Bureaucrats, staff, Administrators
8,157
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − {{RightTOC}}+ − − Line 104:
Line 102: − + Line 110:
Line 108: − + − After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion 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 the Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all the constituencies within the ICANN global internet community. In 2008, 19 Specific Policy Recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board for the implementation of new gTLDs, which describe the specifics of allocation and the contractual conditions. ICANN involved the global internet community in an open, inclusive and transparent implementation process to comment, review and provide their input toward creating the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs. The protection of intellectual property, community interests, consumer protection, and DNS stability were addressed during the process. Different versions and multiple drafts of the Applicant Guidebook were released in 2008. By June 2011, the ICANN Board launched a New gTLD Program and at the same time approved the [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook]].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]</ref> They announced the possibility of another version of the Guidebook in January 2012, the current version is the 8th, but there is little chance that there would be more than clarification in the new version, as opposed to new rules and policies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook, DomainIncite.com]</ref>+ + + + + + + − + − A number of high profile opponents came out against ICANN and its new gTLD program. These include: [[Association of National Advertisers]] (ANA), the [[Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse]] (CADNA), the [[Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight]] (CRIDO), the National Retail Federation,<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/icann-facing-growing-pressure-over-new-domain-name-plan-20111025 ICANN Facing Growing Pressure Over New Domain Name Plan, NationalJournal.com]]</ref>, and others. Major corporations involved with these organizations include: adidas, Dell, Toyota, Wal-Mart, Kraft Foods, and other prominent American and internationally known brands.<ref>[http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/22399 ANA.net]</ref> ICANN's new gTLD program also recieved negative Op-Eds by the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/opinion/expanding-internet-domains.html?_r=3&ref=internetcorpforassignednamesandnumbers Exapnding Internet Domains, NYTimes.com]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO_story.html What's the .rush, WashingtonPost.com]</ref> ICANN was also the subject of the hearings within the [[U.S. Congress]], detailed below, and they consequently received letters from Senators and Congressmen asking them to delay or reevaluate their program, other government criticism included a petition for delay by the [[FTC]].<ref>[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/12/icann.shtm ICANN, FTC.gov]</ref> Many of these critics were not explicitly anti-ICANN, but anti-new gTLDs. The most common complaint was coming from trademark owners and their lobbying groups, which believed that the new program would create significant costs for them without adding any value to their marketing and commercial outreach programs. However, some saw this as a result of miseducation given that many trademark protections are built into the new gTLD program. Other concerns, such as that as former ICANN Chair, [[Esther Dyson]], were focused on the potential confusion for the end-user.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c81ce454-f519-4373-a51d-234c61755e39 Testimony of Esther Dyson, Commerce.Senate.gov]</ref>+ − A prime example of the dramatic, hyperbolic, and generally misinformed coverage that the gTLD program received can be found [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-new-internet-names-feared-loathed-by-all/ here].+ + − ===New gTLD Senate and House of Representatives Hearings===+ − On December 8, [[U.S. Congress|the U.S. Senate]] Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing, lobbied for by [[ANA]], regarding to ICANN's new gTLD program. Speakers included Senior Vice President of ICANN, [[Kurt Pritz]]; [[Fiona Alexander]], Associate Administrator of the Office of International Affairs at [[NTIA]]; [[Dan Jaffe]], Executive Vice President of Government Relations for ANA; [[Esther Dyson]], who served as ICANN's Founding Chairman (1998-2000), speaking as an independent investor; and Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the YMCA [[Angela Williams]], speaking on behalf of [[NPOC]].<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111208_us_senate_committee_holds_hearing_on_icanns_new_tld_expansion/ US Senate Committee Holds Hearing on ICANN's New TLD Expansion, circleid.com]</ref> Senate officials present included: Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV); Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.),<ref>[http://adage.com/article/digital/senate-implores-icann-slow-roll/231478/ Senate Implores ICANN to Slow Its Roll but Admits It Can't Do Anything to Stop It, adage.com]</ref> and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash).+ − Sen. Rockefeller stated his support of the new gTLD program, claiming that he believed it was pro-competition and pro-innovation, but that the roll-out should be slower and more cautious. He cited the potential for fraud, consumer confusion, and cybersquatting as massive, requiring a phased implementation.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/notes-from-the-senate-new-gtlds-hearing/ Notes from the Senate new gTLDs hearing, domainincite.com]</ref> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − One of biggest the concerns expressed was that companies, including not-for-profits, would have to spend a lot of money to prevent [[cybersquatting]] and typosquatting. Dyson argued that the new TLD program "create[s] opportunities for entrepreneurs but [doesn't] really create any value for the economy." Pritz explained that defensive registration will likely not be as necessary as companies believe, as many of the new TLDs will not be big or open enough for cybersquatters to take advantage. Additionally, several new trademark protections had been built into the expansion strategy, making the new TLDs better protected against cybersquatters than those currently available.+ − Sen. Ayotte expressed concerns that adding significantly more TLDs would create a challenge for law enforcement officials to police websites.+ + − Another major concern, voiced by ANA, was that there was no consensus on the program, and that the date for the application period to open was arbitrary.<ref>[http://adage.com/article/digital/senate-implores-icann-slow-roll/231478/ Senate Implores ICANN to Slow Its Roll but Admits It Can't Do Anything to Stop It, adage.com]</ref>+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + − On December 14, a second hearing was held, hosted by the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee. Those speaking at this hearing were Fiona Alexander from NTIA, Dan Jaffe from ANA, Kurt Pritz from ICANN, [[Employ Media]] CEO [[Thomas Embrescia]], and [[Joshua Bourne]] representing [[CADNA]].<ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/13/house-hearing-testimonies What the House testimonies tell us, dot-nxt.com]</ref>+ + + − + + − [[CADNA]], a long-time opposer to ICANN and the new gTLD program, also came to the support of ICANN. CADNA's change of heart came about as their sister group, [[FairWinds Partners]], decided to provide new gTLD consultancy services. Bourne praised [[.xxx]]'s novel trademark protection mechanisms, saying they should be mandatory for all new gTLDs, and claimed that Congress could help in fighting cybersquatters by revising the old US [[Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act]]. He did, however, request that ICANN announce dates for subsequent application rounds, in order to relieve the "condition of scarcity" that this uncertainty created.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/congressmen-ask-for-new-gtlds-delay/ Congressmen ask for new gTLDs delay, domainincite.com]</ref>+ − The following week, the US Congress sent a letter addressed to ICANN President and CEO [[Rod Beckstrom]] and [[ICANN Board|Board]] Chairman [[Steve Crocker]], asking ICANN to delay the new gTLD program. The letter was signed by seventeen Congressmen, lead by Rep. Fred Upton. The letter cited their concern about the significant uncertainty about the process for businesses, non-profit organizations, and consumers. The suggested delay would serve to allow time for these groups to have their concerns alleviated.+ − − There was also a letter sent by two Congressman, Bob Goodlatte and Howard Berman, to the [[Department of Commerce]], in which they asked for a delay to the new gTLD program, and asked a number of questions on the Department's own preparedness and handling of the affair. They ask if ICANN is actually following its [[Affirmation of Commitments]] with the Department, and what the Department is doing to ensure that ICANN is following these commitments and protecting American businesses.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2011/12/20/two-congressmen-ask-commerce-department-for-delay-to-new-tlds/ Two Congressmen Ask Commerce Department For Delay to New TLDs, DomainNameWire.com]</ref>+ − In response to all of this, [[Lawrence Strickling]], of the [[Department of Commerce]]'s [[National Telecommunications and Information Administration]], sent a letter to ICANN chastising it for its poor outreach program and the miseducation going on about its new gTLD program. In his letter, addressed to [[ICANN Chairman|Chairman]] [[Steve Crocker]], Mr. Strickling urged ICANN to more successfully showcase their new gTLD expansion program, and especially emphasize the number of built-in protections for trademark owners.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf NTIA Letter on gTLD Program Jan 3 2012, ntia.doc.gov]</ref> + − Mr. Strickling notes that NTIA has no plan or desire to actually interfere in the process after the 6 years of work and the imminent launch, but he does lament the number of problems that have been created largely by [[ICANN]]'s poor outreach and education. NTIA identified 3 specific things to address: to educate trademark owners about measures in place allowing them to forego [[Defensive Registration|defensive registrations]]; to immediately implement consumer protections it has already devised; and to generally better educate all stakeholders. However, NTIA did suggest and open up the possibility of adding further protections once the application pool is closed and NTIA, alongside [[ICANN]]'s [[GAC]], had a chance to review the pool of applicants and reflect on what further steps could be taken in the [[SLD|second level]].<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf NTIA Letter on gTLD Program Jan 3 2012, ntia.doc.gov]</ref> + − + + − ===New gTLD Roadshow===+ − + + + − + + + + +
→Second Round: New gTLD Expansion
A '''Generic top-level domain''' ('''gTLD''') is an internet domain name extension with three or more characters. It is one of the categories of the top level domain ([[TLD]]) in the Domain Name System ([[DNS]]) maintained by the [[IANA|Internet Assigned Numbers Authority]]. There are currently 21 gTLDs in the [[Root Zone|root zone]] of the Internet and they are categorized as:
A '''Generic Top Level Domain''' ('''gTLD''') is an internet domain name extension with three or more characters. It is one of the categories of the top level domain ([[TLD]]) in the Domain Name System ([[DNS]]) maintained by the [[IANA|Internet Assigned Numbers Authority]]. There are currently 21 gTLDs in the [[Root Zone|root zone]] of the Internet and they are categorized as:
* '''generic''' ([[.com]], [[.info]], [[.net]], [[.org]]), which can be used for general purposes;
* '''generic''' ([[.com]], [[.info]], [[.net]], [[.org]]), which can be used for general purposes;
* '''sponsored''' ([[.aero]], [[.asia]], [[.cat]], [[.coop]], [[.edu]], [[.gov]], [[.int]], [[.jobs]], [[.mil]], [[.mobi]], [[.tel]], [[.travel]], and [[.xxx]]), which can only be used by entities engaged within the specific industry;
* '''sponsored''' ([[.aero]], [[.asia]], [[.cat]], [[.coop]], [[.edu]], [[.gov]], [[.int]], [[.jobs]], [[.mil]], [[.mobi]], [[.tel]], [[.travel]], and [[.xxx]]), which can only be used by entities engaged within the specific industry;
* [[.cat]] - [[puntCAT]] (Catalonia Private Foundation) - Registry Agreement signed on September 23, 2005<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/cat/ .cat TLD Sponsorship Agreement]</ref>
* [[.cat]] - [[puntCAT]] (Catalonia Private Foundation) - Registry Agreement signed on September 23, 2005<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/cat/ .cat TLD Sponsorship Agreement]</ref>
* [[.jobs]] - [[Employ Media]] LLC- Registry Agreement signed May 5, 2005 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/jobs/ .jobs Registry Agreement]</ref>
* [[.jobs]] - [[Employ Media]] LLC- Registry Agreement signed May 5, 2005 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/jobs/ .jobs Registry Agreement]</ref>
* [[.mobi]] - [[mTLD Top Level Domain]], Ltd. ([[Afilias]]) - Registry Agreement signed July 10, 2005 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/mobi/ .mobi TLD Sponsorship Agreement]</ref>
* [[.mobi]] - [[mTLD Top Level Domain Ltd.]], ([[Afilias]]) - Registry Agreement signed July 10, 2005 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/mobi/ .mobi TLD Sponsorship Agreement]</ref>
* [[.tel]] - [[TelNic]] Limited - Registry Agreement signed May 30, 2006 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/tel/tel-agreement-07apr06.htm .tel Registry Agreement]</ref>
* [[.tel]] - [[TelNic]] Limited - Registry Agreement signed May 30, 2006 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/tel/tel-agreement-07apr06.htm .tel Registry Agreement]</ref>
* [[.travel]] - [[Tralliance]] - Registry Agreement signed May 5, 2005 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/travel/ .travel Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement]</ref>
* [[.travel]] - [[Tralliance]] - Registry Agreement signed May 5, 2005 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/travel/ .travel Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement]</ref>
* [[.xxx]] - [[ICM Registry]] - Registry Agreement signed March 31, 2011 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/ .XXX Registry Agreement]</ref>
* [[.xxx]] - [[ICM Registry]] - Registry Agreement signed March 31, 2011 <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/ .XXX Registry Agreement]</ref>
==New gTLD Program==
====Senate Hearing on 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>[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
* [[Dan Jaffe]], Executive Vice President, Government Relations, [[ANA]]-[[CRIDO]]
* [[Esther Dyson]], former ICANN chair /Independent Angel Investor
* [[Fiona Alexander]], Associate Administrator, Office of International Affairs, [[NTIA]]-[[DOC]]
* [[Kurt Pritz]], ICANN Senior Vice President
===Anti-New gTLD Sentiment===
====Witnesses' Testimonies====
[[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 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>
[[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>
[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:
* 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>
[[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>
====ICANN's Answers to the Senate Committee====
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 a letter dated December 8th, the same day as the Senate hearing, twenty-eight domain name industry participants wrote to Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to support the new gTLD program. They supported ICANN's argument that the program would be innovative and economically beneficial, and that the program had taken lots of people a long time to develop, hence it had not been rushed.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/new-gtld-industry-pleads-with-senators/ New gTLD industry pleads with senators]</ref>
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>:
* Registration: How registration recording and verification are addressed
# Agreeing to map out trademark submission and verification components
# 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
==Third Round: New gTLD Program==
: ''Main Article: [[New gTLD Program]]''
After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion 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 [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook]].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]</ref>
The result of the House hearing was the suggestion that the program be delayed until there is a consensus between all relevant stakeholders, made by Rep. Eshoo. Pritz and Alexander came to the defense of ICANN's [[Multistakeholder Model]], arguing that the process had not been rushed. It had taken ICANN seven years to get to the point where all the issues had been discussed and no new issues were being raised, during which time they had consulted all the relevant stakeholders. Alexander made the point that "consensus" does not always mean "unanimity."
==Closed Generic Strings==
After ICANN published information on its 1,930 applications in the third round of gTLD expansion ("The New gTLD Program") it was immediately noted that some companies had applied for a number of generic terms relevant to their business, writing in their applications that they intended to be the sole registrant for the TLD. There was no [[Brand TLD]] distinction in this round, though there were guesses that ICANN would create rules for such TLDs in any future round. Thus, the closed generic terms violated no rules as developed through the [[GNSO]] process and as included in the Applicant Guidebook. Some noted that this was in fact an intentional byproduct of the program that had been considered while others disagreed.<ref>User Summary, AM</ref>
In September, 2012, an influential consumer advocacy group, Consumer Watchdog, sent a letter to U.S. Sen. Rockefeller, who is the chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Sen. Rockefeller's senate subcommittee is the same that had held hearings regarding ICANN and its [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]] just before its launch. Consumer Watchdog is upset over both [[Google]] and Amazon's plans to acquire generic TLDs and then to restrict them only for their own use. The letter states: "If these applications are granted, large parts of the Internet would be privatized. It is one thing to own a domain associated with your brand, but it is a huge problem to take control of generic strings. Both Google and Amazon are already dominant players on the Internet. Allowing them further control by buying generic domain strings would threaten the free and open Internet that consumers rely upon. Consumer Watchdog urges you to do all that you can to thwart these outrageous efforts and ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth while serving the interests of all of its users." The whole letter can be seen [http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/ltrrockefeller091912.pdf here].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10535-consumer-watchdog-slams-outrageous-google-and-amazon-keyword-gtld-bids Consumer Watchdog Slams Outrageous Google and Amazon Keyword gTLD bids, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
This letter came just a day after a similar appeal by a group of domain industry regulars was announced. [[Michele Neylon]], CEO of [[Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd]] and a highly active member of the ICANN community, led the signatories of a letter adressing the same issue, though it does not name [[Google]] nor Amazon by name. Instead it focuses on any and all use of generic terms that are being sought after only to become closed TLDs: "generic words used in a generic way belong to all people. It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to generic new gTLDs to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. Allowing everyone to register and use second level domain names of these powerful, generic TLDs is exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program would do. In contrast, to allow individual Registry Operators to segregate and close-off common words for which they do not possess intellectual property rights in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’ entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate and recognized trademark protections." Other signatories include: [[Scott Pinzon]], former Director of ICANN; [[Kelly Hardy]], domain industry consultant; [[Frédéric Guillemaut]], MailClub.fr; [[Robert Birkner]], 1API GmbH; the whole letter can be seen [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit here]. [[Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd|Blacknight]] continued to lead public awareness campaigns against closed generics into 2013, when the [[ICANN Board]] requested a public comment period on the issue.<ref>[http://blog.blacknight.com/blacknight-urges-icann-to-reconsider-closed-generic-tlds.html Blacknight Urges ICANN to reconsider, Blog.Blacknight.com] Retrieved 18 Feb 2013</ref>
<ref>[http://domainincite.com/congressmen-ask-icann-to-delay-new-gtlds/ Congressmen ask ICANN to delay new gTLDs]</ref>
The largest applicant for closed gTLDs is [[Amazon]], and many worried that their applications to control a large number of generic terms would result in them circumnavigating traditional navigation for shopping online and give them an unfair competitive advantage. Other notable portfolio applicants with multiple applications for closed generic terms include [[L'Oréal]] and [[Google]].<ref name="WTR">[http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=7be56061-2229-412c-8f71-55bc20932cd8&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=c3e5d WorldTrademarkReview.com]</ref> In late 2012, Amazon and other companies that applied for closed-generic strings received a [[GAC]] Early Warning from GAC Chair, [[Heather Dryden]]. The early warning system is the work of an individual GAC member but signals that the larger GAC organization may later issue official advice recommending the rejection of the TLD application as-is by the [[ICANN Board]]. Those applicants that receive warnings are encouraged to work with the objecting representative. The German representative also raised issues with regards to closed generics.<ref>[http://www.name.com/blog/ntlds/2013/01/the-gtld-land-grab-controversy-google-amazon-and-the-gac-part-ii/ The gTLD Land Grab Controversy Google Amazon and the GAC Part II, Name.com] Pub 14 Jan 2013, Retrieved 6 Jan 2013</ref><ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings GAC Early Warnings, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref>
Following further questions, ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee looked at the issue. Information on their January meeting that was released in February 2013 shows that they were unclear how to even define a closed generic, what its common attributes are, what an appropriate remediation strategy would be, and they further note that there is no violation taking place between the applications and the Applicant Guidebook, and therefore have no room to comment or change policy without further direction from a policy development process started in the [[GNSO]]. Still, they opened up a public comment period on February 5th, 2013, to ascertain opinions on what a closed generic is, and what the criteria are for when a proposed registry can operate a "closed" or "open" string.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb13-en.htm Announcement, ICANN.org]5 February 2013</ref>
Objections to closed generics have come from [[Microsoft]], who notes the danger they pose to competition on the Internet, and an online petition started by [[Tom Gilles]] of NewgTLDsite.com.<ref name="WTR"></ref><ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/06/microsoft-is-latest-to-come-out-against-closed-generic-new-gtlds-in-letter-to-icann/ Microsoft is Latest to Come Out Against Closed Generic New gTLDs in Letter to ICANN, TheDomains.com] Published and Retrieved 6 Feb 2013</ref>
The full letter can be seen [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf here].
===Google===
In mid-February 2013, it was announced that an applicant represented by industry lawyer [[Philip Corwin]] would be contacting and lobbying lawmakers in Washington and Brussels, or raising litigation, against Google. The applicant in question remains unknown though it is in contention with [[Google]] for at least one TLD. It is not in contention with Amazon, which has in fact applied for many more closed TLDs than Google. The issue at hand is the competition advantage that Google has given its search dominance and its ownership of sites such as youtube. Therefore, its applications for .film, .movie, .mov, .live, .show and .tube could all be used to create further market dominance within the online video and content streaming markets.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11861-mystery-gtld-applicant-to-take-google-fight-to-lawmakers Mystery gTLD Applicant to Take Googe Fight to Lawmakers, DomainIncite.com] Published 13 Feb 2013, Retrieved 14 Feb 2013</ref>
In early March, 2013, Google announced via public comments ICANN held on the Closed Generic issue that it would no longer be seeking to close off any of its generic applications, and specifically noted the offending applications, [[.app]], [[.blog]], [[.cloud]] and [[.search]]. It noted that it planned to affect these changes through amendments to its applications.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130308_google_bows_to_pressure_on_closed_generics/ Google Bows to Pressure on Closed Generics, CircleID.com] Retrieved March 8th 2013</ref>
In order to draw awareness to the new gTLD program, [[ICANN CEO]], [[Rod Beckstrom]], embarked on a world tour beginning in September, 2011 and concluding in December.<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2011/12/new-gtld-roadshows/ New gTLD Roadshows, Blog.ICANN.org]</ref> The tour saw him personally visit 16 countries, while other staff and board members visited an additional 22 countries.<ref>[https://twitter.com/#!/RodBeckstrom/status/150262824977969152 Twitter Post Dec 23 2011, Twitter.com]</ref> The publicity was also picked up by major news outlets such as CNN, Al-Jazeera, the BBC, The New York Times, and others; however, some of this coverage was actually showing the program in a negative light. The road show was seen as a success by few outside of the actual organization, as many countries and corporations continued to misunderstand the program or know little to nothing about it at all.<ref>[https://omblog.icann.org/?p=527 ICANN Ombudsman Blog, OmBlog.ICANN.org]</ref><ref>[http://urbanbrain.posterous.com/new-gtld-outreach-hits-japan-well-grazes-it-a New gTLD Outreach Grazes Japan, UrbanBrain.Posterous.com]</ref> This percieved failure by those following ICANN was perhaps best underscored by the aforemetioned letter sent by [[Larry Strickling]], of the U.S. [[Department of Commerce]], to [[ICANN Chair]] [[Steve Crocker]] a mere week prior to the gTLD program's launch in January, 2012, which chastised ICANN's failure to educate major brands and concerned parties.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf NTIA Letter on gTLD Program Jan 3 2012, NTIA.doc.gov]</ref>
===IO on Closed Generics===
ICANN's [[Independent Objector]], responsible for impartially determining danger done to the large community of Internet end users via particular applications, weighed in on the issue of closed generic applications. The IO notes that he was petitioned directly by a number of parties to file objections to these strings, but that he decided not to do so. Reasons for this include; the fact that sometimes generic terms are created from brand or trademarked names, and vice versa; that his powers and scope are intentionally limited and restricted to community objections and those related to limited public interest, and there is little ground for either as closed generics are not strictly a discussion of freedom of expression and generic terms are by definition broad and do not apply to a singular community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue-of-closed-generic-gtlds/ The Issue of Closed Generic gTLDs, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref>
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
{{reflist}}</div>
[[Category: Glossary]]
[[Category: Glossary]]
[[Category:New gTLD Program]]
[[Category: Acronym]]