[kictanet] Congress to ICANN: No You Can’t

[Alice Munyua]

  Congress to ICANN: No You Can’t


<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=ra-4d95fcbc4c4f5ecb&source=tbx-250&lng=en-US&s=facebook&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationaljournal.com%2Ftech%2Fcongress-to-icann-no-you-can-t-20110504&title=NationalJournal.com%20-%20Congress%20to%20ICANN%3A%20No%20You%20Can%E2%80%99t%20-%20Wednesday%2C%20May%204%2C%202011&ate=AT-ra-4d95fcbc4c4f5ecb/-/-/4dc2e2aec7cc36d8/1&uid=4dc2e2aec9323a13&sms_ss=1&at_xt=1&tt=0> 


By David Hatch <http://www.nationaljournal.com/reporters/bio/33>


          May 4, 2011 | 7:58 p.m.
          Updated: May 4, 2011 | 10:03 p.m.

An effort to dramatically expand the number of Internet suffixes beyond 
those already in use—such as .com, .net, and .org—met with bipartisan 
resistance on Wednesday in a House Judiciary subcommittee.

During a hearing before Judiciary’s Intellectual Property, Competition, 
and the Internet Subcommittee, the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers (better known as ICANN) said its proposal would pave 
the way for hundreds or even thousands of additional suffixes, resulting 
in more choices and innovation.

But critics suggest that ICANN, a non-profit based in California, would 
reap a financial windfall at the expense of companies and non-profits 
that would be forced to “defensively” register their websites with the 
new suffixes to protect their trademarks.

“I would ask that we balance the costs and benefits of this proposal 
before a final decision is made to go forward,” said Subcommittee 
Chairman *Bob Goodlatte*, R-Va., who joined members from both parties in 
urging ICANN to delay final implementation until concerns about 
trademark infringement, identity theft, and increased business sector 
costs can be adequately resolved. While he doesn’t oppose a limited 
expansion of Internet suffixes, the specifics of ICANN’s approach are 
troubling to him, he said.**

With Goodlatte and other hearing participants projecting that ICANN 
could earn tens of millions of dollars in additional fees, Rep. *Maxine 
Waters*, D-Calif., asked: “Where will all this new money end up?*”*

Kurt Pritz, senior VP of stakeholder relations at ICANN, said strong 
safeguards would be in place to protect trademarks, including the 
ability of parties to object to the adoption of new suffixes. He said 
ICANN would constantly evolve its plan in an effort to respond to 
concerns that might arise.

But Goodlatte challenged him on those points, noting that ICANN has not 
taken any preemptive steps to ensure that “legitimate businesses” and 
non-profits such as the Red Cross and the U.S. Olympic Committee would 
not be victimized as a result of the changes.

Trademark holders are worried about a flood of knock-off sites designed 
to confuse consumers. For example, Coca Cola could have headaches if 
someone were to register “Coca-Cola,” with the suffix .soda, to create a 
new address, www.Coca-Cola.soda <http://www.coca-cola.soda/>, not 
affiliated with the company.

Echoing Goodlatte’s concerns was ranking member *John Conyers*, D-Mich., 
who said: “I’m worried that the benefits will not outweigh the concerns 
raised by stakeholders." Conyers recommended a follow-up hearing on the 
matter and called for ICANN’s proposal to be “held up.”

“This has such enormity—the scale of it, the magnitude of the change, 
the implications for the public, that it behooves everybody to take the 
time necessary to make sure that we do our best to get it right,” agreed 
Mei-Lan Stark, senior VP for Fox Entertainment Group, who testified on 
behalf of the International Trademark Association.

-- 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20110505/0746c7db/attachment.htm>