Remarks by Kroes:

"The Internet does not belong to any one group, but attacks on it affect every group. So let's work together, all sectors, all levels, public and private, national, international and European. So that we can safeguard the security of the systems that increasingly underpin our lives, today and in the future."

"In tomorrow's world, if the Internet is not secured, nothing will be."

Full statement published here.

Why register?

The question to this answer seems simple. To know who has registered with an organisation. This makes it possible to contact the registered person or organisation, to send bills and to discuss policy with the members.

The rationale of unreachable registrations

This one completely goes by me. ICANN distributes IP resources at the highest level that are on principle scarce: domain names and IP addresses and sets policy around the distribution of these resources. So it seems to be in the utmost interest of ICANN to have an accurate database. Over the past years it has been shown over and over again, that accuracy was not a priority of ICANN, even against her existing policies.

There does not seem to be a rationale for this lapses in registration measures. ICANN in the end loses money as she provides a service, but is most likely not paid for this service. Next to that it is not good for ICANN's image, as government and LEA reactions have shown over the past years. It could even become a threat to ICANN's very existence.

Cyber crime and enforcement

With the coming of cyber crime, spam and botnets, law enforcement agencies of different back ground became interested in Whois data and were very much frustrated when they found data not to be accurate. (And vetting and revocation mechanisms not being in place.) Whois data is a primary source at the start of investigations. So if these are false this makes investigations harder, not impossible.

Inaccurate data

What can be reasons that data is inaccurate? There can be several reasons. To give a few examples. Someone forgot to change the data after a move of the office, contact person, a merger, bank account, a company stopped its activities, etc. In the meantime the IP resources are still used as they were meant to, but from an unknown address.

A second reason could be that free speech advocates want to have a chance to hide their identity behind a so called proxy registration. This way they are safe from prosecution in their home country. Usually this is supported by western governments.

A third reason can be criminal intent. A person or group of persons uses the IP resources for personal gain through illegal activities. They never intended to provide accurate data. From a society point of view this is an activity that preferably is stopped as fast as possible.

What to do about it?

We are discussing unreachable registered companies. It looks quite simple to me. ICANN has many ways to reach out to these companies and does so. Everyone concerned gets one year to alter the data. As soon as someone complies, the data is submitted to the Whois database, after being vetted by ICANN.

All that have not updated their registration on time -and one year is a very lenient time frame- are de-registered by ICANN and where possible their IP resources taken away.

Legit after claims

If ICANN makes sure there's a good procedure to follow for legit claims after the de-registration that come in anyway, I'm sure this procedure will work. Criminals usually do not show up and try to find new ways to proceed their business.

Vetting of all new registrations

When ICANN makes sure new applicants are vetted before being admitted and an ongoing checking procedure of existing members is put in place, I'm convinced that the Internet will become a safer place for all concerned. Also, she becomes an example for policy at lower level IP resource organisations by setting a standard. It makes one avenue on the Internet harder to reach for criminals.

Written by Wout de Natris, Consultant international cooperation cyber crime + trainer spam enforcement

You know that the anti-exceptionalists have raised the white flag of surrender when they are forced to whine that the thousands of web publishers who went dark are "abusing their power” — thus admitting that a critical mass of Western society's eyes are turned toward the Internet and that the people who occupy and publish and interact in that globalized space constitute enough of a cohesive community to collectively turn against those who threaten them.

It doesn't matter whether one is on the pro-control or anti-control side of the spectrum; governing the internet forces a choice upon one: either go for new and unprecedented forms of technical intervention and transnational political cooperation, or go for some kind of ratification and institutionalization of the Internet's special status as a zone for the free flow of information and a diminished role for territorial government and traditional informational property rights.

Mind you, one needn't be a cyber-utopian to be an Internet exceptionalist. In other words, you don't have to believe that the Internet will by its very nature make politics fair and democratic and that the good guys will always win. SOPA or some equivalent could rise again, in some other form. Some key actors could be bought off with some concessions in the new legislation. The mobilized community's resolve could weaken over time, as it grows accustomed to things. We need to be heedful of Benkler's warning that as the networked environment resists control, there will be strong pressures to suck ever more of it into the law enforcement vortex. But surely, after 15 years of these battles (starting, roughly, with the CDA mobilization of 1996) we can dismiss these jaded admonitions that Internet regulation is just business as usual. If the Internet stops being an exception, we will have no one but ourselves to blame.

Written by Milton Mueller, Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies

In December 2010, the Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) published its Final Recommendations. The ATRT urged that "the ICANN Board should ... seek input from a committee of independent experts on the restructuring of the three review mechanisms — the Independent Review Panel (IRP), the Reconsideration Process and the Office of the Ombudsman." It explained that the committee should conduct "a broad, comprehensive assessment of the accountability and transparency of the three existing mechanisms and of their inter-relation, if any ..."

Timing was considered crucial. The ATRT assigned Recommendation 23 a "high priority" and specified that it was to be implemented "[a]s soon as possible, but no later than June 2011." This urgency reflects the intrinsic importance of Board review mechanisms to ICANN's accountability and the compromise behind referring that issue to an expert committee: the ATRT's members were uniquely divided over whether ICANN needs a review procedure that entails binding authority over the Board.

Quite apart from the urgency expressed by the ATRT, ICANN promised in the Affirmation of Commitments to act on the recommendations of such organizational review teams within six months. Yet ICANN recently confirmed that it has so far failed to carry out the very first task in implementing Recommendation 23 by engaging a committee of independent experts. Not until November 2011 did the Board Governance Committee direct staff to draft a Request for Proposal. And still another two months have passed without that RFP being posted.

A new White Paper details ICANN's inaction and its consequences, but even a high-level summary of the implications paints a troubling picture:

• ICANN's inaction is inconsistent with its obligations under the Affirmation.
• Failure to act undermines the voluntary self-correction process prescribed by the Affirmation by casting doubt on whether organizational reviews can bring about needed institutional changes.
• It substitutes top-down management for bottom-up consensus by interposing a management decision in place of the ATRT's recommendation.
• It frustrates the process of forming future bottom-up consensus by inhibiting, if not preventing, the ICANN community from having an open and fully-informed conversation about what standard of accountability the ICANN Board should adopt.
• Finally, ICANN's failure to implement the ATRT's recommendation is a missed opportunity to show that ICANN is committed to honoring the Affirmation and the processes it agreed to there, regardless of where they lead.

With a multi-million dollar New gTLD Program now underway, ICANN's accountability profoundly matters to stakeholders around the globe. One hopes that ICANN will offer them the reassurance that it stands behind its written commitments. To do that, it should implement ATRT Recommendation 23 promptly and completely.

Written by R. Shawn Gunnarson, Attorney at Law, Kirton & McConkie

This is a widely attended educational event hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee (ICAC), part of a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. More information about the 15th Annual Tech Exhibition and Reception can be found at:

http://www.netcaucus.org/events/2012/kickoff/

What: Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee's 15th Annual Kickoff Reception & Technology Exhibition
When: 5-7 PM, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012
Where: Hart Senate Office Building, Room 902
RSVP: RSVP's appreciated. Please register at the website or onsite at the event.

Follow the event on Twitter: #ICACTech

This event is free and open to the public.

Geist writes: "With Bill C-11 back on the legislative agenda at the end of the month, Canada will be a prime target for SOPA style rules. In fact, a close review of the unpublished submissions to the Bill C-32 legislative committee reveals that several groups have laid the groundwork to add SOPA-like rules into Bill C-11, including blocking websites and expanding the 'enabler provision' to target a wider range of websites. Given the reaction to SOPA in the U.S., where millions contacted their elected representatives to object to rules that threatened their Internet and digital rights, the political risks inherent in embracing SOPA-like rules are significant."

Read full story: BBC

From the FBI report today: "Seven individuals and two corporations have been charged in the United States with running an international organized criminal enterprise allegedly responsible for massive worldwide online piracy of numerous types of copyrighted works through Megaupload.com and other related sites, generating more than $175 million in criminal proceeds and causing more than half a billion dollars in harm to copyright owners, the U.S. Justice Department and FBI announced today."

Update from Arbor Networks:

With enough global data, you can actually see the traffic drop when the shutdown occurs. Based strictly on the traffic rates it appears that the shutdown started just after 19:00 GMT on January 19, with traffic plummeting down over the next two hours. The graphic here shows three main client regions – Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the US.

Other sources: (UPDATED Jan 21, 2012 3:19 PM PST)
The MegaUpload Shutdown Effect Jan.21.2012
DoJ Targets Co's for Piracy - DDoS Attacks Unleashed Infosec, Jan.19.2012

Read full story: New York Times

Other sources: (UPDATED Jan 19, 2012 12:40 PM PST)
The Internet Spoke and, Finally, Congress Listened! EFF, Jan.20.2012
Lawmakers try to keep anti-piracy bills on track AP, Jan.19.2012
PIPA support collapses, with 13 new Senators opposed Ars Technica, Jan.18.2012

I, for one, have been a proponent of new gTLDs from the early days of their policy development process within ICANN. I always believed that the existing gTLDs — and mainly the .com space — have created artificial scarcity, which is primarily responsible for much of the cybersquatting and the abuse trademarks experience. I do not share the same fears as those who argue that new gTLDs will create intolerable levels of cybersquatting or will necessitate defensive registrations from brand and trademark owners alike. As for the policy itself, I do not believe it is perfect and I feel that, for certain issues, ICANN could have taken a different direction, but, ultimately I recognize and respect ICANN'S multistakeholder governance structure and the decisions that have come out of it.

Lately, however, something has caught my attention, which can potentially create problems. Almost the same day ICANN opened up its application process, a tiny start-up was granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) a trademark for .bank (registration number 4085335). What is the problem with this? The problem is twofold: first of all, there is a general principle within traditional trademark law, which instructs that generic terms cannot be trademarked if they are to reflect what the term means. In this context, a company would not be able to register the word coffee and sell coffee. This would provide an unfair competitive advantage to any company and would, most likely, excommunicate all other similar companies selling coffee. Secondly, by granting this application, the USPTO is essentially leaving ICANN and its Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) with a big problem. Part of the whole exercise regarding the role of the GAC within the new gTLD process related to the GAC's role; this issue was resolved with the agreement that the GAC would be in the position to provide early advice to any new gTLD application, effectively giving the GAC the right to torpedo and determine the success of an application, which the GAC believes it raises issues of cultural significance or is contrary to national laws. To this end, it is exactly names like .bank that the GAC had in mind when they were pushing ICANN to insert this provision within the Applicant Guidebook: "[The GAC may advise] ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application 'dot-example'. The ICANN Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a rationale for its decision".

Now, with the USPTO granting trademark rights for .bank, this early warning mechanism becomes superfluous, and multiple rights are created for .bank. On the one side, there are the rights of the trademark owner; on the other, there is the GAC which believes that the term .bank is sensitive enough to interfere and whoever applies needs to go through a scrutiny process; and, finally, there is also the rumoured applicant of .bank — a joint effort made by the American Bankers Association (ABA) and BITS, part of Financial Services Roundtable. So, in practical terms, what the USPTO has essentially done is to provide the opportunity to an independent entity to object the application of .bank by asserting valid trademark rights.

So, this is a mess and a mess that will only get worse unless trademark offices around the world stop granting trademark registrations to .generics. The way things are right now, the GAC may sign off the .bank gTLD to ABA and BITS, but the owner of .bank will have valid claims to stop this application process or at least demand some sort of financial compensation for giving up the name to someone else. And, if he is really pissed off or he wants to retain .bank for his own personal use, he can then sue for trademark infringement. In any case, the trademark owner is the only winner here and both the GAC and the American Bankers should feel very pissed off with the USPTO. At this stage, the only solution is for the USPTO to accept that they screwed up and recall this trademark. 

Written by Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer

"Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.

While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

The first is a long and convoluted article by Kieren McCarthy on the .JOBS debacle. Kieren has basically written a feature that only a seasoned ICANN insider can hope to understand and that's a pity, because the points he makes appear very valid. Namely that ICANN is incapable of looking at itself in the mirror and admitting when it's wrong.

The second is an op-ed that makes it clear ICANN often has no-one but itself to blame for the bad press it receives.

Take the long list ICANN directors this article points its finger at as having a stake in the new gTLD game. Anyone not well-versed with the ICANN process would certainly look with some discomfort at the fact that several industry people sit on the Board of the organisation that is approving the Internet's biggest expansion ever. And, be thankful for small mercies, author David Rowan has apparently not heard of previous ICANN Chairman Peter Dengate-Thrush's damaging move to a new gTLD firm minutes after he'd led the Board to an approval vote for the program last June. Otherwise he would have surely painted an even starker picture of ICANN…

As it stands, the picture is bleak, and yes it is one-sided. The truth is that the reason the governance model that ICANN embodies is so strong is in part because it involves industry insiders. For that read people who actually understand what they're voting on! A welcome change from traditional politician-driven governance bodies where the decision makers don't know the slightest thing about the market they're looking at.

But ICANN has not been tough enough with itself in the past, and thus left itself wide open to such attacks. Under existing ICANN rules, Dengate-Thrush did nothing wrong. But that doesn't make it right, because there's a difference between doing what you're allowed to do and doing the right thing. ICANN has since beefed up the onus on its directors to disclose potential conflicts of interests and is asking them more clearly not to benefit directly from Board decisions. It should have come sooner.

Up until now, ICANN has also made a very poor job of explaining how it works, and the benefits it brings. Instead, when it doesn't work, ICANN just gets all upset and sulks, treating critics with at best disdain, at worst outright arrogance.

And that's a pity, because its public/private sector-led governance model remains better suited to something as fast-evolving as the Internet than some sclerosis-riddled organisation who's members might sometimes value state control more than individual freedoms or public service.

Written by Stéphane Van Gelder, General manager of INDOM

Community gTLDs have been part of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) concern even since the idea of this gTLD round was first envisioned. Whether the discussion was centered around a potential .bank or a potential .lakota, the minutes of GNSO Policy Development Process on new gTLD are replete with discussions of how to make it possible for communities to gain access to the names that were relevant to their communities and to prevent others from obtaining those names when it would harm their community. One of the GNSO Implementation Guidelines for the round discussed the issue and the ICANN Application process contains several provisions dealing with Community Applications and Community Objections.

Many have argued that the ICANN Community Priority Evaluation is rigged against the community applicants and have warned that no one can succeed in gaining the required score of 14 out of 16 points to be deemed a Community in the ICANN Sense. I disagree. I think it will require a rigorous approach to the applications and it has costs and constraints that need to be understood, but I believe Community TLD applicants do have a chance to prevail in a Community Priority Evaluation. Not a guarantee, but a fighting chance.

I also believe that the other side of the community coin, Community Objections also have a strong potential for protecting real communities form the harms of commercial exploitation, even in cases where a trademarked brand attempts to misappropriate a community's names as Internet property. This won't be easy, and this too will require a rigorous approach using the rules contained in Application Guidebook (section 3.2.1). But I believe it can be done.

I have every hope that, in retrospect, we will look back on the gTLD Round of 2012 as one milestone for communities establishing their Internet identities; as the time when the world's community in all their diversity established their identities and voice on the Internet. Since the beginning of the policy development process in the GNSO, I have been an advocate of strong support for communities, all kinds of communities, rich ones, poor ones, hierarchical ones, diffused one and even spider communities too. Over the next few months I will attempt to capture the results of several years' research and advocacy in the field of community support into a series of blogs. The first of these blogs can be found at: http://avri.doria.org/

Written by Avri Doria, Independent Research Consultant

Even though ICANN leaders were busy writing letters to transparently communicate further details of the new gTLD program and convince skeptics and explain the amount of work that has already been done to address the main concerns that were being raised, especially by the Association of National Advertisers, the issue caught the attention of big media.

The Washington Post Editorial Board on the other hand ignores such meticulous transparency on the part of ICANN and calls the Internet governance body "the obscure but powerful organization that manages domain names" and that "ICANN reports to no one." This is a failed attempt to give ICANN a bad name.

ICANN can hardly be described as 'obscure but powerful' as if its Internet governance work and decisions that affects us all are conducted in a secret conclave. ICANN is very transparent, holds regular international meetings on a regular basis, and publishes its entire technical and fiscal activities and works-in-progress and Board Decisions on its web site as behooves an organization that is committed to a transparent model of operation, even as it sits on top of a global multi-stakeholder system that gives everyone a voice in the governance of the Internet. ICANN reports to the global community of stakeholders as it continues to serve a global public interest. It is rather patent that such skewed editorial comments by the 'Washington Post' are aimed at influencing public opinion to go against the ICANN new gTLD program. Another influential American newspaper, the 'New York Times' has also taken cue from the Washington Post and published another critical editorial calling on ICANN to delay the new gTLD program launch date. So far, the vociferous commentaries against the new gTLD program by these two leading newspapers have not shaken the resolve of ICANN.

Furthermore, it is clear that as those who have abiding faith in the multi-stakeholder model and the new gTLD program try to move forward in 2012, there are many who would like to weaken the resolve of ICANN by attempting to portray it as what it is not, and by so doing try to derail the new gTLD program. It is for these reasons that I urge the global community of multi-stakeholders to provide unconditional support for ICANN to enable it deliver the new gTLD program successfully.

Political e-Sovereignty vs. Multi-stakeholder Model - The Battle Royale

Only the new gTLD program guarantees that our Pan-African constituency will get the DotAfrica gTLD based on an open and transparent process. Early in January 2011, as spearhead of the Yes2DotAfrica Campaign, I had written an open letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce to provide support for ICANN, and clarify that the program contained adequate safeguards to protect brands and copyright owners. In the same letter, I had also tried to further justify the need for the DotAfrica gTLD, arguing that as the last frontier for development, Africa sorely needs the new geographical top-level domain name.

Already the battles lines are drawn over DotAfrica. On one side are those who are against the multi-stakeholder model, and believe that political sovereignty over African countries also gives them de facto technological rights over an Internet-based geographical gTLD such as DotAfrica. A recent CNN 'Inside Africa' news story quoted Mr. Moctar Yedaly of the African Union as saying, "[t]he .africa domain represented all Africans in the same way as the African Union flag," and further saying, "[i]t should operate in the 'interests of the community', rather than the interests of individuals in the private sector. 'This is for Africa, and Africa is 54 states.'" Such tenuous arguments which are simply a veiled attempt to use political sovereignty to take over the DotAfrica gTLD are unsustainable since the new gTLD program was not devised by ICANN to enable the AU Commission achieve e-sovereignty over Africa (or DotAfrica).

The goals of the new gTLD program are very clear, and if Africans are to benefit from what the DotAfrica vision offers, then such arguments that are based entirely on political sovereignty, and not on a well-articulated mission and purpose should be jettisoned as ill-conceived. In a true multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance as it applies to the new gTLD program, political sovereignty should not be used as a lever by governments or inter-governmental bodies such as the AU, since each country already has its two-code country-level domain. This again underscores why I am calling on the global community to continue to provide the necessary support to shore up the multi-stakeholder modeled by ICANN.

The new gTLD program needs the multi-stakeholder model in order to achieve its stated objectives. There is a 'battle royale' ahead and I will not shy away from fighting to vigorously defend the multi-stakeholder model under ICANN's leadership. 2012 is the year to defend the multi-stakeholder model so that the new gTLD program will be successful for everybody.

ICANN is not Alone

As we go into 2012, I am encouraged that there are many, including top officials and leaders in Washington DC, who believe in ICANN's leadership of the multi-stakeholder model, and that the organization should be allowed to successfully midwife the new gTLD program. The Honorable Senator John 'Jay' Rockefeller for example was reported in the ICANN Blog as giving his full support: "I think we have to get used to dot-hotels. I think we have to get used to dot-auto." This is an important vote of confidence for ICANN that came from the distinguished Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation during the official hearing regarding ICANN's new gTLD Program on December 8, 2011. Further support for the ICANN-led multi-stakeholder model also came from Mr. Lawrence E. Strickling, the Assistant Secretary in the United States Department of Commerce, whose department oversees ICANN's mandate. Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling believes that the multi-stakeholder process 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."

ICANN's new gTLD program Readiness Efforts

ICANN on its part has already published its operational readiness matrix for the program by its 12th January launch date. Detailed preparations have been made regarding readying the TLD Application System (TAS), launching a customer service centre, engaging dispute resolution service providers, application fee processing, putting in place a process to provide support to applicants, and many other important activities and tasks that required detailed planning and implementation. Thus, this is one big program management effort on the part of ICANN that is the culmination of many years of committed policy development working on actionable objectives, and it would be self-defeating to either delay or stop the program altogether at this stage. The wise course of action is to continue with the new gTLD program, whilst the only present challenge is how to garner adequate support and encouragement to ICANN to ensure that the program succeeds in the face of strong but uninformed opposition. It is therefore vital that ICANN continues with its gTLD communications plan even as the new gTLD application round commences by 12th January 2012.

Those prospective new gTLD applicants who have made ample technical preparations and financial investments to participate in this current application round would be strongly encouraged that ICANN has decided to continue with its new gTLD program plan of action despite strident voices calling for delays and work stoppage altogether.

It is important that the present new gTLD round succeeds so that ICANN will feel confident enough to move to the next (second) new gTLD round. Failure will have very negative ramifications for the overall future of the Internet, with harmful implications for ICANN's stewardship of a stable and secure Internet based on the multi-stakeholder model, and this must be avoided at all cost. If the new gTLD program fails, the detractors of ICANN will be the first to point accusing fingers, even though they worked against the launch of the new gTLD program in the first place.

On this note I would like to wish ICANN and all prospective gTLD applicants a resounding success in the new gTLD program.

Written by Sophia Bekele, CEO of DotConnectAfrica