<!--/*SC*/DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"/*EC*/-->
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--div#me56162 DIV {margin:0px; }--></style><title></title><style type="text/css"><!--body{padding:1ex;margin:0px;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:small;}a[href]{color:-moz-hyperlinktext !important;text-decoration:-moz-anchor-decoration;}blockquote{margin:0;border-left:2px solid #144fae;padding-left:1em;}blockquote blockquote{border-color:#006312;}blockquote blockquote blockquote{border-color:#540000;}--></style></head><body><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;" dir="ltr"><div class="defangedMessage">
<div id="me56162">
<div>For colleagues seeking more insight in this area of IG this is a letter on new gTLDs dated 15th September<br>
from the USA House Committee of the Judiciary to ICANN. <br>
<br>
From:<br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/smith-coble-to-beckstrom-15sep09-en.pdf"><font color="#333366">http://www.icann.org/correspondence/smith-coble-to-beckstrom-15sep09-en.pdf</font></a><br>
<br>
Dear Mr Beckstrom,<br>
<br>
Congratulations on your recent appointment as President and Chief<br>
Executive Officer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and<br>
Numbers (ICANN). You assume responsibility of the principle private<br>
sector organization charged with maintaining the security and stability<br>
of the global Internet at a critical juncture. The contemporaneous<br>
consideration of the rollout of an unrestricted number of generic top<br>
level domains (gTLDS) in conjunction with the scheduled expiration of<br>
the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) presents historic challenges and<br>
turning points in Internet Governance.<br>
<br>
As senior leaders of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has<br>
jurisdiction over matters that relate to criminal justice, competition<br>
and intellectual property rights, we have a longstanding interest in<br>
matters that affect the domain name system (DNS). In this capacity, we<br>
would like to share with you our concerns regarding the proposed new<br>
generic domain name expansion and the expiration of the JPA.<br>
<br>
It has come to our attention that the proposed unlimited expansion of<br>
gTLDS will likely result in serious negative consequences for U.S.<br>
businesses and consumers, As new gTLDs are created, many businesses<br>
fear being forced to defensively register trademarks and variations of<br>
their marks to block cybersquatters from illegitimately trading on their<br>
good will and to protect consumers from increased incidences of fraud.<br>
We note that the absence of price caps in the new registry agreements<br>
could mean that legitimate businesses with an established consumer base<br>
and Internet presence may be discriminated against and compelled to pay<br>
a premium for each new domain name they register or renew. We also<br>
note that the record concerning the impact this proposed expansion will<br>
have on competition is woefully inadequate. To our knowledge, the only<br>
economic justification put forth thus far has been an ICANN-commissioned<br>
report that has been widely criticized for failing to include empirical<br>
data or analysis in support of its conclusion that the unrestricted<br>
expansion of gTLDs will result in net consumer benefits.<br>
<br>
<br>
We are aware that ICANN has taken some steps to respond to the concerns<br>
of intellectual property owners by establishing an Implementation<br>
Recommendation team (IRT) charged with developing specific proposals to<br>
protect intellectual property interests. However, we note with<br>
disappointment that serious consideration of these interests did not<br>
occur in the normal course of ICANN's policy development process, and<br>
the IRT was formed only after considerable public outcry arose from the<br>
business and intellectual property communities. We further note that<br>
decisions regarding the execution of the IRT's recommendations have not<br>
been publicly announced as well as our concern that it appears such<br>
disclosures are not intended to be made available to the public prior to<br>
the scheduled expiration of the JPA. This apparent time-line reinforces<br>
the perception that ICANN decision-making processes lack critical<br>
transparency and accountability.<br>
<br>
Given the late consideration of intellectual property concerns, the lack<br>
of a credible independent analysis on competition issues in the context<br>
of proposals to expand gTLD's, as well as ICANN's less-than-stellar<br>
track record on a variety of other issues (enforcement of registrar<br>
obligations, accuracy of publicly available Whois data), we have serious<br>
misgivings about the prospect of terminating the formal relationship<br>
between the U.S. Government and ICANN that is currently represented by<br>
the JPA. In the interests of better understanding ICANN's position on<br>
these and related matters, we will appreciate your providing the<br>
Committee with answers to the following questions:<br>
<br>
1. Which of the recommendations of the IRT does ICANN plan to implement?<br>
What is the justification for not publicly announcing such decisions<br>
prior to the September 30, 2009 scheduled expiration of the JPA and<br>
instead deferring such public notice and review until publication of the<br>
new version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook? If implemented, how will<br>
the recommendations put forth by the IRT serve to reduce or eliminate<br>
the need for defensive registrations? Will any of recommendations<br>
prevent price gouging by registries and registrars?<br>
<br>
2. Does ICANN intend to carry out a comprehensive, empirical economic<br>
study to examine the impact on competition that additional gTLDs may<br>
have? If not, what confidence can the public have that the expansion of<br>
gTLDs will improve rather than hinder, competition? Assuming the<br>
rollout goes forward, what steps will ICANN take to monitor the impact<br>
on competition in the future?<br>
<br>
3. Do you recognize a need for and support the establishment of a<br>
permanent instrument that memorializes the relationship between ICANN<br>
and the U.S. Government? If not, what are your current thoughts on an<br>
extension of the JPA prior to its expiration on September 30, 2009?<br>
What key elements do you think should be incorporated into such as<br>
permanent or temporary agreement? What assurances do citizens of the<br>
United States have that ICANN will effectively meet the goals set out in<br>
the JPA if it or a successor agreement is not formally extended?<br>
<br>
<br>
As a final matter, we wish to associate ourselves with many of the<br>
concerns articulated by the ICANN's Government Advisory Committee in<br>
their letter of August 18, 2009 (copy enclosed) to the Chairman of<br>
ICANN's Board. We would appreciate your assessment and response to the<br>
matter detailed in that letter, particularly as they relate to the<br>
stability of the Internet and the absence of clear evidence that the<br>
introduction of new gTLDs will provide net benefits to consumers.<br>
<br>
The effects of policies adopted by ICANN transcends the narrow technical<br>
operation of the global Internet. The policy choices made and the<br>
manner they are implemented affect the rights, property and security of<br>
consumers, companies, non-governmental organizations and governments<br>
worldwide. With this enormous impact, ICANN has an obligation to ensure<br>
there are inclusive, transparent, and accountable processes that<br>
consider fully the perspectives of ALL stakeholders, before rendering<br>
significant decisions or implementing substantial policy changes.<br>
<br>
We urge you to weigh carefully the concerns expressed by us, the GAC,<br>
and other parties before finalizing a course of action and we look<br>
forward to receiving your written response by Tuesday, September 22,<br>
2009.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary<br>
<br>
Howard Coble, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition,<br>
House Committee on the Judiciary</div>
<!--/*SC*//defang_body/*EC*/--><!--/*SC*//defang_html/*EC*/--></div>
</div></div><pre> </pre>
</body></html>