Changes

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 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:

a. 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;  

b. 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;  

 

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

c. Oversee the policy for determining the circumstances under which new [[TLD]]s would be added to the root system;  

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

 

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

 

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

Once again, these responsibilities would be undertaken and guided by the principles of stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation.<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 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.

===UDRP===

===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:

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:

 

 

'''3.''' 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 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].

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].

====gTLD Expansion====

====gTLD Expansion====

: ''Main article: [[gTLD]]''

: ''Main article: [[gTLD]]''

The discussion of creating new [[gTLD|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.' [[DOC|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".<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration.</ref>

The discussion of creating new [[gTLD|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. [[DOC|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".<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration.</ref>

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.

[[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>

[[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>

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 addvocated approval of the new gTLD program.<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>

[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>

[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>

[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>

[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 withinthe  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:

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:

* objection procedures for governments   

* objection procedures for governments   

* procedures for the review of sensitive strings   

* procedures for the review of sensitive strings   

* registry-registrar separation   

* registry-registrar separation   

* protection of trademark rights and other intellectual property

* protection of trademark rights and other intellectual property

* consumer protection issues,

* consumer protection issues

* post-delegation disputes with governments   

* post-delegation disputes with governments   

* use and protection of geographic names   

* use and protection of geographic names   

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>

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>

[[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>

[[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>

[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>

[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>

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.

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.

* '''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 if the DNS.

* '''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]] 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.

* '''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]] 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.

* '''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.

* '''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"''

* '''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.  

* '''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.

* '''[[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.