staff
8,858
edits
Changes
United States Department of Commerce (view source)
Revision as of 16:07, 23 November 2012
, 11 years agono edit summary
===Ethics Policy===
===Ethics Policy===
Following the departure of Chairman [[Peter Dengate Thrush]] from the [[ICANN Board]], and his immediate hiring by [[Minds + Machines]] in 2011, The U.S. Government and other Internet stakeholders began calling for greater ethics controls and a clear policy to be put in place. The [[European Commission]], in one of its 6 non-papers of 2011, called for the USG to enforce such stipulations via its [[IANA]] contract. U.S. Senator [[Ron Wyden]] also called for ethics rules to be put in place via a letter to [[National Telecommunications and Information Administration]]. In September, 2011, the head of NTIA, [[Lawrence Strickling]], responded to Wyden with assurances that it is “actively exploring how to best meet this requirement” for “a clear and enforced ethics and conflict of interest policy”. This came at a time when NTIA says it was undertaking its first comprehensive review of its IANA contract with ICANN since it was awarded in 2000.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/09/28/us-department-of-commerce-to-icann-we-want-a-clear-enforced-ethics-conflict-of-interest-policy%E2%80%9D/ DOC to ICANN Clear Ethics Policy, thedomains.com]</ref>
Following the departure of Chairman [[Peter Dengate Thrush]] from the [[ICANN Board]], and his immediate hiring by [[Minds + Machines]] in 2011, The U.S. Government and other Internet stakeholders began calling for greater ethics controls and a clear policy to be put in place. The [[European Commission]], in one of its 6 non-papers of 2011, called for the USG to enforce such stipulations via its [[IANA]] contract. U.S. Senator [[Ron Wyden]] also called for ethics rules to be put in place via a letter to [[National Telecommunications and Information Administration]]. In September, 2011, the head of NTIA, [[Lawrence Strickling]], responded to Wyden with assurances that it is “actively exploring how to best meet this requirement” for “a clear and enforced ethics and conflict of interest policy”. This came at a time when NTIA says it was undertaking its first comprehensive review of its IANA contract with ICANN since it was awarded in 2000.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/09/28/us-department-of-commerce-to-icann-we-want-a-clear-enforced-ethics-conflict-of-interest-policy%E2%80%9D/ DOC to ICANN Clear Ethics Policy, thedomains.com]</ref>
==DOC & ANA==
In September 2012, the [[ANA|Association of National Advertisers]] (ANA) warned the [[DOC|US Department of Commerce]] (DOC) of the threats of not regulating ICANN's newly implemented [[TLD]]s or adopting a "Do Not Sell" registry.
[[Dan Jaffe]], ANA Group Executive Vice President, noted in a letter, "The Internet community is on the verge of a [TLD] tsunami which will create a huge wave of risk for both businesses and consumers... [there will be] explosive growth in secondary domains (those domains to the left of the dot in Internet addresses). We believe it is critical that the DOC push for a comprehensive protection system that includes both a Do Not Sell registry and strong Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs)."<ref name="marketingvox">[http://www.marketingvox.com/ana-warns-commerce-department-about-top-level-domain-tsunami-051580/ ANA Warns Commerce Department About "Top-Level Domain Tsunami"], MarketingVox.com. Published 28 September 2012. Retrieved 23 November 2012.</ref>
The ANA emphasize that due to the high number of TLDs to be unveiled by ICANN]s [[new gTLD Program]], policing TLDs on one-by-one basis will be difficult, and that taking precautions beforehand will be an important step in preventing future [[cybersquatting]] and fraud difficulties. Cited difficulties include the fraudulent use of brand names in secondary domains when the generic domain is [[.sucks]], or single company ownership of generic domains -- such as if [[L'Oreal]] owned [[.hair]], [[.makeup]], or [[.beauty]].<ref name="marketingvox"></ref>
Continues Jaffe, "The cost to companies that want to defensively register domains at the second level could mount easily into the multi-millions of dollars. The costs of defensive registrations also could be economically unfeasible for small and medium sized companies that will face enhanced risks of cybersquatting, typosquatting and phishing in the expanding top level domain universe."<ref name="marketingvox"></ref>
== References ==
== References ==