Changes

ICANN (view source)

Revision as of 04:14, 12 November 2012

2,220 bytes added , 11 years ago

no edit summary

Line 143: Line 143:

'''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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-29sept99.htm ~~ICANN UDRP~~ Policy]</ref>

+

'''3.''' The domain name in question has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-29sept99.htm Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy]. ICANN. Published 1999 September 29.</ref>

−

The same day, ICANN also issued the [http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm Rules for the UDRP], which set forth the procedure for filing and responding to complaints. This was also open for a period of public commentary.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm Rules for ~~the UDRP~~]]</ref> Some of the public comments can be found [http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/maillist.html here].

+

The same day, ICANN also issued the [http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm Rules for the UDRP], which set forth the procedure for filing and responding to complaints. This was also open for a period of public commentary.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy]]. ICANN. Published 1999 September 29.</ref> Some of the public comments can be found [http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/maillist.html here].

−

ICANN adopted the [[UDRP]] at its November, 1999, meeting in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/overview.html Harvard Law ~~UDRP Overview]~~</ref>

+

ICANN adopted the [[UDRP]] at its November, 1999, meeting in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/overview.html Overview of Domain Name Policy Development]. Harvard Law.</ref>

==History: ICANN 2.0==

Line 153: Line 153:

===The Introduction of the ALAC===

−

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.<ref name="caslon"></ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/ ~~ICANN~~ ALAC]</ref>

+

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.<ref name="caslon"></ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/ At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)]. ICANN.</ref>

===Other Committees===

−

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 [[SSAC|Security and Stability Advisory Committee]]. Both of these committees were given official recognition in 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#EvolutionandReformCommittee ICANN.~~org]~~</ref> The push for reform was also significantly aided by [[Stuart Lynn]]'s "President's report: The Case for Reform,"<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm ICANN.~~org]~~</ref> which they credited for starting the dialogue on reform and leading to the creation of the more formal committee.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN Bucharest]]</ref>

+

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 [[SSAC|Security and Stability Advisory Committee]]. Both of these committees were given official recognition in 2002.<ref name="accra">[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#EvolutionandReformCommittee ICANN Meeting in Accra Preliminary Report]. ICANN. Published 2002 March 14.</ref> The push for reform was also significantly aided by [[Stuart Lynn]]'s "President's report: The Case for Reform,"<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm President's Report: ICANN – The Case for Reform]. ICANN. Published 2002 February 24.</ref> which they credited for starting the dialogue on reform and leading to the creation of the more formal committee.<ref name="bucharest">[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN Meeting in Bucharest Preliminary Report]]. ICANN. Published 2002 June 28.</ref>

−

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 [http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm 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]], [[IRP|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm ICANN.~~org]~~</ref>

+

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 [http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm 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]], [[IRP|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm Appendix A to Minutes ICANN Board Meeting in Shanghai]. ICANN. Published 2002 October 31.</ref>

===Further Developments===

* [[IDN Committee]] is established, 2001.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-10sep01.htm#01.94 ICANN.org]</ref>

−

* The approval of [[LACNIC]] as a [[RIR]], 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-31oct02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN ~~Shanghai]~~</ref>

+

* The approval of [[LACNIC]] as a [[RIR]], 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-31oct02.htm#EvolutionandReform Regular Meeting of the Board Minutes]. ICANN. Published 2001 September 10.</ref>

−

* Approval of [[RegistryPro]]'s [[.pro]] [[TLD]], 2002.<ref>~~[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#EvolutionandReformCommittee ICANN.org]~~</ref>

+

* Approval of [[RegistryPro]]'s [[.pro]] [[TLD]], 2002.<ref name="accra"></ref>

−

* Creation of [[Executive Search Committee]], 2002.<ref>~~[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN Bucharest]~~</ref>

+

* Creation of [[Executive Search Committee]], 2002.<ref name="bucharest"></ref>

−

* New [[TLD]] evaluation process began, 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-annual-meeting-15dec02.htm#AmendmentofNewBylaws ~~ICANN 4th~~ Annual Meeting]</ref>

+

* New [[TLD]] evaluation process began, 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-annual-meeting-15dec02.htm#AmendmentofNewBylaws Fourth Annual Meeting of the Board Minutes]. ICANN. Published 2002 December 15.</ref>

−

* The [[Board Governance Committee]] was created, 2003.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-27mar03.htm ~~ICANN~~ Rio]</ref>

+

* The [[Board Governance Committee]] was created, 2003.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-27mar03.htm Preliminary Report | Regular Meeting of the Board - Rio de Janeiro]. ICANN. Published 2003 March 27.</ref>

−

* The [[ccNSO]] was officially created, 2004.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/rome-resolutions-06mar04.htm ICANN Rome]</ref>

+

* The [[ccNSO]] was officially created, 2004.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/rome-resolutions-06mar04.htm Resolutions Adopted at Rome ICANN Board Meeting | Regular Meeting of the Board, Rome, Italy]. ICANN. Published 2004 March 6.</ref>

−

* [[AfriNIC]] provisionally recognized as a [[RIR]], 2004; officially recognized, 2005.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14mar05.htm ICANN.~~org Announcements]~~</ref>

+

* [[AfriNIC]] provisionally recognized as a [[RIR]], 2004; officially recognized, 2005.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14mar05.htm AfriNIC Application for Recognition as Regional Internet Registry Public Comment Forum]. ICANN. Published 2005 March 14.</ref>

====gTLD Expansion====

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

−

The discussion of creating new [[gTLD|Generic Top-Level Domains]] has been around since the inception of ICANN; there was no set number fixed, and the fact that the [[.com]] extension has long been the most widely used and recognizable top-level domain was encouraged by ICANN's slow policy development process. It was underwritten in the 2001 amendments to their [[MoU]] with the U.S.' [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] that ICANN was to "collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs".<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm ~~NTIA~~.~~doc~~.~~gov~~]</ref>

+

The discussion of creating new [[gTLD|Generic Top-Level Domains]] has been around since the inception of ICANN; there was no set number fixed, and the fact that the [[.com]] extension has long been the most widely used and recognizable top-level domain was encouraged by ICANN's slow policy development process. It was underwritten in the 2001 amendments to their [[MoU]] with the U.S.' [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] that ICANN was to "collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs".<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]. National Telecommunications & Information Administration.</ref>

In 2000, a number of Working Groups that had been created the year before submitted reports on their take on the introduction of new TLDs; most notably, Working Group C called for a limited number of extensions to be introduced. The Board continued to move ahead with new TLD introduction, creating [http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/application-process-03aug00.htm this] application process. The task force that worked with the process helped [[.aero]], [[.biz]], [[.coop]], [[.info]], [[.museum]], [[.name]], and [[.pro]] all become recognized extensions in 2000.

−

At the October, 2003 meeting in Carthage, [[ICANN Board|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm ICANN Carthage]</ref>

+

At the October, 2003 meeting in Carthage, [[ICANN Board|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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm ICANN Board Resolutions in Carthage, Tunisia]. ICANN. Published 2003 October 31.</ref>

−

In 2003, important new [[sTLD]]s began being proposed. While these domains are different from [[gTLD]]s 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]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/index-2005.html 2005 Board Meetings]</ref>; they all went on to approval in 2005-2006, except for the controversial [[.xxx]],<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/ ICANN.~~org]~~</ref> which went through a much more contentious and drawn out process but was still approved in March, 2011 at [[ICANN 40]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/ .XXX Registry Agreement]</ref>

+

In 2003, important new [[sTLD]]s began being proposed. While these domains are different from [[gTLD]]s 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]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/index-2005.html 2005 Board Meetings]</ref>; they all went on to approval in 2005-2006, except for the controversial [[.xxx]],<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/ Information Page for Sponsored Top-Level Domains]. ICANN.</ref> which went through a much more contentious and drawn out process but was still approved in March, 2011 at [[ICANN 40]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/ .XXX Registry Agreement]. ICANN. Published 2011 March 31.</ref>

==Recent Developments==

===New gTLD Program===

: ''Main article: [[New gTLD Program]]''

−

After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansions 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 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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook~~, DomainIncite~~.~~com]~~</ref>

+

After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansions 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]. ICANN.</ref> 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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 January 4.</ref>

−

In November, 2012, ICANN, [[Verisign]], and [[NTIA]], all confirmed that they were prepared with enough resources to begin launching 100 new gTLDs per week.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10961-icann-verisign-and-ntia-ready-for-100-new-gtlds-per-week ICANN Verisign and NTIA ready for 100 new gTLDs per Week~~, DomainIncite~~.~~com]~~</ref>

+

In November, 2012, ICANN, [[Verisign]], and [[NTIA]], all confirmed that they were prepared with enough resources to begin launching 100 new gTLDs per week.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10961-icann-verisign-and-ntia-ready-for-100-new-gtlds-per-week ICANN Verisign and NTIA ready for 100 new gTLDs per Week]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 November 8.</ref>

===Physical Expansion===

−

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..<ref>[http://domainincite.com/as-new-gtlds-loom-icann-expands/ New gTLDs expand ICANN~~, domainincite~~.~~com]~~</ref>

+

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..<ref>[http://domainincite.com/as-new-gtlds-loom-icann-expands/ New gTLDs expand ICANN] Domain Incite. Published 2011 September 21.</ref>

===Conflicts of Interest===

−

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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/calls-to-fix-new-gtld-revolving-door-at-icann/ Calls to Fix Revolving Door~~, DomainIncite~~.~~com]~~</ref>

+

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.<ref name="revolvingdoor">[http://domainincite.com/calls-to-fix-new-gtld-revolving-door-at-icann/ Calls to Fix Revolving Door]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 June 26.</ref>

−

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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/former-icann-chair-joins-mm/ ~~Fomer~~ ICANN Chair Joins M + M~~, DomainIncite~~.~~com]~~</ref>

+

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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/former-icann-chair-joins-mm/ Former ICANN Chair Joins M + M]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 June 26.</ref>

−

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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/would-an-icann-ethics-policy-break-the-law/ Would an ICANN ethics policy break the law~~, DomainIncite~~.~~com]~~</ref> 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.<ref>~~[http://domainincite.com/calls-to-fix-new-gtld-revolving-door-at-icann/ Calls to Fix Revolving Door, DomainIncite.com]~~</ref>

+

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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/would-an-icann-ethics-policy-break-the-law/ Would an ICANN ethics policy break the law]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 October 3.</ref> 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.<ref name="revolvingdoor"></ref>

−

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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-to-hire-conflict-of-interest-experts/ ICANN to Hire Conflict of Interest Experts]</ref>

+

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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-to-hire-conflict-of-interest-experts/ ICANN to Hire Conflict of Interest Experts]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 October 6.</ref>

−

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,<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/coi/ ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy]</ref> Board members also may not join business with a new gTLD registry until 12 months after the registry's application has been voted on.<ref name="dotnxt"></ref>

+

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,<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/coi/ ICANN Conflict of Interest Policy]. ICANN. Published 2012 May 6.</ref> Board members also may not join business with a new gTLD registry until 12 months after the registry's application has been voted on.<ref name="dotnxt"></ref>

===Time Zone Database===

−

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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-14oct11-en.pdf ICANN ~~Press Release~~]</ref>

+

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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-14oct11-en.pdf ICANN to Manage Time Zone Database]. ICANN. Published 2011 October 14.</ref>

===Manwin Anti-Trust Lawsuit===

−

[[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]] [[sTLD]]. This legal action took place in November, 2011, well after the TLD's approval and just before its general availability.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/16/bbreaking-owner-of-youporn-com-plans-to-file-suit-against-icm-icann-over-xxx/ Owner of YouPorn.com Plans to File Suit Against ICM ICANN over XXX~~, TheDomains~~.~~com]~~</ref> It also filed an [[IRP|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 did not ~~“adequately~~ address issues including competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse and rights protection prior to approving the .xxx TLD."<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand~~, DomainIncite~~.~~com]~~</ref>

+

[[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]] [[sTLD]]. This legal action took place in November, 2011, well after the TLD's approval and just before its general availability.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/16/bbreaking-owner-of-youporn-com-plans-to-file-suit-against-icm-icann-over-xxx/ Owner of YouPorn.com Plans to File Suit Against ICM ICANN over XXX]. The Domains. Published 2011 November 16.</ref> It also filed an [[IRP|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 did not "adequately address issues including competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse and rights protection prior to approving the .xxx TLD."<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 November 17.</ref>

−

In January, 2012, ICANN and ICM both filed motions to dismiss the case. ICANN argued that since it is a not-for-profit organization and it is not engaged in "trade or commerce," the US anti-trust laws are not applicable; additionally, both ICM and ICANN argued that Manwin's filing was essentially complaining about the possible increase in competition. ICM cited that Manwin had approached the company earlier with a supposed mutually-beneficial agreement, in which Manwin would acquire various premium .xxx domains for free, in exchange for 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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-antitrust-law-does-not-apply-to-us/ ICANN: ~~antitrust law does not apply to us, domainincite~~.~~com]~~</ref> ICANN's and ICM's motions to dismiss can be found [http://domainincite.com/docs/icann-manwin-motion-to-dismiss.pdf here] and [http://domainincite.com/docs/manwin-icm-motion-to-dismiss-2.pdf here] respectively.

+

In January, 2012, ICANN and ICM both filed motions to dismiss the case. ICANN argued that since it is a not-for-profit organization and it is not engaged in "trade or commerce," the US anti-trust laws are not applicable; additionally, both ICM and ICANN argued that Manwin's filing was essentially complaining about the possible increase in competition. ICM cited that Manwin had approached the company earlier with a supposed mutually-beneficial agreement, in which Manwin would acquire various premium .xxx domains for free, in exchange for 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.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-antitrust-law-does-not-apply-to-us/ ICANN: Antitrust Law Does Not Apply To Us]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 January 21.</ref> ICANN's and ICM's motions to dismiss can be found [http://domainincite.com/docs/icann-manwin-motion-to-dismiss.pdf here] and [http://domainincite.com/docs/manwin-icm-motion-to-dismiss-2.pdf here] respectively.

−

In mid-February, Manwin, ICANN and ICM Registry announced that they were in talks and hoping to resolve some or all of the outstanding complaints. The motions to dismiss the case filed by ICANN and ICM were temporarily put on hold.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icm-and-youporn-in-antitrust-settlement-talks/ ICM and YouPorn in AntiTrust Settlement Talks~~, DomainIncite~~.~~com]~~</ref> On February 17, the company amended its anti-trust lawsuit against ICANN and ICM Registy. According to Manwin's counsel Kevin E. Gaut, two related state law claims were dropped to avoid potential risks of trial delays.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2012/02/21/manwin-amends-complaint-against-icm-icann-drops-2-state-claims-talks-of-settlement/ Manwin Amends Complaint Against ICM & ICANN & Drops 2 State Claims & Talks Of Settlement]</ref>

+

In mid-February, Manwin, ICANN and ICM Registry announced that they were in talks and hoping to resolve some or all of the outstanding complaints. The motions to dismiss the case filed by ICANN and ICM were temporarily put on hold.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icm-and-youporn-in-antitrust-settlement-talks/ ICM and YouPorn in AntiTrust Settlement Talks]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 February 14.</ref> On February 17, the company amended its anti-trust lawsuit against ICANN and ICM Registy. According to Manwin's counsel Kevin E. Gaut, two related state law claims were dropped to avoid potential risks of trial delays.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2012/02/21/manwin-amends-complaint-against-icm-icann-drops-2-state-claims-talks-of-settlement/ Manwin Amends Complaint Against ICM & ICANN & Drops 2 State Claims & Talks Of Settlement]. The Domains. Published 2012 February 21.</ref>

−

In August, 2012, a mixed ruling by the Central District of California District Court accepted only 2 out of ICANN and ICM's 7 motions to dismiss. The court ruled that ICANN would be subject to anti-trust law, as ICM pays fees to them in order to be permitted to run the .xxx domain space, and that the trial would proceed with focus on the "defensive registrations" market.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10149-court-rules-youporn-can-sue-icann-for-alleged-xxx-antitrust-violations Court rules YouPorn can sue ICANN for alleged .xxx antitrust violations~~, domainincite~~.~~com]~~</ref>

+

In August 2012, a mixed ruling by the Central District of California District Court accepted only 2 out of ICANN and ICM's 7 motions to dismiss. The court ruled that ICANN would be subject to anti-trust law, as ICM pays fees to them in order to be permitted to run the .xxx domain space, and that the trial would proceed with focus on the "defensive registrations" market.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10149-court-rules-youporn-can-sue-icann-for-alleged-xxx-antitrust-violations Court rules YouPorn can sue ICANN for alleged .xxx antitrust violations]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 August 14.</ref>

===Employ Media Arbitration===

−

[[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 the registry operator allowed to register more than 40 thousand .jobs domain names used on the jobs board to advertise job opportunities for more than 5,000 leading companies in the United States. ICANN claimed 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 [[SHRM|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 were not be resolved. 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 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 [[ICC|International Chamber of Commerce]] (ICC) [[International Court of Arbitration]].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-threatens-to-shut-down-jobs/ ICANN threatens to shut down .jobs]</ref> <ref>

+

[[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 the registry operator allowed to register more than 40 thousand .jobs domain names used on the jobs board to advertise job opportunities for more than 5,000 leading companies in the United States. ICANN claimed 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 [[SHRM|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 were not be resolved. 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 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 [[ICC|International Chamber of Commerce]] (ICC) [[International Court of Arbitration]].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-threatens-to-shut-down-jobs/ ICANN threatens to shut down .jobs]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 February 28.</ref> <ref>

−

[http://goto.jobs/pdf/Response%20to%20ICANN%20Notice.pdf Employ Media ~~Responce~~ to ICANN'S Notice of Breach]</ref> <ref>

+

[http://goto.jobs/pdf/Response%20to%20ICANN%20Notice.pdf Employ Media Response to ICANN'S Notice of Breach]. dotJobs. Published 2011 February 28.</ref> <ref>

−

[http://domainincite.com/registry-avoids-jobs-shut-down/ Registry avoids .jobs shut-down]</ref> <ref>[http://www.ere.net/tags/dotjobs/ .Jobs Manager Seeks Arbitration by International Court]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/war-of-words-over-jobs-breach-claims/ War of Words Over Jobs Breach Claims]</ref>

+

[http://domainincite.com/registry-avoids-jobs-shut-down/ Registry avoids .jobs shut-down]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 April 20.</ref> <ref>[http://www.ere.net/tags/dotjobs/ .Jobs Manager Seeks Arbitration by International Court]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/war-of-words-over-jobs-breach-claims/ War of Words Over Jobs Breach Claims]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 May 3.</ref>

−

<ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qMFYxr-vmqIJ:www.icann.org/en/news/litigation/employ-media-v-icann/answer-to-request-for-arbitration-22jul11-en.pdf+ICANN+and+Employ+Media+Arbitration&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjKphDhfLHf-8xZ8E8tqSayBuA1SGJina6mbbyq27szb-P7a_i2V79KHJD6nHhFjxUpYO2Td97VLx1rBkJs-Ht1k7bVuM4WTuqtNgZAAGXUFI5cUfWKjkYethxEPH9QAlGAfveP&sig=AHIEtbSXxXw7kr2bKyU4voSfKp_-UqOl7w ICANN’s Response to Employ Media’s Request for Arbitration]</ref> <ref>

+

<ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qMFYxr-vmqIJ:www.icann.org/en/news/litigation/employ-media-v-icann/answer-to-request-for-arbitration-22jul11-en.pdf+ICANN+and+Employ+Media+Arbitration&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjKphDhfLHf-8xZ8E8tqSayBuA1SGJina6mbbyq27szb-P7a_i2V79KHJD6nHhFjxUpYO2Td97VLx1rBkJs-Ht1k7bVuM4WTuqtNgZAAGXUFI5cUfWKjkYethxEPH9QAlGAfveP&sig=AHIEtbSXxXw7kr2bKyU4voSfKp_-UqOl7w ICANN’s Response to Employ Media’s Request for Arbitration]. Google Docs.</ref> <ref>

−

[http://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation/employ-media-v-icann Arbitration: Employ Media vs. ICANN]</ref>

+

[http://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation/employ-media-v-icann Arbitration: Employ Media vs. ICANN]. ICANN. Published 2012 November 1.</ref>

===.JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition Criticism===

One day before the implementation of the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]], the [[.JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition]], 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. It pointed out that ICANN failed to acknowledge its mistake and overturn its decision when complaints and evidence were filed for reconsideration that Employ Media violated its charter. The coalition chairman stated that ICANN was inefficient in dealing with the arbitration proceedings to immediately resolve Employ Media's charter violation, and consequently the company continues to exploit the .jobs TLD and expand the universe.jobs website. Furthermore, it 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 are "empty words." Moreover, Bell requested the ICANN Board to publicly disqualify Employ Media and its partner, the Direct Employers Association ,from the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD expansion program]] because the registry operator has a "history of abuse." According to its Chairman, this is the only way for ICANN to regain a measure of regulatory authority.<ref>

−

[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/11/dot-jobs-could-kill-icann The case study that could kill ICANN]</ref>

+

[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/11/dot-jobs-could-kill-icann The case study that could kill ICANN]. dotnxt. Published 2012 January 11.</ref>

===A New Approach to Africa===

−

On August 10, 2012, ICANN, with the support of [[AfriNIC]], announced an initiative to increase African participation in influence within ICANN. The initiative is the result of a meeting between [[Steve Crocker]], Chairman of ICANN's Board of Directors, ICANN's CEO-Designate [[Fadi Chehadé]], and Interim CEO [[Akram Atallah]], with African community members at [[ICANN 44]] in Prague, Czech Republic. Their goal is to develop a framework for ICANN's Africa strategy to be announced at [[ICANN 45]] in Toronto, Canada. A [[WG|working group]] was established, led by [[Nii Quaynor]] of Ghana, to contribute to the development of the strategy. The group is also to work with [[Tarek Kamel]], Head of Governmental Affairs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10aug12-en.htm A New Approach to Africa~~, icann~~.~~org]~~</ref> The initiative has received strong support from African Internet stakeholders, including former Board Member [[Katim Touray]].

+

On August 10, 2012, ICANN, with the support of [[AfriNIC]], announced an initiative to increase African participation in influence within ICANN. The initiative is the result of a meeting between [[Steve Crocker]], Chairman of ICANN's Board of Directors, ICANN's CEO-Designate [[Fadi Chehadé]], and Interim CEO [[Akram Atallah]], with African community members at [[ICANN 44]] in Prague, Czech Republic. Their goal is to develop a framework for ICANN's Africa strategy to be announced at [[ICANN 45]] in Toronto, Canada. A [[WG|working group]] was established, led by [[Nii Quaynor]] of Ghana, to contribute to the development of the strategy. The group is also to work with [[Tarek Kamel]], Head of Governmental Affairs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10aug12-en.htm A New Approach to Africa]. ICANN. Published 2012 August 10.</ref> The initiative has received strong support from African Internet stakeholders, including former Board Member [[Katim Touray]].

==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]</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]]

Line 237: Line 237:

===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]</ref>

+

[[Angela Williams]] represented the concerns of the members of [[ICANN]]'s [[NPOC|Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency]] (NPOC) during the Senate hearing. In her testimony, she raised budgetary, public confusion, and [[cybersquatting]] issues. According to her, the increased risk of public confusion compromises Internet security. She also noted that it would be more expensive for not-for-profit organizations to protect their brand names/trademarks against fraud, [[cybersquatting]] and trademark infringement. She also pointed out that not-for-profit-organizations cannot afford the amount of money needed to become a domain name registry to ensure brand protection. Williams encouraged [[ICANN]] to consider the concerns of the members of the NPOC. She also recommended that verified not-for-profit organizations be allowed to exempt their trademarks from any new TLD applicant at no cost or at a drastically reduced fee.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=56a49ede-865f-4bbe-9635-58d0b59add7b Testimony of Angela F. Williams, Senate Hearing, Dec. 8, 2012]. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.</ref>

During the hearing, [[Dan Jaffe]] testified that the new gTLD program is "bad for consumers, marketers and the entire online marketplace" and enumerated different reasons why it is necessary to the stop its implementation. According to him, there is no substantial evidence that the new gTLD program will promote competition, relieve the scarcity of domain name space and support differentiated services and new products. He also cited that the new gTLD program has a serious economic impact. Brand owners might be compelled to file for [[Defensive Registration|defensive registrations]] to protect their trademarks or [[Intellectual Property|intellectual property]] rights. There is a possibility of misappropriation of intellectual property rights, domain navigation dilution, increased risk of cybersquatting, reduced investments from intellectual property owners, and losses from failed TLDs. Jaffe supported his claims using the “Economic Considerations in the Expansion of Generic TopLevel Domain Names, Phase II Report: Case Studies,” a study commissioned by ICANN in December, 2010. In addition, he also emphasized that the new gTLD programs lacks consensus and ICANN failed to meet its "bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development." Furthermore, he pointed out that the application fee is too expensive and harmful for brand owners and he also raised the concerns regarding the organization's conflict of interest policies after [[Peter Dengate Thrush]] decided to join [[Minds + Machines]] as Executive Chairman immediately after his term as chairman of ICANN. Thrush strongly addvocated approval of the new gTLD program.<ref>

−

[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]</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]</ref>

+

[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c81ce454-f519-4373-a51d-234c61755e39 Testimony of Esther Dyson, Hearing on ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2011]. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.</ref>

As representative of the U.S. [[NTIA]], [[Fiona Alexander]] informed the members of the Senate Committee that the agency is part of the [[Governmental Advisory Committee]] (GAC), which is actively involved in the policy development process within ICANN. She testified that the NTIA and its counterparts withinthe GAC provided consensus advice to ICANN during the policy development process for the new gTLD program for six years. She emphasized that the GAC developed a "scorecard" to address the different issues raised by governments, which include:

Line 260: Line 260:

* 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]</ref>

+

Ms. Alexander strongly emphasized NTIA's support of ICANN's [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]] of internet governance and dedication to maintaining the open Internet to promote economic growth, innovation and the free flow of information, products and services online.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=98c38242-c53f-438a-bb53-2d986e4bf168 Testimony of Fiona M. Alexander, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2011]. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.</ref>

[[Kurt Pritz]] testified to the Senate committee that the introduction of new gTLDs has been one of the mandates of the Internet governing body since its establishment. Pritz pointed out that the new gTLD program was developed through the multistakeholder process; global internet stakeholders including brand and trade mark owners, domain name registries, registrars, registrants,governments, law enforcement agencies, governments, not-for-profit organizations, etc. participated in the policy development and implementation program for new gTLDs. He also emphasized the provisions in the Applicant Guidebook regarding new trademark protections such as the [[URS|Uniform Rapid Suspension]] (URS) and the [[Trademark Clearing House]], measures to mitigate malicious conduct, create objection processes, maintain [[DNSSEC|DNS Security]] (DNSSEC) and other relevant issues. He concluded his testimony by reiterating that the "ICANN community worked tirelessly to create the new gTLD program to promote competition and innovation..."<ref>

−

[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 ]</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 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]</ref>

+

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.

Line 288: Line 288:

==House of Representatives Hearing on new gTLD==

−

On December 14, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Communications Technology-Committee on Energy and Commerce also conducted a similar hearing regarding the new gTLD program. Kurt Pritz and all the other individuals who testified in the Senate also served at witnesses at the House of Representatives who echoed the same views about the program. [[Josh Bourne|Joshua Bourne]], President of The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse ([[CADNA]]), [[Thomas Embrescia]], CEO of [[Employ Media]] and [[Anjali Hansen]], IP attorney at the Council of Better Business Bureaus joined the rest of the witnesses during the hearing.<ref>[http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/158500/Trademark/New+gTLD+Hearing+Round+2+A+Critical+House+But+to+What+End United States: New gTLD Hearing, Round 2: A Critical House, But To What End?]</ref>

+

On December 14, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Communications Technology-Committee on Energy and Commerce also conducted a similar hearing regarding the new gTLD program. Kurt Pritz and all the other individuals who testified in the Senate also served at witnesses at the House of Representatives who echoed the same views about the program. [[Josh Bourne|Joshua Bourne]], President of The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse ([[CADNA]]), [[Thomas Embrescia]], CEO of [[Employ Media]] and [[Anjali Hansen]], IP attorney at the Council of Better Business Bureaus joined the rest of the witnesses during the hearing.<ref>[http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/158500/Trademark/New+gTLD+Hearing+Round+2+A+Critical+House+But+to+What+End United States: New gTLD Hearing, Round 2: A Critical House, But To What End?]. Mondaq. Published 2011 December 22.</ref>

===Testimony of Witnesses===

−

Mr. '''Joshua Bourne''' expressed his concern over the program and suggested some recommendations including the availability of a second round of application ease the anxiety associated with the program, provide option to block trademarks, update the language of the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act ([[ACPA]]), reduce pricing for multiple gTLD applicants and to add conditions on the [[IANA]] contract.<ref>[http://~~republicans~~.energycommerce.house.gov/~~Media~~/~~file/Hearings/Telecom/121411/Bourne.pdf~~ Testimony of Josh Bourne-President, Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse]</ref> The call for second round of application was also expressed by Josh and the attendees of the CADNA gTLD Conference on November 2011.<ref>[http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=1315ECFA-EEB1-4F32-B1BC-2BBCFAF1C9C3 International - Call for ICANN to announce second round of gTLD applications]</ref>

+

Mr. '''Joshua Bourne''' expressed his concern over the program and suggested some recommendations including the availability of a second round of application ease the anxiety associated with the program, provide option to block trademarks, update the language of the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act ([[ACPA]]), reduce pricing for multiple gTLD applicants and to add conditions on the [[IANA]] contract.<ref>[http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-icann-s-top-level-domain-name-program Testimony of Josh Bourne-President, Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse]. Committee on Energy & Commerce. Published 2011 December 14.</ref> The call for second round of application was also expressed by Josh and the attendees of the CADNA gTLD Conference on November 2011.<ref name="worldtrademarkreview">[http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=1315ECFA-EEB1-4F32-B1BC-2BBCFAF1C9C3 International - Call for ICANN to announce second round of gTLD applications]. World Trademark Review. Published 2011 November 2.</ref>

−

In her testimony, Ms. '''Anjali Hansen''' expressed her concern regarding the level of abuses and fraud over the internet and the high costs of brand protection. She also pointed out the importance of a competitive, innovative and open internet and BBB is not requesting for excessive regulation of the Internet by governments but they encourage registries and registrars to implement application standards to help reduce costs to businesses and to restore consumer trust.<ref>[~~http://republicans.energycommerce~~.~~house~~.~~gov/Media/file/Hearings/Telecom~~/~~121411~~/~~Hansen.pdf~~ Testimony of Anjali K. Hansen-Intellectual Property Attorney, Council of Better Business Bureaus]</ref>

+

In her testimony, Ms. '''Anjali Hansen''' expressed her concern regarding the level of abuses and fraud over the internet and the high costs of brand protection. She also pointed out the importance of a competitive, innovative and open internet and BBB is not requesting for excessive regulation of the Internet by governments but they encourage registries and registrars to implement application standards to help reduce costs to businesses and to restore consumer trust.<ref>[www.ana.net/getfile/17081 Testimony of Anjali K. Hansen-Intellectual Property Attorney, Council of Better Business Bureaus]</ref>

−

'''Thomas Embrescia''' testified in support of the ICANN new gTLD program. During the hearing, he pointed out that the private sector has a strong demand for new TLDs and the new gTLD program promotes competition, innovation. Furthermore he emphasized that it would help create more jobs and opportunities.He encouraged the members of the Congress to support the program. <ref>[http://~~republicans~~.energycommerce.house.gov/~~Media/file/Hearings~~/~~Telecom/121411/Embrescia.pdf~~ Testimony of Thomas Embrescia, CEO of Employ Media]</ref>

+

'''Thomas Embrescia''' testified in support of the ICANN new gTLD program. During the hearing, he pointed out that the private sector has a strong demand for new TLDs and the new gTLD program promotes competition, innovation. Furthermore he emphasized that it would help create more jobs and opportunities.He encouraged the members of the Congress to support the program. <ref>[http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-icann-s-top-level-domain-name-program Testimony of Thomas Embrescia, CEO of Employ Media]. Committee on Energy & Commerce. Published 2011 December 14.</ref>

===ICANN's Answers to Sub-Committee Members' Inquiries===

−

On January 5, 2012, Cong. Greg Walden, Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Communications and Technology, sent a letter to ICANN requesting answers to some issues related to the new gTLD program including:<ref>[[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-walden-20jan12-en.pdf ICANN's Response to Cong. Greg Walden]</ref>

+

On January 5, 2012, Cong. Greg Walden, Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Communications and Technology, sent a letter to ICANN requesting answers to some issues related to the new gTLD program including:<ref>[[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-walden-20jan12-en.pdf ICANN's Response to Cong. Greg Walden]. ICANN. Published 2012 January 20.</ref>

* '''Process used by ICANN in achieving consensus through the [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]]'''

ICANN explained that consensus was achieved through community-driven policy development processes wherein working teams composed of members of the different internet stakeholders developed reports and recommendations and the public were given the opportunity to comment. The public comments were considered when drafting the final report and recommendations, before they were submitted it to the appropriate organization within ICANN such as the [[GNSO]] Council, which would in turn present their findings to the ICANN Board. ICANN emphasized that the GNSO Council is composed of all internet stakeholders and voted 19-1 in favor of the new gTLD policy. The internet governing body also pointed out that ICANN's Advisory Committees ([[GAC]], [[ALAC]], [[SSAC]], [[RSSAC]] etc.) were involved in the consensus development. ICANN reiterated the statement of Sec. [[Lawrence Strickling|Larry Strickling]] that the ICANN ''"multistakeholder does not guarantee that everyone will be satisfied with the outcome.But it is critical to preserving the model of Internet governance that has been so successful to date that all parties respect and work through the process and accept the outcome once a decision is reached..."''

Line 337: Line 337:

==Second Round of Application==

−

On February 7, 2012, the [[ICANN Board]] approved the implementation of a second round and application window for the new gTLD program in response to the request of the global Internet community, particularly the members of [[CADNA]]. The board delegated the [[ICANN CEO]] to work with the Internet community to develop a work plan and the needed prerequisites to open the second round of application for new gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb12-en.htm#4 ~~Reaffirmation~~ of ~~second round of applications in New gTLD Program~~]</ref> <ref>

+

On February 7, 2012, the [[ICANN Board]] approved the implementation of a second round and application window for the new gTLD program in response to the request of the global Internet community, particularly the members of [[CADNA]]. The board delegated the [[ICANN CEO]] to work with the Internet community to develop a work plan and the needed prerequisites to open the second round of application for new gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb12-en.htm#4 Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board]. ICANN. Published 2012 February 7.</ref> <ref name="worldtrademarkreview"></ref>

−

~~[http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=1315ECFA-EEB1-4F32-B1BC-2BBCFAF1C9C3 International - Call for ICANN to announce second round of gTLD applications]~~</ref>

==Awards==

−

In May, 2012, ICANN was recognized by The Board of Trustees of Sheikh Salem Al-Ali Al-Sabah Informatics Award with their 11th 'Informatics Medal'. The medal is given with appreciation for the organization's efforts at maintaining and strengthening the Internet's infrastructure. The Board also expressed gratitude for the role that ICANN has played in developing and deploying Arabic [[IDN]]'s, which allow Arabic populations to surf the web without relying on foreign characters or domains. The award has been given out since 2007, and is given to institutions or public figures that are influential in the fields of Informatics and Internet Development. It was received on behalf of ICANN by the company's President and CEO, [[Rod Beckstrom]].<ref>[http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2237530&language=en ~~KUNA~~.~~net]~~</ref><ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2012/05/icann-receives-arab-world-award/ ICANN Receives Arab World Award~~, icann~~.~~org]~~</ref>

+

In May, 2012, ICANN was recognized by The Board of Trustees of Sheikh Salem Al-Ali Al-Sabah Informatics Award with their 11th 'Informatics Medal'. The medal is given with appreciation for the organization's efforts at maintaining and strengthening the Internet's infrastructure. The Board also expressed gratitude for the role that ICANN has played in developing and deploying Arabic [[IDN]]'s, which allow Arabic populations to surf the web without relying on foreign characters or domains. The award has been given out since 2007, and is given to institutions or public figures that are influential in the fields of Informatics and Internet Development. It was received on behalf of ICANN by the company's President and CEO, [[Rod Beckstrom]].<ref>[http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2237530&language=en Informatics prize for ICANN - Salem Ali Prize panel]. Kuna. Published 2012 May 1.</ref><ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2012/05/icann-receives-arab-world-award/ ICANN Receives Arab World Award]. ICANN. Published 2012 May 22.</ref>

=References=

Vivian

staff

8,858

edits