[kictanet] FYI: US House Committee Letter to ICANN

[waudo siganga]

For colleagues seeking more insight in this area of IG this is a
letter on new gTLDs dated 15th September
from the USA House Committee of the Judiciary to ICANN.
From:
[1]http://www.icann.org/correspondence/smith-coble-to-beckstrom-1
5sep09-en.pdf
Dear Mr Beckstrom,
Congratulations on your recent appointment as President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and
Numbers (ICANN).  You assume responsibility of the principle
private
sector organization charged with maintaining the security and
stability
of the global Internet at a critical juncture.  The
contemporaneous
consideration of the rollout of an unrestricted number of generic
top
level domains (gTLDS) in conjunction with the scheduled
expiration of
the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) presents historic challenges
and
turning points in Internet Governance.
As senior leaders of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which
has
jurisdiction over matters that relate to criminal justice,
competition
and intellectual property rights, we have a longstanding interest
in
matters that affect the domain name system (DNS).  In this
capacity, we
would like to share with you our concerns regarding the proposed
new
generic domain name expansion and the expiration of the JPA.
It has come to our attention that the proposed unlimited
expansion of
gTLDS will likely result in serious negative consequences for
U.S.
businesses and consumers,   As new gTLDs are created, many
businesses
fear being forced to defensively register trademarks and
variations of
their marks to block cybersquatters from illegitimately trading
on their
good will and to protect consumers from increased incidences of
fraud.
We note that the absence of price caps in the new registry
agreements
could mean that legitimate businesses with an established
consumer base
and Internet presence may be discriminated against and compelled
to pay
a premium for each new domain name they register or renew.   We
also
note that the record concerning the impact this proposed
expansion will
have on competition is woefully inadequate.   To our knowledge,
the only
economic justification put forth thus far has been an
ICANN-commissioned
report that has been widely criticized for failing to include
empirical
data or analysis in support of its conclusion that the
unrestricted
expansion of gTLDs will result in net consumer benefits.
We are aware that ICANN has taken some steps to respond to the
concerns
of intellectual property owners by establishing an Implementation
Recommendation team (IRT) charged with developing specific
proposals to
protect intellectual property interests.   However, we note with
disappointment that serious consideration of these interests did
not
occur in the normal course of ICANN's policy development process,
and
the IRT was formed only after considerable public outcry arose
from the
business and intellectual property communities.   We further note
that
decisions regarding the execution of the IRT's recommendations
have not
been publicly announced as well as our concern that it appears
such
disclosures are not intended to be made available to the public
prior to
the scheduled expiration of the JPA.  This apparent time-line
reinforces
the perception that ICANN decision-making processes lack critical
transparency and accountability.
Given the late consideration of intellectual property concerns,
the lack
of a credible independent analysis on competition issues in the
context
of proposals to expand gTLD's, as well as ICANN's
less-than-stellar
track record on a variety of other issues (enforcement of
registrar
obligations, accuracy of publicly available Whois data), we have
serious
misgivings about the prospect of terminating the formal
relationship
between the U.S. Government and ICANN that is currently
represented by
the JPA.   In the interests of better understanding ICANN's
position on
these and related matters, we will appreciate your providing the
Committee with answers to the following questions:
1. Which of the recommendations of the IRT does ICANN plan to
implement?
What is the justification for not publicly announcing such
decisions
prior to the September 30, 2009 scheduled expiration of the JPA
and
instead deferring such public notice and review until publication
of the
new version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook?  If implemented,
how will
the recommendations put forth by the IRT serve to reduce or
eliminate
the need for defensive registrations?  Will any of
recommendations
prevent price gouging by registries and registrars?
2. Does ICANN intend to carry out a comprehensive, empirical
economic
study to examine the impact on competition that additional gTLDs
may
have?  If not, what confidence can the public have that the
expansion of
gTLDs will improve rather than hinder, competition?   Assuming
the
rollout goes forward, what steps will ICANN take to monitor the
impact
on competition in the future?
3.  Do you recognize a need for and support the establishment of
a
permanent instrument that memorializes the relationship between
ICANN
and the U.S. Government?  If not, what are your current thoughts
on an
extension of the JPA prior to its expiration on September 30,
2009?
What key elements do you think should be incorporated into such
as
permanent or temporary agreement?  What assurances do citizens of
the
United States have that ICANN will effectively meet the goals set
out in
the JPA if it or a successor agreement is not formally extended?
As a final matter, we wish to associate ourselves with many of
the
concerns articulated by the ICANN's Government Advisory Committee
in
their letter of August 18, 2009 (copy enclosed) to the Chairman
of
ICANN's Board.  We would appreciate your assessment and response
to the
matter detailed in that letter, particularly as they relate to
the
stability of the Internet and the absence of clear evidence that
the
introduction of new gTLDs will provide net benefits to consumers.
The effects of policies adopted by ICANN transcends the narrow
technical
operation of the global Internet.  The policy choices made and
the
manner they are implemented affect the rights, property and
security of
consumers, companies, non-governmental organizations and
governments
worldwide.  With this enormous impact, ICANN has an obligation to
ensure
there are inclusive, transparent, and accountable processes that
consider fully the perspectives of ALL stakeholders, before
rendering
significant decisions or implementing substantial policy changes.
We urge you to weigh carefully the concerns expressed by us, the
GAC,
and other parties before finalizing a course of action and we
look
forward to receiving your written response by Tuesday, September
22,
2009.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary
Howard Coble, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts and
Competition,
House Committee on the Judiciary

References

1. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/smith-coble-to-beckstrom-15sep09-en.pdf
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20090918/90fdd1f8/attachment.htm>