Changes

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

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>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref> The agreement established ICANN as an entity which would encourage transparency in its dealings and would create ample room for appeals for any binding decision it makes. The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref>

Once again, these responsibilities would be undertaken and guided by the principles of stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref> The agreement established ICANN as an entity which would encourage transparency in its dealings and would create ample room for appeals for any binding decision it makes. The Department of Commerce later noted that it was comfortable ceding the control it did 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>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing]</ref> The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref>

 

==Initial Issues==

==Initial Issues==

ICANN was immediately faced with two pressing, and competing issues; that is, 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. <ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing, July 1999]</ref>

ICANN was immediately faced with two pressing, and competing issues; that is, 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. <ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing, July 1999]</ref>