Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    USA Goverment Relations Commerce Dept: We Don't Do TLDs
    posted by michael on Sunday July 08 2001, @06:10PM

    If there was any doubt that the US government officially takes the rubber stamp approach to ICANN's "recommendations" about new gTLDs, that doubt is gone: Last week the Department of Commerce officially stated for the first time that its policy on gTLDs is to do whatever ICANN says. The candor came as the Department of Commerce rejected a petition for rulemaking filed by the Atlantic Root Network (the operators of the .biz alternate root).

    DoC's letter rejected the petition for rulemaking not because the department is too busy, but because, it said, the department has an official policy of leaving gTLD decisions to the private sector (i.e. ICANN): "In July 1998, the Department of Commerce made it clear that it would not participate in the selection process of new TLDs ... the selection of new TLDs should be conducted by the private sector through a not-for-profit organization, globally representative of the Internet stakeholder community. The Department recognized ICANN as that organization in November 1998 through a Memorandum of Understanding."

    Although this hands-off attitude will hardly come as news to anyone who has been following DNS politics for the last three years, as a legal matter, this letter is significant. The 1998 White Paper was, under US law, a mere nonbinding "statement of policy". Such agency documents, issued to explain to the public how the agency intends to use its discretionary authority, do not actually have the force of law, and as such are also easily disclaimed in the event of any court challenge to agency actions. In particular, it remained open to the agency to conduct a case-by-case review of ICANN's decisions, as indeed it did in the case of the VeriSign contracts.

    In contrast to a statement of policy, a denial of a petition for rulemaking is a real agency decision with legal consequences, albeit one of the hardest types to challenge in court because of the great deference courts usually give to an agency's choices about the issues it believes potentially need regulation. By predicating its refusal on a policy of deference to ICANN, and also by its actions in approving .info and .biz within hours of ICANN's IANA-hatted recommendation that it do so, the agency has shown that it adheres to the statement of policy when it matters. That candor will certainly clarify the issues enormously in the event of any court challenge alleging that DoC's relies on ICANN for policy judgments more than the law allows a public body to rely on a private body.

    A particularly striking aspect of DoC's reliance on ICANN, one scarcely addressed in either the White Paper or DoC's latest letter, is how or why DoC's delegation to ICANN of the power to decide which TLD strings get into the legacy root should bring with it the power to establish lengthy contractual conditions as to how the TLD is to be managed. While the choice of TLDs might be defended as a ‘technical' matter, the close control over the business of being a registry cannot seriously be called anything other than a whole series of policy choices. It's understandable why DoC might enjoy being out of the line of fire, but much less clear that the law allows it this passive role.

    Here's the full text of the letter sent by the Department of Commerce:

    [Date stamped Jun 25 2001]

    Mr. William H. Bode
    Bode & Beckman, LLP
    1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
    Ninth Floor
    Washington, DC 20036-4192

    Dear Mr. Bode:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is in receipt of your letter on behalf of your client the Atlantic Root Network, Inc. regarding its concerns about the process by which the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) selects new top level domains (TLDs).

    In July 1998, the Department of Commerce made it clear that it would not participate in the selection process of new TLDs as set forth in the Statement of Policy, entitled Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 31741 (1998). In the Statement of Policy, the Department recognized that the selection of new TLDs should be conducted by the private sector through a not-for-profit organization, globally representative of the Internet stakeholder community. The Department recognized ICANN as that organization in November 1998 through a Memorandum of Understanding.

    We note that at its May 2001 board of directors meeting, ICANN approved the establishment of a New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force (Task Force) ro monitor the implementation process and to evaluate the selection process of the new TLDs. The ICANN board resolution stated that the Task Force will make recommendations to the ICANN board and the Internet community regarding the selection process. It is our understanding that the Task Force will allow public input when formulating its recommendations. We encourage you to participate in this opportunity. In a recent letter to ICANN, the Department encouraged ICANN to move forward in the selection of new TLDs in order to increase competition in the domain name space.

    Again we encourage you to direct Atlantic Root Network's concerns regarding ICANN's selection process directly to ICANN.

    John F. Sopko
    Acting Assistant Secretary for
    Communications and Information

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

      Related Links  
  • ICANNWatch.org
  • much less clear that the law allows it this passive role
  • rubber stamp approach
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Commerce Dept: We Don't Do TLDs | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 13 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • 8 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com