Jump to content

ICANN

From ICANNWiki
ICANNWiki Gold Sponsor
Type: Private, Non-Profit
Industry: Internet Protocol Management
Founded: 1998
Headquarters: 4676 Admiralty Way # 330,
Marina del Rey, CA, USA
Employees: 140 employees
Revenue: 63.6 million (2010)
Website: icann.org
Blog: blog.icann.org
Facebook: icannorg
LinkedIn: ICANN
Twitter: @ICANN
Key People
Rod Beckstrom, CEO and President

Steve Crocker, Chair of the Board

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

While ICANN has its roots in the U.S. government, it is now, and continues to strive to be, an international, community driven organization. Their management of an interoperable Internet covers 180 million domain names, the allocation of more than 4 billion network addresses, and the support of approximately a trillion DNS look-ups everyday across 240 countries.[2]

ICANN collaborates with companies, individuals, and governments to ensure the continued success of the Internet. It holds meetings three times a year, switching the international location for each meeting; one of these serves as the annual general meeting when the new ICANN Board members take their seats.[3]

Organization & Structure[edit | edit source]

It is central to ICANN's mission that the organization itself is structured in a way that welcomes a variety of voices and seeks to represent the extremely diverse constituencies with continued interest in the Internet's development, from registries, to corporations, to individual Internet users. Naturally, throughout ICANN's structural development there have been critics who have taken issue with closed-door sessions, the role of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and other structural and procedural rules.[4] ICANN has recently been described as being in a contentious oversight situation; with some countries calling for all U.S. influence to be removed from the organization by subordinating it to the U.N.'s jurisdiction, or suggesting similar solutions.[5] ICANN's structure and process is 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 15 voting members,[6] and the President and CEO, who is also a voting member. The board is further aided by 5 non-voting liaisons.[7] From its inception until December, 2011, being a board member was a voluntary position. At that time, the ICANN Board responded to mounting pressure regarding conflicts of interest and the notion that compensation would create a more professional and accountable body by awarding themselves a $35,000 annual salary.[8]

Current Board of Directors[edit | edit source]

The 15 current directors, and the current CEO, are listed below, along with the organization which nominated them and the length of their term:[9]

Current Non-Voting Liaisons[edit | edit source]

GNSO[edit | edit source]

Main article: GNSO

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) brings together smaller stakeholder groups, which in turn bring together constituencies and other groups, together into one Supporting Organization to develop policies, form consensus, and make recommendations related to gTLDs to the ICANN Board.[10]

ccNSO[edit | edit source]

Main article: ccNSO

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.[11]

ASO[edit | edit source]

Main article: 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 Internet Protocol recommendations, address policy, and advise the ICANN Board.[12] Its members are appointed by the world's 5 Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), which manage and allocate IP addresses in their respective continental regions.[13][14]

Process[edit | edit source]

Meetings[edit | edit source]

Main article: ICANN Meetings

ICANN holds week-long meetings 3 times per year; one of these meetings serves as the organization's annual meeting, where new board directors take their appointed seats. These meetings are held in a different location each time, with each global region hosting a meeting before the regional cycle is started anew.[15] The next meeting will be the 41st meeting in Singapore. The 41st meeting was scheduled to be held in Amman, Jordan, before it was moved due to security concerns.[16] Singapore was then selected to host that meeting.[17]

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

A fellowship program is in place to bring in individuals who have a desire or need to attend but do not have the financial backing to attend on their own.[18]

Review Processes[edit | edit source]

ICANN has mechanisms in place for any individual or entity to solicit a reappraisal of any board decision that affects them. The Board Governance Committee is in charge of reviewing all reconsideration requests, which are submitted electronically and must be responded to within 30 days. The boards actions are also reviewed by an Independent Review Panel, which has the power to call attention to discrepancies between the bylaws and actions taken by the board, and recommend that the board readdress certain issues. Furthermore, ICANN's structure and operations, including every supporting organization and committee, is also subject to occasional reviews.[19]

History: The Beginning[edit | edit source]

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.[20] The goal was to open the Internet to greater international participation, and to bolster it as a new medium of commercial competition and exchange.[21]

On July 2nd, the Department of Commerce requested public input regarding DNS administration and structure, policy input regarding new registrars and the creation of new TLDs, and concerns regarding trademarks. More than 1,500 pages of comments were received.[22]

In January, 1998, an agency of the Department of Commerce (NTIA) issued what has become known as the "Green Paper." The document was a proposal which made clear that the agency intended to empower a non-profit entity to take control of the Internet and its DNS system.[23] 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.[24] 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.[25] 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.[26] 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.[27]

The Memorandum of Understanding[edit | edit source]

On November 25th, 1998, The U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU),[28] which officially recognized ICANN as the entity that would:

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, these responsibilities would be undertaken and guided by the principles of stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation.[29] 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.[30] The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.[31] The MoU has been amended several times.

Initial Issues[edit | edit source]

ICANN was immediately faced with two pressing, opposing issues: the task of reigning in cybersquatting by creating policies necessary to protect recognized trademarks, and conversely the need to expand the number of entities accredited to function as registrars. Following the release of the White Paper, WIPO began its own research into how to protect trademarks and intellectual property within the changing DNS. A congressional hearing some 7 months after the empowerment of ICANN recognized the steps that the new entity had already taken to protect intellectual property, recognized the headway WIPO had made in creating further proposals, and called on intellectual property owners to become involved in ICANN.[32]

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

The report also made recommendations regarding the process of accrediting new registrars, called for the creation of a concrete dispute resolution process for intellectual property issues within the DNS, and also recommended that the creation of any new gTLDs should proceed slowly and with caution. These recommendations precipitated ICANN's Accreditation Guidelines, the creation of the UDRP, and the continued debate over how and when to increase the number of gTLDs.[33]

Registrar Accreditation[edit | edit source]

A month before the MoU officially recognized ICANN, the Department of Commerce and NSI amended their cooperative agreement. The agreement had previously maintained the NSI as the only registrar for the .com, .org, and .net domains.[34] The three amendments to the agreement removed the exclusive rights of NSI; amendment 11 called for the creation of a Shared Registry System, whereby an unlimited number of competitive registrars would have access to one system managed by NSI.[35] Amendment 12 gave more time to NSI to complete important milestones in the liberalization of registry services; the final phase, which called for equal access to the SRS by all accredited registrars, was now given a deadline of about one year, October 25th, 1999.[36] Amendment 13 attached a $9 fee for each second level domain name registered, payable as $18 for new registrations and $9 per year on the anniversary of the original registration.[37]

On February 8th, 1999, ICANN posted its Draft Guidelines for Registrar Accreditation for public commentary.[38] The guidelines were formed through consultation with the DOC and NSI, and further tailored after the session of public commentary.[39] 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.[40] The ICANN board accepted the revised Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy at their March, 1999 meeting in Singapore.[41]

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.[42]

The Registration Accreditation Agreement was unanimously amended by the ICANN board in May, 2009.[43]

The Testbed Period[edit | edit source]

Numerous technical problems plagued the testbed period of the SRS.[44] 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.[45] Register.com finally became the first of the 5 competitive testbed registrars to successfully implement its interface with the SRS, which happened 6 weeks into the 2 month testbed period. The technical difficulties also extended to the deployment of the required Whois system.[46] Throughout the testbed period general applications for the later phases were being accepted.[47] The Department of Commerce and the NSI extended the testbed period about 4 times,[48] the final extension finally expired on November 5th, 1999.[49]

UDRP[edit | edit source]

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.[50]

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

ICANN adopted the UDRP at its November, 1999, meeting in Los Angeles.[52]

History: ICANN 2.0[edit | edit source]

ICANN's bottom-up focus and its periodic structural reviews lead to revision of its bylaws and the introduction of new entities and policies. One such rush of changes happened in and around the year 2000, when the prospective changes and the discussions surrounding them spurned people to talk of "ICANN 2.0".[53]

The Introduction of the ALAC[edit | edit source]

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.[54] 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.[55]

Other Committees[edit | edit source]

Many of the other new developments at ICANN were accomplished through the introduction of review teams; such as the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform. Other Committees intent on expanding and specializing the role of ICANN were also created, such as the Security Committee, which eventually became the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. Both of these committees were given official recognition in 2002.[56] The push for reform was also significantly aided by Stuart Lynn's "President's report: The Case for Reform,"[57] which they credited for starting the dialogue on reform and leading to the creation of the more formal committee.[58]

ICANN adopted a new set of by-laws, which were first laid out by the aforementioned Evolution and Reform Committee, before being revised in response to Public Forums. Those by-laws can be read here. The by-laws not only more clearly defined ICANN's mission and core values, but it also put in place and improved apparatuses for review and greater transparency. The Reconsideration Committee, Independent Review Panel, and the Ombudsman all were strengthened as a part of this move towards a more transparent organization that is able to defend its actions and decisions.[59]

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".[68]

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.[69]

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.[70]; they all went on to approval in 2005-2006, except for the controversial .xxx,[71] which went through a much more contentious and drawn out process but was still approved in March, 2011 at ICANN 40.[72]

Recent Developments[edit | edit source]

New gTLD Program[edit | edit source]

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.[73] 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.[74]

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 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..[75]

Conflicts of Interest[edit | edit source]

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.[76]

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.[77]

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.[78] 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.[79]

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.[80]

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,[81] Board members also may not join business with a new gTLD registry until 12 months after the registry's application has been voted on.[82]

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.[83]

Manwin Anti-Trust Lawsuit[edit | edit source]

Manwin, one of the most prominent adult content producers on the Internet, filed an Anti-Trust suit against both ICM Registry and ICANN over the creation and implementation of the .xxx TLD. This legal action took place in November, 2011, well after the TLD's approval and just before its general availability.[84] It also filed an Independent Review Panel (IRP) Request with ICANN, making it only the second company ever to do so (the first being ICM Registry itself). Manwin felt that ICANN's decision to allow .xxx into the root did not “adequately address issues including competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse and rights protection prior to approving the .xxx TLD."[85]

In January 2012, ICANN and ICM both filed motions to dismiss the case. ICANN argued that, as it was an organization not engaged in "trade or commerce," the US anti-trust laws did not apply to it; additionally, both ICM and ICANN argued that Manwin's filing was essentially complaining about the possible increase in competition for them. ICM cited that Manwin had earlier attempt to approach them with a supposed mutually-beneficial agreement, in which Manwin would acquire various premium .xxx domains for free, in exchange 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.[86] ICANN's and ICM's motions to dismiss can be found here and here respectively.

In mid-February, 2012, all plaintiffs and defendants announced that they were in talks and hoping to resolve some to all of the outstanding complaints.[87]

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 was given by the registry operator the leverage to register more than 40 thousand of .jobs domain names used in the jobs board to advertise job opportunities from more than 5,000 leading companies in the United States. ICANN cited 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 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 will not be resolved. On the other hand, 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 that to amend its charter and 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 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration.[88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]

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

One day before the implementation of the new gTLD program, the .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition led by its chairman John Bell 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. Bell also pointed out that ICANN failed to acknowledge its mistake and overturn its decision when complainants filed for reconsideration and submitted significant evidences to prove that Employ Media violated its charter. The coalition chairman also cited that ICANN was inefficient in dealing with the arbitration proceedings to immediately resolve the Employ Media's charter violation, therefore the company continues to exploit the .jobs TLD and expand the universe.jobs website. Furthermore, Bell 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 as "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 registry operator has a "history of abuse." According to Bell, this is the only way for ICANN to regain a measure of regulatory authority.[95]

Senate Hearing on New gTLD Program[edit | edit source]

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 expansion program as well as ICANN's efforts in resolving the concerns raised by the internet community. Witnesses present during the committee hearings include:[96]

Witnesses Testimony[edit | edit source]

Angela Williams represented the concerns of the members of the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) during the Senate hearing. In her testimony, she raised the budgetary, public confusions and cybersquatting issues. According to her, the increased risk of public confusions compromise the internet security and it would be more expensive for entities particularly 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 their trademarks from any other applicant in the new gTLD Program at no cost or drastically reduced fee, eliminate or drastically reduce the costs of the new gTLD program for verified not-for-profit organizations and to strengthen the mechanisms for trademark protection.[97]

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 serious economic impact. Brand owners might be compelled to file for defensive registrations to protect their trademarks or intellectual property rights. There is a possibility of misappropriation of intellectual property rights, domain navigation dilution, increased risk of cybersquatting, reduce 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 on December 2010. In addition, he also emphasized the new gTLD programs lacks consensus and ICANN failed to meet the "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 conflict of interest after Peter Dengate Thrush decided to join Minds + Machines as Executive Chairman immediately after his term as chairman of ICANN. Thrush strongly pushed approval of the new gTLD program.[98]

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 reach to a broader public to inform its approach regarding new TLDs. She concluded her testimony with the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" [99]

As representative of the 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 GAC provided consensus advice to ICANN during the policy development process for the new gTLD program for six years.She emphasized that GAC developed a "scorecard" to address the different issues raised b governments which include:

  • 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 owners
  • 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 to ICANN's multistakeholder model of internet governance and it is dedicated in maintaining the global openness of the internet to promote economic growth, innovation and free flow of information, products and services online.[100]

As representative of ICANN, Kurt Pritz testified to the Senate committee that the introduction of new gTLDs is 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. The 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 Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearing House]], measures to mitigate malicious conduct, objection process 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..."[101]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ ICANN DOC MoU
  2. ↑ ICANN Strategic Plan 2010
  3. ↑ ICANN About Meetings
  4. ↑ Stanford.edu
  5. ↑ The Washington Post
  6. ↑ Board Review
  7. ↑ ICANN Bylaws
  8. ↑ ICANN Board Dec Minutes, news.dot-nxt.com
  9. ↑ ICANN.org
  10. ↑ GNSO.ICANN.org
  11. ↑ About, CCNSO.ICANN.org
  12. ↑ ASO definition
  13. ↑ APNIC About
  14. ↑ ASO.ICANN.org
  15. ↑ ICANN About Meetings
  16. ↑ DNN.com
  17. ↑ Goldstein Report.com
  18. ↑ Fellowship Program
  19. ↑ ICANN Bylaws
  20. ↑ NTIA Green Paper
  21. ↑ ICANN DOC MoU
  22. ↑ NTIA
  23. ↑ ICANN White Paper
  24. ↑ ICANN Green Paper v. White Paper correspondence
  25. ↑ Harvard Law Document
  26. ↑ ICANN Greev v. White Paper correspondence
  27. ↑ Letter from Boston Working Group to Ira Magaziner, ntia.doc.gov
  28. ↑ ICANN MoU
  29. ↑ ICANN DOC MoU
  30. ↑ Congressional Hearing
  31. ↑ ICANN DOC MoU
  32. ↑ Congressional Hearing, July 1999
  33. ↑ Congressional Hearing, July 1999
  34. ↑ accreditation history
  35. ↑ NTIA Amendment 11
  36. ↑ NTIA Amendment 12
  37. ↑ NTIA Amendment 13
  38. ↑ ICANN Accreditation History
  39. ↑ Mail Archive
  40. ↑ Harvard Law Singapore Document
  41. ↑ ICANN Accreditation History
  42. ↑ Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy
  43. ↑ ICANN Accrediation History
  44. ↑ Andrew McLaughlin Memorandum
  45. ↑ Amendment 12
  46. ↑ Andrew McLaughlin Memorandum
  47. ↑ ICANN Accreditation History
  48. ↑ [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook/milestones.html
  49. ↑ Fact Sheet on Tentative Agreements among ICANN, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc.
  50. ↑ ICANN UDRP Policy
  51. ↑ Rules for the UDRP]
  52. ↑ Harvard Law UDRP Overview
  53. ↑ "ICANN 2.0 Meet the New Boss"
  54. ↑ Caslon.com
  55. ↑ ICANN ALAC
  56. ↑ ICANN.org
  57. ↑ ICANN.org
  58. ↑ ICANN Bucharest]
  59. ↑ ICANN.org
  60. ↑ ICANN.org
  61. ↑ ICANN Shanghai
  62. ↑ ICANN.org
  63. ↑ ICANN Bucharest
  64. ↑ ICANN 4th Annual Meeting
  65. ↑ ICANN Rio
  66. ↑ ICANN Rome
  67. ↑ ICANN.org Announcements
  68. ↑ NTIA.doc.gov
  69. ↑ ICANN Carthage
  70. ↑ 2005 Board Meetings
  71. ↑ ICANN.org
  72. ↑ .XXX Registry Agreement
  73. ↑ About the New gTLD Program
  74. ↑ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook, DomainIncite.com
  75. ↑ New gTLDs expand ICANN, domainincite.com
  76. ↑ Calls to Fix Revolving Door, DomainIncite.com
  77. ↑ Fomer ICANN Chair Joins M + M, DomainIncite.com
  78. ↑ Would an ICANN ethics policy break the law, DomainIncite.com
  79. ↑ Calls to Fix Revolving Door, DomainIncite.com
  80. ↑ ICANN to Hire Conflict of Interest Experts
  81. ↑ ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy
  82. ↑ ICANN Board December Minutes, dot-nxt.com
  83. ↑ ICANN Press Release
  84. ↑ Owner of YouPorn.com Plans to File Suit Against ICM ICANN over XXX, TheDomains.com
  85. ↑ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand, DomainIncite.com
  86. ↑ ICANN: antitrust law does not apply to us, domainincite.com
  87. ↑ ICM and YouPorn in AntiTrust Settlement Talks, DomainIncite.com
  88. ↑ ICANN threatens to shut down .jobs
  89. ↑ Employ Media Responce to ICANN'S Notice of Breach
  90. ↑ Registry avoids .jobs shut-down
  91. ↑ .Jobs Manager Seeks Arbitration by International Court
  92. ↑ War of Words Over Jobs Breach Claims
  93. ↑ ICANN’s Response to Employ Media’s Request for Arbitration
  94. ↑ Arbitration: Employ Media vs. ICANN
  95. ↑ The case study that could kill ICANN
  96. ↑ Hearings-ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains-Dec. 8, 2012
  97. ↑ Testimony of Angela F. Williams, Senate Hearing, Dec. 8, 2012
  98. ↑ Testimony of Daniel L. Jaffe, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2012
  99. ↑ Testimony of Esther Dyson, Hearing on ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2011
  100. ↑ Testimony of Fiona M. Alexander, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2011
  101. ↑ Testimony of Kurt Pritz, Hearing on Expansion of Top Level Domain Names, Dec. 8, 2012

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).

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.

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).

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=ICANN&oldid=56621"