Congress throws wrench in ICANN’s independence and new top level domain name plans.
The Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Henry Waxman, as well as the
Chairman of its Internet Subcommittee and eight other Committee members have called for a permanent tie between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
In a letter to Gary Locke, Secretary of the Department of Commerce, the members wrote:
Rather than replacing the JPA with additional JPAs or Memoranda of Understanding that expire every few years, we believe the time has come for a permanent instrument to which ICANN and the Department of Commerce are co-signatories. This statement of commitments and principles would ensure that ICANN remains perpetually accountable to the public and to all of its global stakeholders.
The letter comes on the heels of a hearing about ICANN, in which the organization did not fair well.
The letter goes on to state that this agreement should include provisions for new gTLDs that “ensures appropriate consultation with stakeholders”. It’s clear that the way ICANN has seemed to steamroll dissenters on new gTLDs has been heard loud and clear on Capitol Hill.
For more analysis, see the Internet Commerce Association’s web site.
I like how you did the links on “did no fair”.
Being a US resident, I’m all for this idea, and I havn’t really been a fan of congress in a long time. Furthermore, I’m even less of a fan of ICANN lately. They’ve shown the potential to be more damaging to my well being than congress has.
Glad to see Waxman’s on top of this.
It’s such positive, uplifting news to see justice and integrity restored. Andrew’s comment is also worded perfectly and is the essence of everything that ICANN seems to fail at …
“ICANN has seemed to steamroll dissenters”.
This is what I have observed over and over in my own assessment of ICANN as a policy making entity. That elitist “we are better than everyone” undercurrent.
I wonder what it will take for some real leadership to step up within that organization and forge a new relationship with the community stakeholders. It’s as if stakeholders never get more than passing lip service from ICANN on the issues that are central to our interests.
ICANN cater to money, and they relish authority & power … to the point it is stiffling the organization. I have at least 4 examples of major ICANN policy blunders that reflect either incompetence within the organization, or worse, an indifference to issues that are/were critically important to stakeholders.
Most disturbing to me is the persistent effort so many domainers, government entities, and corporations have made to participate in ICANN’s “bottom up” community development model. What ultimately happens is ICANN set up long, arduous public comment “opportunities”, and then just ignore the vast majority of what is introduced, and they then forge ahead with an internally driven agenda. The internet community is not comprised of naive individuals … so this little ICANN maneuver fools no one. Like the Professor Carlton feasibility study. What a freaking joke & somewhat sickening effort to steer (manipulate) public opinion with smoke & mirrors.
ICANN insult the greater community repeatedly by telling us they are successful, while we point out to them obvious failures and serious ongoing concerns. It’s a somewhat phony front of “community involvement” that has undermined (and even erased) the public’s confidence in ICANN. How much more controversy must be stirred up, and policy failure generated, before someone within that organization announces “We have some work to do to get ourselves back on track, and aligned with internet stakeholders”.
Today’s news is a clear indication that ICANN are failing a majority of stakeholders via their perpetual head in the sand MO.
Yes ICANN, you actually have to listen to your constituents! They pay for your existence, and demand representation, and that you drop the elitist posturing. Start implementing community input so that you can craft a direction that meets the internet community’s needs, instead of heading them toward a cliff with your minority led vision.
ICANN have some decisions to make. Either we become a part of those decisions, or you (ICANN) stop charging us 20 cents every time we register or renew a tld.
Rod Beckstrom is in for a rocky, likely unfulfilling ride, unless he has the balls and the integrity to take control of ICANN and deal internally with what’s broken there. I believe all people deserve a chance, and so does he.
Beckstrom has one pointless strike against him already -> furthering the mischaracterization of domainers as CYBERSQUATTERS. Huge, catastrophic PR failure on his part which will only fuel the hurt and indignation that lawful, ethcial domainers feel. However, he is early enough in his position there to reverse this. But he’s got to stand up for what’s right.
That’s ICANN’s future … if there is one, i.e. to treat their constituents with respect, and as partners.
Just had a thought, maybe a crazy thought. Imagine a world where domainers just give up, get rid of our domains, stop registering them, throw in the towel, etc… (will never happen obviously).
Anyway, to my point. What do you think would happen? Would the hurt be on for ICANN? Proably not. Who would register enough domains to perpetuate ICANN’s existance? I think that what would happen would be all the major corporations, TM interests, and etc… would start registering “all the good domains” and sitting on them, maybe selling them amongst themselves, and outsiders occasionally and so on… You know, like DOMAINERS. But would they be labled cybersquatters? Doubt it. And why is that?
I know, slippery slope, but Verizon already typo-squats on any time a user enters a domain that doesn’t exist, TM or not. And then they turn around and hunt down TM domain owners like dogs in the street. (I’m not saying owning TM domains is a good thing, just illustrating a point) Comcast, Time Warner, and pretty much all of them do the same. They probably hold a few good names, and have probably been known to sell them too. But they are not demonized, except by Domainers, who are just a bunch of cybersquatters anyway (facetious) so who cares what they think.
OK I’ll stop now, just what came to mind and its late.
Going back to the cybersquatting tactics of Verizon, Comcast, et al… Didn’t Verisign get spanked over doing the exact same thing with their Site Finder? But why were they demonized for doing exactly what Verizon etc… are doing today? I’m guessing because Verisign is in the Domain industry, and Verizon isn’t.
“e believe the time has come for a permanent instrument to which ICANN and the Department of Commerce are co-signatories”
Accountability outside of ICANN? Are domains finally getting credible? Will domainers actually benefit from oversight (unlikely but you never know),
I think this is a first step into a new “real” world. One that exists outside ICANN’s imaginary headquarters.
I suspect we have to thank the IP lobbyist for this action.
They would prefer the threat of U.S. gov’t intervention than hoping the Icann board would listen to the lawyers and lobbyist in Switzerland.
They were motivated to protect their influence and revenue.
The U.S. Congress has made it clear that they want a permanent solution.
The best scenario would be for the FCC to
take over the IANA IPv4 address SPECTRUM
management.
AT&T and other “ISPs” would then bid on the
IPv4 /8 SPECTRUM that they currently get
for FREE, directly from ICANN.
Once there is a level playing field for /8
SPECTRUM, then the TLD issues can be
addressed. The New DNS software can create
TLDs without any human intervention based
on .COM patterns. That is free market
based and does not require any Boards,
applicants, etc.
One key element is to drive the price of
.COM down or to zero. Only the DOC/NTIA
could likely do that. The last time they
said “under $10” and NSI/Verisign put out
a piece of paper with a 9. DOC turned that
around and said, “Looks like a 6 sounds good”