The terms "broadcasting" and "broadcasting undertaking", interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission. The Broadcasting Act makes it clear that "broadcasting undertakings" are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. ... When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. The term "broadcasting undertaking" does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Act's policy objectives. Accordingly, ISPs do not carry on "broadcasting undertakings" under the Broadcasting Act when they provide access through the Internet to "broadcasting" requested by end‑users.

I believe that I speak for many when I question whether ICANN is opening up these comment periods in good faith, or instead whether these are smokescreens, mere distractions to pretend that ICANN is "listening" to the public while staff and insiders proceed with predetermined outcomes.

I note that as of today, there are multiple past comment periods where ICANN staff have not yet even summarized/digested the public's input. This is simply unacceptable. In other organizations, people would get fired for not doing their jobs in a timely manner. At ICANN, such behaviour is not only tolerated, it is seemingly encouraged. It appears to be part of the culture of "willful blindness" of ICANN staff, insiders and the Board, in order that its "top-down" agenda can be imposed upon an unwilling public, rather than actually listening to the public in the "bottom-up" process that it suggests exists.

Furthermore, when ICANN does bother to get around to publishing summaries, it's clear that they do not even listen to what the public has to say on the topic! The public opposed new TLDs by a great margin. It was a very clear message, yet ICANN kept ignoring what the public had to say, and mischaracterized their words when speaking to others (e.g. politicians in Washington, etc.) about the public "consensus."

One sees that ICANN continues to speak in that twisted and biased manner in this actual comment period, when it uses loaded phrases such as "carefully crafted, new protections" or "perception" or "perceived need" — the underlying assumption being that the public is simply "stupid" and "doesn't understand" new TLDs, and if only the public "knew better", they would "come around" and "love what ICANN is doing." That is simply preposterous and arrogant. It demonstrates that ICANN is out of touch with reality. The informed public knows that new TLDs will be a disaster, and has said so in clear language at every opportunity. ICANN is not "misunderstood" as some people believe — the public fully understands ICANN, and opposes its plans! Period!

ICANN acts like a greedy politician, asking for a "tax increase" to pay for a new bureaucracy that simply transfers wealth from the public to itself and its insiders. ICANN is not creating new wealth. ICANN is destroying wealth. Taxpayers see through attempts to bamboozle them that the "tax increase" is a good thing. Just as the public sees through attempts by ICANN and its insiders to bamboozle them that this new TLDs plan is "good" for the public. Attempts to dress up their greedy proposal using words like "innovation" fail, because the public is smarter than ICANN and can see through their self-serving proposals.

One need only look at the .XXX rollout, which was a disaster for the public. Millions of dollars were spent by universities, non-profits, individuals and corporations to purchase "protection" so that someone else could not tarnish their image/brand/identity. ICANN and its insiders do not consider this to be a "disaster", though — they look at this as "innovation", and pat themselves on the back saying "job well done." ICANN might pretend "well, no one told us this was going to happen… how were we to know??" That's utter nonsense, of course. One can go back to the analysis of Tim Berners-Lee on new TLDs, who didn't mince his words. He said "New Top Level Domains Considered Harmful". Could one be more clear?? [NB: He was not pointing to just .mobi and .xxx — he was saying this about ALL new TLDs (see the "Title" tag in the W3C page).]

ICANN and its insiders are emboldened by the dot-XXX launch. They want to multiply that "tax" on the public, what many have described as a "protection racket", a thousand-fold. ICANN suggests that "this time will be different" — keep dreaming! The only thing that will be different is the *degree* to which the public will be damaged. ICANN wants to damage the public a thousand-fold, to the benefit of itself and its insiders.

ICANN instead needs to take a step back, whether willingly or by being forced to do so by the GAC, DOC, NTIA, DOJ or by other agents that are representative of the public interest. I suggest ICANN be compelled to do the following:

(1) immediately suspend the new TLDs rollout, and refund all monies collected to date.

(2) terminate the staff who have pushed forward this new TLDs plan over the objections of the public. It's clear that these staff have their own agenda that does not reflect the public interest, and it's time for new blood that is ready to serve the public, rather than staff who want to be masters over an enslaved public.

(3) go back and present true options to the public regarding new TLDs. In our prior recent submissions (see here and here), (which ICANN has yet to summarize, although we repeat much past input) we identified FIVE allocation methods for new TLDs. Five! 5! Yet, ICANN has never presented them all as options to be seriously considered. They simply imposed in a top-down manner their single plan that maximized the benefits to ICANN's insiders, rather than allow for competing alternatives that maximize the benefits, if any, to the public. One can see some of the options that ICANN failed to allow the public to even comment on, such as:

(i) no new TLDs

(ii) .com domains simply "ascending" to the root (no need for "defensive registration" concerns in that scenario, is there??)

(iii) Ascended TLDs approach (see here for full description) which also reduces the need for defensive registrations considerably.

(iv) regular competitive bidding/tenders for lowest cost to registrants (this was the DOJ/NTIA/DOC proposal in December 2008)

(4) go back and do true economic studies that weigh the benefits and the costs on the public (not just the benefit to ICANN and its insiders) for all alternatives (including the four options presented in point (3) above), not just the self-serving single plan that ICANN wants to impose upon the public. The economic studies must be truly independent, with researchers selected by the NTIA/DOC/DOJ or GAC, and not by ICANN staff/insiders.

In conclusion, ICANN simply acts as if it "knows better" (which it doesn't) and dismisses all attacks on its extremist and disastrous plans. It is our true hope that ICANN not be allowed to damage the DNS further. As Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

"The second effect is that instability is brought on. There is a flurry of activity to reserve domain names, a rush one cannot afford to miss in order to protect one's brand. There is a rash of attempts to steal well-known or valuable domains. The whole process involves a lot of administration, a lot of cost per month, a lot of business for those involved in the domain name business itself, and a negative value to the community."

The existence of this comment period about "defensive registrations" is proof that "Sir Tim" was right! (maybe that's why he was knighted, due to his brilliance) We ask that the new TLDs plan be terminated, so that further "negative value to community" does not occur. By continuing to ignore the public's wishes, ICANN is causing DNS instability. A trusted custodian of the DNS would not be causing DNS instability. Yet, ICANN has been doing exactly that. It's time that the world recognizes that ICANN is no longer a trusted custodian of the DNS and its damaging plans must be opposed.

Written by George Kirikos, President, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

John Stankey, President and CEO, AT&T: "Data consumption right now is growing 40% a year."

With growth rates less than half of the predictions, a data-driven FCC and Congress has no reason to rush to bad policy. Wireless technology is rapidly moving to sharing spectrum, whether in-building small cells, WiFi, White Spaces, Shared RAN or tools of what the engineers are calling hetnets — heterogenous networks. The last thing policymakers should do is tie up more spectrum for exclusive use; shared spectrum often yields three to ten times as much capacity.

Bad compromises on the video spectrum are unnecessary because plenty of spectrum is unused. That includes the 20 MHz that M2Z would be building out today if Julius hadn't blocked them; the 20 MHz the cable companies are sitting on and want to sell to Verizon; and the 30 MHz or so Stankey identifies as fallow at AT&T.

40% growth is still substantial, but wireless technology is improving at a breathtaking pace. LTE has about 10x the capacity of 2.5G and 4x the capacity of 3G. LTE Advanced, deploying beginning 2013 at Verizon, is designed for 10x the capacity of LTE. Putting more spectrum to use would be great, but let's do it right.

Wireless speeds are actually going up dramatically, with AT&T delivering 2-5 megabits to most of the country and Verizon's LTE delivering 5-12 megabits to 2/3rds of the population. Verizon is ahead of schedule to bring 5 megabits+ to 92% of the country in 2013 and 96-98% in 2015-2016. AT&T and Sprint have raised capex to catch up. 80%+ of the U.S. will have a 5 megabit offering in 2013-2014, 90%+ by 2015 or sooner. That's without any additional spectrum.

Today's wireless networks are designed to be shared: towers, WiFi, White Spaces, DAS and small cells all working together. The best engineers in the world are working on RAN sharing, SON, hetnets, 8x8 MIMO and techniques I'm writing about in my next book, Gigabit Wireless. AT&T in fact is one of the world leaders in DAS, WiFi and femtos and behind the scenes a key thought leader. There's wonderfully exciting stuff I'll be doing my best to translate for non-engineers.

Takeaway: The future is sharing the airwaves so let's get the policy right.

Written by Dave Burstein, Editor, DSL Prime

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.

Google Plus is of course Google's entry into the social network battle, and the service recently announced over 90 million users. Just this month Google has started inserting social media content from Google Plus listings (when available) into the search engine response pages (SERPs) on Google. However, other major sources of social media content — Facebook, Twitter — are not included.

Danny does a great job of laying out why this is overly preferential, and doesn't deliver the best search result. The engineers from Facebook, Twitter and MySpace behind Focus on the User have developed a bookmarklet called, "Don't Be Evil, get it?" that you can add to your browser to pull more comprehensive social media listings into your personalized search results.

Danny makes a strong case this improves current search results. He provides lots of screenshots like the one below. It's important to note that the bookmarklet is using Google's own algorithmic rankings for these revised SERPs.

Danny also includes the other side of the story. Sites like Facebook and Twitter do not license their content to be crawled, so why should Google include this content?

"Google, in particular its executive chairman Eric Schmidt, has argued that it doesn't have all the data it needs to include other social services in the way it does for Google Plus. The failure to reach a deal with Facebook; the failure to renew a deal with Twitter, these have prevented the social signals it needs from being used, Google has said."

What the Focus on the User group has done is clearly demonstrated that Google could have included other content if it wanted. And to my read Danny has made a convincing argument that Google SHOULD do this, because it delivers the highest quality search results back to the user.

If legal concerns are really what is holding Google back, the company should challenge Facebook and Twitter to allow them to use the same inputs Focus on the User has accessed via the bookmarklet. If those companies refuse, then publicize that decision.

I've installed the Focus on the User tool and I'm doing my own comparisons. If anyone out there is already using it, please drop a comment with your impressions.

Written by Christopher Parente, High Tech Public Relations

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 domain names. 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 after registered parties have become unreachable. 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 domain names 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 use domain names 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 .

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, whether domain name or IP address organisations, by setting a standard. It makes one avenue on the Internet harder to reach for criminals.

Update - Feb 7, 2012: Some amendments were made to the post as per comment #4

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

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.

ACMA receives a major compliment

In 2004, when I first entered the anti-spam arena, this was a mantra that I had to hear very often: "Spam is international. We cannot do anything", spoken with a lot of emphasis and some despair. Unfortunately in 2012 this is still true for many countries. Not because of the fact that it is impossible to do something about spam, no, but due to a lack of initiatives. I think that a great compliment to Australia's ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) was published on CircleID in a comment to an article about the impact of Canada's spam law on local businesses. Brett Watson, an Australian internet engineer, writes:

"However, my present (and general) lack of anything to complain about reflects well on the law and its enforcement… Perhaps what's most telling is that I have, for the first time, subscribed to some advertising newsletters in recent years. I don't feel the need to jealously protect my email address any more, or diligently use uniquely tagged addresses when handing them over. I trust ACMA to keep the companies in line, and the trust seems well placed so far."

This proves that fighting spam is effective and that the combination enforcement with filtering by ISPs keeps mailboxes clean. Spam hasn't gone away, but at national level companies are disciplined and mostly act within the law in the few countries with vigorous enforcement bodies.

Who enforces what?

Privacy and spam are closely related. Spam is seen as an invasion of privacy. But it goes way beyond mere privacy. Privacy sensitive data is often used, sold or worse stolen in order to approach people. Whether to sell a(n illegal) product, phish for more (bank)data or industrial espionage, a stolen e-mail address is often the basis of law violations. The patchwork of enforcement agencies, unclear enforcement powers, the lack of understanding of the issues at stake, of resources, training or powers, the unavailability of online reporting of spam or cyber crime, all make that enforcement is far from optimal in most countries.

Standardisation of spam and cyber crime law

Could a standardised law, with a standardised toolkit for enforcement agencies make a difference? Yes, I think that it would. For the public it would mean that there is the certainty that when the law is broken, it is clear who to report to and that it is likely that an investigation follows. That it makes a difference to complain. For senders it also sets clear boundaries. Their business continues, as is proven in e.g. The Netherlands, but in compliance with the law. Next to that it offers this clearness in 27 states.

As spam, e-fraud, phishing, cyber crime and worse are all so closely related and often involves several countries, it makes sense to be more directive from Brussels. At national level there are so many different laws, ministries and enforcement agencies involved, that coordination there is almost utopian. Next to the fact that success without industry participation is clearly unthinkable. Despite the fact that the Dutch National Cyber Security Centre is a promising initiative, it is obvious that for most countries this form of public-private cooperation is hard to attain.

A proposed course of action for the EU Cyber Security Centre

The discussion about the EU Cyber Security Centre is under way. Let me give a pointer on what the centre could do. To my mind it ought, also, to actively collect, analyse and share data with those involved: public and private entities, universities. This gives the centre coordinative powers in matters cross border and across different enforcement organisations as well. Two difficult hurdles taken… should this come to pass. The combination of the overview and oversight with the transparency caused by available, shared data makes all concerned answerable for their (lack of) actions to the centre and each other. I am also convinced that this model will lay the foundation for cooperation with whole new groups of Internet industry partners that are now harder to reach/convince.

Ambition at Commissioner level

If Commissioners Kroes, Malmström and Reding used their powers to harmonise the laws and enforcement in the way Ms. Reding proposes for privacy, i.e. the same law and enforcement tools, standardised enforcement agencies and a point of case handling, the fighting of privacy infringements, spam, malware and cyber crime may actually take a turn for the better. They are so intertwined that another approach is (well, should be) almost unthinkable.

The combination of a pro-active EU Cyber Security Centre with a layer of harmonisation where enforcement is concerned will prove to be a structural step forward from the present situation in many countries. Yes, this is ambitious, but it is clear that the present approach is not going to change much. Everything cyber is still a field day for criminals and a private company, Microsoft, so far is the most successful in fighting botnets. This ought to be different, shouldn't it?

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

Known as CASL, the new law aims to crack down on spammers and mailing list companies but in doing so, tightly regulates the way businesses can market to prospective customers via email and online.

In a nutshell, CASL requires a business to obtain consent from the recipient before it sends out commercial electronic messages (CEMs). It isn't limited to email; consent must be given for any electronic message, which could also include messages sent via social media, text messaging, instant messaging, sound or video. If your business operates outside of Canada, you shouldn't assume the Anti-Spam Act doesn't apply to you. If a computer system within Canada is used to send, receive or even route the message, then the law could also apply to you.

It is in obtaining consent before sending an electronic message where the Canadian Anti-Spam Act differs from its American equivalent. The United States' CAN-SPAM Act requires that recipients are given an opt-out option from commercial messages but under CASL, recipients must opt-in to receive electronic messages.

The fines for violating the Anti-Spam Act are hefty. The maximum penalty per violation for an individual is CAD $1,000,000 and $10,000,000 for corporations. With potentially crippling fines waiting in the wings for violators, how can you ensure your company is compliant?

The first thing is to be aware of which messages require consent before they are sent. There are a few exceptions, which include personal relationships or when the company is providing requested information. Consent can usually be implied if there is an existing business arrangement of two years or more, or if an email address has been disclosed in the course of business. You can read more about exceptions to CASL here.

If your electronic message doesn't fall under an exception category, then you will need to obtain consent before sending it. The message should also include an unsubscribe mechanism. To ensure compliance, your company should establish procedures to obtain consent for electronic messages and educate staff on the Anti-Spam Act. The most important thing to remember before you press 'send' is the onus is on your company to prove you received consent.

Do you operate a business in Canada? How do you think the Anti-Spam Act will affect the way you market electronically? Please contribute to the conversation below.

Sources:
Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation: Casting a Wide Net
Anti-spam law draws backlash
Three 2011 developments that changed your inbox forever
Canada: Preparing For Canada's New Anti-Spam And Online Fraud Act
CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business

Written by Susanna Sharpe, Social Media Manager

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

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

Read full story: Computerworld

The ICANN new gTLD program began today, 12th January 2012, with the application round now open and this important activity will make 2012 a very memorable year. It is expected that a minimum of 500 fresh applications for new generic Top Level Domains will be received by ICANN through the online TLD Applications System (TAS) by April 12 when the round closes, for processing and evaluation afterwards. This promises to be a hectic and engaging period for new gTLD applicants, and also for ICANN.

It is customary for individuals and organizations to make New Year resolutions. In 2012, my New Year resolution is to lead a team to apply to ICANN to win the mandate for the DotAfrica new gTLD and operation of the DotAfrica registry when the application round opens on January 12, 2012.

I believe that the new ICANN gTLD program offers a more transparent method to arrive at a suitable operator for the DotAfrica registry. Many international/inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) including the African Union Commission have already asked for certain new gTLD name strings to be included in the Top-Level Reserved Names List so that such 'reserved names' would be unavailable for applicants. It is important to note that ICANN has so far not wavered and yielded to such impossible and unreasonably imperious demands.

Also, during 2012, we foresee that the debate will intensify for a new global Internet governance architecture to perhaps, dethrone the present governance mechanism led by ICANN. I believe that such moves will be disruptive to the current system and will be championed by those who wish to see greater control of the Internet by governments as they wish to use political sovereignty to forcefully impose their ownership on the Internet and restrict the applicability of the current stakeholder model.

Therefore, whilst we are all enthusiastic for 2012 because of the new gTLD program, we must also be cautiously optimistic and very mindful on account of the difficult battles ahead. ICANN needs support from all those who are genuinely committed to the multi-stakeholder model within the global Internet Community.

The U.S. Government's Interest in a 'Free Internet'

Those who wish to disrupt the status quo argue against ICANN because they see it as a United States-based entity that works to oversight and execute a U.S.-government contract, thus, an agent of the United States Government. Such arguments that mostly emanate from outside the U.S., for example China, Russia, and India, are often aimed at countering perceived U.S. hegemony over the Internet, but also fail to realize that the U.S. gave the Internet to the world. We all seem to forget so soon that the history of the Internet is actually rooted in the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency Network (DARPANET). Even though the U.S. 'owns' the Internet on the basis of its historical origins, we must all recognize that the U.S. has also tried to maintain the independence of the Internet, since something that was born out of the innovation of scientific and technological freedom, a pillar of American culture, cannot be subjected to unnecessary restrictions that will hinder its further development as a platform of true innovation on a sustainable basis. This is what the new gTLD program aims for — as one of its key objectives — to spur further innovation on the Internet as new Internet domains are creatively exploited beyond what we have currently. It is anticipated that the new gTLD program shall unleash further inventiveness on the Internet platform.

Another reason why the United States government tries its level best to ensure a free Internet is because it serves its foreign policy goals with respect to public diplomacy and outreach at very minimal cost. Internet-enabled protest movements are bringing down undemocratic governments faster than any overt regime-change effort or ideology has managed to do in the past. Judging from the recent experience of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and now Syria, it would have been very difficult for a successful case to have been made for the military invasion of Iraq — but this is 2012 and not 2003 when there was no Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. A contemporary argument would be: "we need not send a large military force to achieve regime change; let the people have their Internet access, and their Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, and let them mobilize, organize themselves on social media and bring about political change themselves."

Special Interest Groups against the ICANN new gTLD Program

Thus, on one hand, a free Internet serves the American interest of promoting freedom on a global basis, there are also forces within the United States that are against ICANN, who do not wish the new gTLD program to proceed such as the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) that are worried about brand and trademark infringements and have actively lobbied the U.S. Department of Commerce and campaigned against the new gTLD program. The new gTLD program is threatened by those who think it is being rushed, but conveniently ignore the fact that the new gTLD policy development process has taken about seven (7) years to accomplish during which period all necessary safeguards and measures were put in place to protect trademarks and brand-owners during the new gTLD application process. The ANA argues that new gTLDs will increase 'cyber-squatting', meanwhile the ICANN new gTLD process has zero-tolerance for cyber-squatting behavior, and any applicant with a proven history of cyber-squatting risks automatic disqualification by ICANN.

The Prolonged Policy Development Process

As a former ICANN GNSO council member who was involved during the rigorous new gTLD policy development process, I believe all these issues raised by the ANA and other corporate brand owners have already been addressed adequately. Such fears, even though valid, are presently unfounded because they have already been taken care of.

In a recent ICANN Blog post, Kurt Pritz who heads the new gTLD Program and recently testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation's hearing on the new gTLD program, wrote:

"I gave the Committee a brief history of the new gTLD program and highlighted the seven years of thorough, transparent and inclusive discussion and debate, including: 2400 public comments from 47 extended comment periods that resulted in over 1400 pages of comment summary and analysis, formation of ten independent expert working groups, and 59 explanatory memoranda and independent reports."

In a nutshell, Kurt Pritz, speaking for ICANN, has successfully argued before the U.S. Senate Committee that mutatis mutandis, the new gTLD program should work for everyone's benefit.

Support for ICANN

It became clear by the day that ICANN needs both institutional support and moral encouragement to proceed with the program in a level-headed manner. Personally I saw the clamors for delays as simply the first step in attempting to kill the program, and pull the rug from under the feet of ICANN. Early in this New Year, Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chairman was quick to explain that delaying the program would serve no purpose, other than playing into the hands of those who wanted to derail it, and that the critics of the program could not point to any specific aspect where additional time would help in working out further details.

I am glad to see that 2011 ended and 2012 began with ICANN continuing to show resolve in staying the course, and a strong determination to proceed with the new gTLD program and not buckle in the face of ardent political pressure especially from lobbyists.

Written by Sophia Bekele, CEO of DotConnectAfrica