHRM|Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the sponsoring organization, to resolve the issues mentioned in the notice of breach and to comply with its charter. ICANN threatened to terminate the .jobs registry agreement if the problems were not resolved. Employ Media argued that the universe.jobs was launched in compliance with the Phase Allocation Program, which was approved by ICANN. Although the registry operator was disappointed with ICANN's actions Employ Media agreed to resolve the issue by invoking the cooperative agreement provisions in the registry agreement. During the cooperative negotiations, Employ Media agreed to stop registering non-company name domain names until May 6, 2011. However, the company abandoned the cooperative agreement proceedings when it learned that ICANN posted information about their cooperative negotiations regarding the notice of breach. Employ Media also accused ICANN of "bad faith action." ICANN's legal counsel explained that the internet governing body is just performing its duty to maintain accountability and transparency. When ICANN responded to Employ Media's arbitration request it reiterated its strong position that Employ Media violated its charter and that its decision was appropriate. ICANN asked the court to deny the registry operator's request for relief. At present, both parties are still waiting for the schedule of their arbitration proceedings from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration.[74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]

.JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition Criticism[edit | edit source]

One day before the implementation of the new gTLD program, the .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition, sent a letter to ICANN detailing the internet governing body's failure to evaluate and investigate all comments and information submitted by entities against the request of the .jobs registry operator to change its charter. It pointed out that ICANN failed to acknowledge its mistake and overturn its decision when complaints and evidence were filed for reconsideration that Employ Media violated its charter. The coalition chairman stated that ICANN was inefficient in dealing with the arbitration proceedings to immediately resolve Employ Media's charter violation, and consequently, the company continues to exploit the .jobs TLD and expand the universe.jobs website. Furthermore, it said that the internet community is concerned that ICANN's new gTLD program's multiple stakeholder protection mechanisms might end up mismanaged just like the .jobs TLD and ICANN's promises are "empty words." Moreover, Bell requested the ICANN Board to publicly disqualify Employ Media and its partner, the Direct Employers Association,from the new gTLD expansion program because the registry operator has a "history of abuse." According to its Chairman, this is the only way for ICANN to regain a measure of regulatory authority.[81]

Awards[edit | edit source]

In May 2012, ICANN was recognized by The Board of Trustees of Sheikh Salem Al-Ali Al-Sabah Informatics Award with their 11th 'Informatics Medal'. The medal is given with appreciation for the organization's efforts at maintaining and strengthening the Internet's infrastructure. The Board also expressed gratitude for the role that ICANN has played in developing and deploying Arabic IDN's, which allow Arabic populations to surf the web without relying on foreign characters or domains. The award has been given out since 2007 and is given to institutions or public figures that are influential in the fields of Informatics and Internet Development. It was received on behalf of ICANN by the company's President and CEO, Rod Beckstrom.[82][83]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 ICANN DOC MoU Memorandum of Understanding, Depart. of Commerce and ICANN. ICANN. Published 1999 December 31.
  2. ↑ Stewardship of IANA Functions Transitions to Global Internet Community as Contract with U.S. Government Ends. Retrieved 20 Nov 2017.
  3. ↑ ICANN Strategic Plan June 2010 June 2013. ICANN.
  4. ↑ VERISIGN DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY BRIEF: INTERNET GROWS TO 330.6 MILLION DOMAIN NAMES IN Q1 2017. Retrieved 20 Nov 2017.
  5. ↑ OpenDNS. Retrieved 20 Nov 2017.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 ICANN About Meetings. ICANN.
  7. ↑ Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 February 20.
  8. ↑ Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses. National Telecommunications & Information Administration. Published 1998 June 5.
  9. ↑ ICANN White Paper. ICANN.
  10. ↑ The Green Paper vs. The White Paper. ICANN. Published 1999 October 18.
  11. ↑ How do the NTIA White Paper and the ICANN By-Laws Impact Membership?. Harvard Law. Published 1999 January 19.
  12. ↑ Congressional Hearing.Published 1999 July.
  13. ↑ "ICANN 2.0 Meet the New Boss"
  14. ↑ ref name="accreditation"
  15. ↑ Press Release: ICANN Releases Draft Accreditation Guidelines. Mail Archive. Published 1999 February 8.
  16. ↑ ICANN Public Meeting Details. Harvard Law.
  17. ↑ ref name="accreditation"
  18. ↑ Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy
  19. ↑ ref name="accreditation"
  20. ↑ ICANN.org
  21. ↑ Regular Meeting of the Board Minutes. ICANN. Published 2001 September 10.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 ICANN Meeting in Accra Preliminary Report. ICANN. Published 2002 March 14.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 ICANN Meeting in Bucharest Preliminary Report]. ICANN. Published 2002 June 28.
  24. ↑ Fourth Annual Meeting of the Board Minutes. ICANN. Published 2002 December 15.
  25. ↑ Preliminary Report | Regular Meeting of the Board - Rio de Janeiro. ICANN. Published 2003 March 27.
  26. ↑ Resolutions Adopted at Rome ICANN Board Meeting | Regular Meeting of the Board, Rome, Italy. ICANN. Published 2004 March 6.
  27. ↑ AfriNIC Application for Recognition as Regional Internet Registry Public Comment Forum. ICANN. Published 2005 March 14.
  28. ↑ Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. National Telecommunications & Information Administration.
  29. ↑ ICANN Board Resolutions in Carthage, Tunisia. ICANN. Published 2003 October 31.
  30. ↑ 2005 Board Meetings
  31. ↑ Information Page for Sponsored Top-Level Domains. ICANN.
  32. ↑ .XXX Registry Agreement. ICANN. Published 2011 March 31.
  33. ↑ About the New gTLD Program. ICANN.
  34. ↑ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook. Domain Incite. Published 2012 January 4.
  35. ↑ ICANN Verisign and NTIA ready for 100 new gTLDs per Week. Domain Incite. Published 2012 November 8.
  36. ↑ Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board. ICANN. Published 2012 February 7.
  37. ↑ New gTLDs expand ICANN Domain Incite. Published 2011 September 21.
  38. ↑ ICANN LA To be Broken Up Begging Letters to Stop, Nigel.je Retrieved 25 Feb 2012
  39. ↑ ICANN to Set up Hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, DomainIncite.com Retrieved 25 Feb 2013
  40. ↑ ICANN CEO We Owe Asia a Big Apology, ZDnet.com Retrieved 25 Feb 2013
  41. ↑ ICANN Contact Page. Retrieved 22 Nov 2017.
  42. ↑ ICANN to Manage Time Zone Database. ICANN. Published 2011 October 14.
  43. ↑ NTIA announces intent to transition key domain name functions
  44. ↑ Press release, March 14 2014
  45. ↑ ICANN opens comment period for its move out of US control
  46. ↑ A New Approach to Africa. ICANN. Published 2012 August 10.
  47. ↑ Chehade Commits to Grow The Number of Domain Registrars in Africa, DomainIncite.com Retrieved 8 Mar 2013
  48. ↑ Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. ICANN. Published 1999 September 29.
  49. ↑ Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy]. ICANN. Published 1999 September 29.
  50. ↑ Overview of Domain Name Policy Development. Harvard Law.
  51. ↑ President's Report: ICANN – The Case for Reform. ICANN. Published 2002 February 24.
  52. ↑ Appendix A to Minutes ICANN Board Meeting in Shanghai. ICANN. Published 2002 October 31.
  53. ↑ ICANN Organizational Structure. Stanford University.
  54. ↑ Obama administration joins critics of U.S. nonprofit group that oversees Internet. The Washington Post. Published 2011 March 1.
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 ICANN Bylaws. ICANN.
  56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 ICANN Board awards itself $35,000, developing countries $138,000, and adds to confusion with secondary timestamp. dotnxt. Published 2011 December 13.
  57. ↑ Generic Names Supporting Organization
  58. ↑ About.
  59. ↑ The Address Supporting Organization
  60. ↑ ICANN Must follow its own rules. CDT
  61. ↑ 2017 At-Large Review
  62. ↑ 2018 SSAC Review
  63. ↑ 2018 RSSAC Review
  64. ↑ What is Policy?
  65. ↑ Middle East Developments Cause Cancellation of ICANN Jordan Meeting. ICANN Blog. Published 2011 February 18.
  66. ↑ https://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram
  67. ↑ ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy. Retrieved 21 Nov 2017.
  68. ↑ ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy. ICANN. Published 2012 May 6.
  69. ↑ Calls to Fix Revolving Door. Domain Incite. Published 2011 June 26.
  70. ↑ ICANN to Hire Conflict of Interest Experts. Domain Incite. Published 2011 October 6.
  71. ↑ Owner of YouPorn.com Plans to File Suit Against ICM ICANN over XXX. The Domains. Published 2011 November 16.
  72. ↑ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand. Domain Incite. Published 2011 November 17.
  73. ↑ ICANN: Antitrust Law Does Not Apply To Us. Domain Incite. Published 2012 January 21.
  74. ↑ ICANN threatens to shut down .jobs. Domain Incite. Published 2011 February 28.
  75. ↑ Employ Media Response to ICANN'S Notice of Breach. dotJobs. Published 2011 February 28.
  76. ↑ Registry avoids .jobs shut-down. Domain Incite. Published 2011 April 20.
  77. ↑ .Jobs Manager Seeks Arbitration by International Court
  78. ↑ War of Words Over Jobs Breach Claims. Domain Incite. Published 2011 May 3.
  79. ↑ ICANN’s Response to Employ Media’s Request for Arbitration. Google Docs.
  80. ↑ Arbitration: Employ Media vs. ICANN. ICANN. Published 2012 November 1.
  81. ↑ The case study that could kill ICANN. dotnxt. Published 2012 January 11.
  82. ↑ Informatics prize for ICANN - Salem Ali Prize panel. Kuna. Published 2012 May 1.
  83. ↑ ICANN Receives Arab World Award. ICANN. Published 2012 May 22.

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).

Country Code Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board global policies relating to country-code top-level domains (ICANN Bylaws).

Address Supporting Organization. Advises the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of Internet addresses (ICANN Bylaws).

Governmental Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (ICANN Bylaws).

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.

Security and Stability Advisory Committee. Advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems (ICANN Bylaws).

Root Server System Advisory Committee. Advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System (ICANN Bylaws).

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=ICANN&oldid=1347266"