DOCSLIB.ORG

ICANN INTERNET GOVERNANCE: IS IT WORKING? HEARING Serial No. 109-142

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ICANN INTERNET GOVERNANCE: IS IT WORKING? HEARING Serial No. 109-142 ICANN INTERNET GOVERNANCE: IS IT WORKING? HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 Serial No. 109-142 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 31-468PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida Ranking Member Vice Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky SHERROD BROWN, Ohio CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TOM ALLEN, Maine JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JIM DAVIS, Florida MARY BONO, California JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon HILDA L. SOLIS, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JAY INSLEE, Washington MIKE ROGERS, Michigan TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho MIKE ROSS, Arkansas SUE MYRICK, North Carolina JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman FRED UPTON, Michigan JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Ranking Member BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming MIKE ROSS, Arkansas GEORGE RADANOVICH, California EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania SHERROD BROWN, Ohio MARY BONO, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois LEE TERRY, Nebraska GENE GREEN, Texas MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey TED STRICKLAND, Ohio MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho JIM DAVIS, Florida SUE MYRICK, North Carolina CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas (EX OFFICIO) (EX OFFICIO) (II) SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts CLIFF STEARNS, Florida Ranking Member PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico JAY INSLEE, Washington CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi RICK BOUCHER, Virginia VITO FOSSELLA, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York GEORGE RADANOVICH, California FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire SHERROD BROWN, Ohio GREG WALDEN, Oregon BART GORDON, Tennessee LEE TERRY, Nebraska BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma BART STUPAK, Michigan MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas (EX OFFICIO) (EX OFFICIO) (III) CONTENTS Page Testimony of: Kneuer, John M.R., Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, United States Department of Commerce ...................................................................... 14 Twomey, Dr. Paul, President and Chief Executive Officer, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ...................................................................................... 19 DelBianco, Steve, Vice President for Public Policy, Association for Competitive Technology, on behalf of NetChoice Coalition............................................................. 25 Lenard, Thomas M., Senior Vice President for Research, The Progress & Freedom Foundation...................................................................................................................... 37 Feld, Harold, Senior Vice President, Media Access Project .............................................. 42 Bohannon, Mark, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Public Policy, Software & Information Industry Association .............................................................................. 61 Additional material submitted for the record: Kneuer, John M.R., Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, United States Department of Commerce, response for the record ............................... 93 Twomey, Dr. Paul, President and Chief Executive Officer, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, response for the record ............................................... 95 DelBianco, Steve, Vice President for Public Policy, Association for Competitive Technology, on behalf of NetChoice Coalition, response for the record...................... 98 Lenard, Thomas M., Senior Vice President for Research, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, response for the record............................................................................... 101 Feld, Harold, Senior Vice President, Media Access Project, response for the record ....... 102 Bohannon, Mark, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Public Policy, Software & Information Industry Association, response for the record....................................... 103 (V) ICANN INTERNET GOVERNANCE: IS IT WORKING? THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET, Washington, DC. The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:18 p.m., in Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet] presiding. Members Present: Representatives Upton, Stearns, Shimkus, Terry, Markey, Wynn, Gonzalez, Inslee, Eshoo, Murphy, Green and Dingell (ex officio). Staff Present: Kelly Cole, Counsel; Howard Waltzman, Chief Counsel, Telecommunications and the Internet; Chris Leahy, Policy Coordinator; Brian McCullough, Professional Staff Member; Billy Harvard, Legislative Clerk; Anh Nguyen, Legislative Clerk; Johanna Shelton, Minority Counsel; and Alec Gerlach, Minority Research and Press Assistant. MR. UPTON. Good afternoon. Today, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, chaired by Mr. Stearns, will examine, ICANN Internet governance: Is it working? I would like to note that, on a cold February afternoon in 2001, I convened my first hearing as Chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee. And the subject that day was ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. The focus that afternoon was protecting our kids on the Internet, and the law creating the new dot kids site with the dot U.S. country code Internet domain was a product of that very first hearing. While much has changed since February 2001, there continues to remain constants when it comes to ICANN Internet governance, one of which is the Department of Commerce’s oversight. Commerce continues to have a role regarding oversight of ICANN, and I am quite pleased to (1) 2 hear and read that the Memo of Understanding was extended beyond September 30th. I am anxious to hear the terms of that agreement. As we discuss the issues this afternoon surrounding ICANN, I am particularly interested in details as they relate to some of the complaints. While some believe that the U.N. should assume control of ICANN, there are too many red flags for me to ignore. Although some have complained about the lack of transparency of ICANN, moving its function to the U.N. is no way to fix the problem. In fact, it will likely make it worse. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as they give their thoughts on how to move forward. Allowing ICANN to continue to develop under the watchful eye of the Department of Commerce is not only the right thing to do but the most prudent action as well. The stakes are too high. I yield back my time. And I would recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, the gentleman from the great state of Michigan, Mr. Dingell. [The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRED UPTON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET Good afternoon. Today, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, will examine “ICANN Internet Governance: Is it Working?” I would like to note that, on a cold February
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority Over ICANN?
    The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN? Lennard G. Kruger Specialist in Science and Technology Policy September 1, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44022 The Future of Internet Governance: Should the U.S. Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN Summary Currently, the U.S. government retains limited authority over the Internet’s domain name system, primarily through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). By virtue of the IANA functions contract, the NTIA exerts a legacy authority and stewardship over ICANN, and arguably has more influence over ICANN and the domain name system (DNS) than other national governments. Currently the IANA functions contract with NTIA expires on September 30, 2016. However, NTIA has the flexibility to extend the contract for any period through September 2019. On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced the intention to transition its stewardship role and procedural authority over key Internet domain name functions to the global Internet multistakeholder community. To accomplish this transition, NTIA asked ICANN to convene interested global Internet stakeholders to develop a transition proposal. NTIA stated that it would not accept any transition proposal that would replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution. For two years, Internet stakeholders were engaged in a process to develop a transition proposal that will meet NTIA’s criteria. On March 10, 2016, the ICANN Board formally accepted the multistakeholder community’s transition plan and transmitted that plan to NTIA for approval.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regional Internet Registry System Leslie Nobile
    “How It Works” The Regional Internet Registry System Leslie Nobile v Overview • The Regional Internet Registry System • Internet Number Resource Primer: IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs • Significant happenings at the RIR • IPv4 Depletion and IPv6 Transition • IPv4 transfer market • Increase in fraudulent activity • RIR Tools, technologies, etc. 2 The Regional Internet Registry System 3 Brief History Internet Number Resource Administration • 1980s to 1990s • Administration of names, numbers, and protocols contracted by US DoD to ISI/Jon Postel (eventually called IANA) • Registration/support of this function contracted to SRI International and then to Network Solutions • Regionalization begins - Regional Internet Registry system Jon Postel forms • IP number resource administration split off from domain name administration • US Govt separates administration of commercial Internet (InterNIC) from the military Internet (DDN NIC) 4 What is an RIR? A Regional Internet Registry (RIR) manages the allocation and registration of Internet number resources in a particular region of the world and maintains a unique registry of all IP numbers issued. *Number resources include IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6) and autonomous system (AS) numbers 5 Who Are the RIRs? 6 Core Functions of an RIR Manage, distribute -Maintain directory -Support Internet and register Internet services including infrastructure through Number Resources Whois and routing technical coordination (IPv4 & IPv6 registries addresses and Autonomous System -Facilitate community numbers (ASNs) -Provide
    [Show full text]
  • IANA Report on Recognition of Afrinic As a Regional Internet Registry
    IANA Report Subject: Recognition of AfriNIC as a Regional Internet Registry Date: 6 April 2005 The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (the IANA), as part of the administrative functions associated with management of the Internet Protocol (IP) address space, is responsible for evaluating applications for approval of new Regional Internet Registries. ICANN has received an application for final approval and recognition of the African Internet Numbers Registry (AfriNIC) as the fifth Regional Internet Registry (RIR). Background The role and responsibilities of ICANN/IANA in this area are defined in the Address Supporting Organization Memorandum of Understanding <http://www.icann.org/aso/aso- mou-29oct04.htm> (ASO MOU), and ICP-2 <http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-2.htm> ("Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries"). In September 2004, an application was submitted by the AfriNIC organization for recognition, together with a detailed transition which included draft bylaws, policies, funding model, and staff resumes. On request of the ICANN President, the IANA staff conducted a preliminary evaluation. In September 2004 the President reported to the Board his conclusion that the application and transition plan constituted a reasonable basis for eventual recognition, though he noted that some adjustments would be necessary. Also in September 2004, the existing RIRs, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE NCC, through the Number Resource Organization (NRO), issued a statement expressing their ongoing and continuing support for AfriNIC, and recommending a favorable response to the application by recognizing AfriNIC's accomplishments thus far. Consistent with the IANA©s preliminary evaluation and the recommendations of the existing RIRs, the ICANN Board on 30 September 2004 gave provisional approval <http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-30sep04.htm> to the AfriNIC application, with the expectation that the transition plan would be completed and an amended or revised application for recognition would be submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Ipv6 – What Is It, Why Is It Important, and Who Is in Charge? … Answers to Common Questions from Policy Makers, Executives and Other Non­Technical Readers
    IPv6 – What is it, why is it important, and who is in charge? … answers to common questions from policy makers, executives and other non­technical readers. A factual paper prepared for and endorsed by the Chief Executive Officers of ICANN and all the Regional Internet Registries, October 2009. 1. What is IPv6? “IP” is the Internet Protocol, the set of digital communication codes which underlies the Internet infrastructure. IP allows the flow of packets of data between any pair of points on the network, providing the basic service upon which the entire Internet is built. Without IP, the Internet as we know it would not exist. Currently the Internet makes use of IP version 4, or IPv4, which is now reaching the limits of its capacity to address additional devices. IPv6 is the “next generation” of IP, which provides a vastly expanded address space. Using IPv6, the Internet will be able to grow to millions of times its current size, in terms of the numbers of people, devices and objects connected to it1. 2. Just how big is IPv6? To answer this question, we must compare the IPv6 address architecture with that of IPv4. The IPv4 address has 32 bits, allowing today’s Internet to connect up to around four billion devices. By contrast, IPv6 has an address of 128 bits. Because each additional bit doubles the size of the address space, an extra 96 bits increases the theoretical size of the address space by many trillions of times. For comparison, if IPv4 were represented as a golf ball, then IPv6 would be approaching the size of the Sun.2 IPv6 is certainly not infinite, but it is not going to run out any time soon.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 China and Global Internet Governance a Tiger by the Tail
    9 China and Global Internet Governance A Tiger by the Tail Milton L. Mueller As of June 2010 the Chinese government claimed the country’ s number of “ netizens, ” or Internet users, had increased to 430 million. 1 That very large number is only 32 percent of China ’ s total population. 2 Already one of the biggest presences on the Internet, and with a long way to go yet, China and the Internet enjoy a complex and seemingly paradoxical relationship. Many Westerners have trouble making sense of the way China ’ s socialist market economy (SME) combines heavy restrictions with vibrant growth, and globalized networking with an insistence on territorial sover- eignty. Western observers have long abandoned the notion that the Internet was inherently uncontrollable and that its use would automatically overthrow dictator- ships. They are now replacing that simplistic notion with an equally coarse inversion: the image of China as the constructor of an impregnable “ Great Firewall, ” a place of omnipotent surveillance, a population susceptible to well-organized propaganda cam- paigns, and a source of pervasive and insidious cyber attacks and cyber espionage. It is a new Internet version of the Cold War. The Internet in the People ’ s Republic of China (PRC) strains and challenges the capacity of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to maintain control. And the fact that China needs to be linked to the external world, through the Internet as well as through trade, provides a double challenge. The international environment of Internet governance is freer, is private-sector based, and is more capitalistic than China ’ s rulers would prefer.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Interest Registry Chief Technology Officer
    Public Interest Registry Appointment of Chief Technology Officer August 2021 Introduction At Public Interest Registry (PIR), the role of the In preparation for this roadmap, our team is Chief Technology Officer is critical in positioning currently addressing the many operational needs .ORG as a leading-edge TLD in technical of our internal IT systems. This includes areas. We are looking for a seasoned leader implementing security review recommendations, executing a plan to shift as much into the cloud as with excellent experience in and understanding possible and integrate the many cloud services to of both the domain name industry and modern which we subscribe, and reviewing our provisioning IT in general. processes for new systems, tools and apps. PIR has a Data Analytics department that has developed and is executing on a roadmap to bring Our core registry system is outsourced to Afilias, machine learning and data science skills to our oneof the world leaders in registry systems. Your organization and promote data-driven decision role will be to represent PIR in that relationship as making. The team is growing and currently consists our technical expert and ensure that future registry of a Senior Director of Data Analytics, Data Scientist, system enhancements align with our strategy. The Data Engineer, and BI Specialist. This team works greatest opportunities lie in areas such as technical closely with our business operations teams and you research and data analytics. Information security will provide support for this area and serve as an remains a high level priority within PIR with direct advocate for continuing to mature our data board oversight.
    [Show full text]
  • REGISTRY AGREEMENT This REGISTRY AGREEMENT (This
    REGISTRY AGREEMENT This REGISTRY AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of 30 June 2019 (the “Effective Date”) between Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a CaLifornia nonprofit pubLic benefit corporation (“ICANN”), and PubLic Interest Registry, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation (“Registry Operator”). ARTICLE 1. DELEGATION AND OPERATION OF TOP–LEVEL DOMAIN; REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 1.1 Domain and Designation. The Top-LeveL Domain to which this Agreement applies is .org (the “TLD”). Upon the Effective Date and until the earlier of the expiration of the Term (as defined in Section 4.1) or the termination of this Agreement pursuant to ArticLe 4, ICANN designates Registry Operator as the registry operator for the TLD, subject to the requirements and necessary approvaLs for deLegation of the TLD and entry into the root-zone. 1.2 Technical Feasibility oF String. WhiLe ICANN has encouraged and wiLL continue to encourage universal acceptance of alL top-LeveL domain strings across the Internet, certain top-LeveL domain strings may encounter difficuLty in acceptance by ISPs and webhosters and/or validation by web applications. Registry Operator shall be responsibLe for ensuring to its satisfaction the technicaL feasibility of the TLD string prior to entering into this Agreement. 1.3 Representations and Warranties. (a) Registry Operator represents and warrants to ICANN as foLLows: (i) aLL materiaL information provided and statements made in the registry TLD appLication, and statements made in writing during the
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating Online Content Through the Internet Architecture
    Regulating Online Content through the Internet Architecture Regulating Online Content through the Internet Architecture The Case of ICANN’s new gTLDs by Caroline Bricteux* Abstract: The process introduced by the Inter- with a strengthened anti-abuse policy for new gTLDs. net Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ICANN amended its standard agreements with do- (ICANN) to assess and allocate new generic top-level main name registries and registrars to impose ad- domains (gTLDs) offers a vehicle for content regula- ditional safeguards, compliance with “all applicable tion at two levels. First, regarding the gTLD itself, ob- laws”, and remedies such as suspension of the do- jection procedures were set up to allow third parties main name, which is a powerful tool to deny access to to challenge an applied-for gTLD deemed to be con- online content. Surprisingly these amendments were trary to “general principles of international law for not discussed under ICANN’s consensus policy devel- morality and public order” or detrimental to broadly opment process but added at the request of govern- defined communities. The real target of these objec- ments after the launch of the New gTLDs Program. tions managed by the International Chamber of Com- These provisions, if actually enforced by ICANN, could merce was not the gTLD itself, but the potentially lead to content policing by private entities without controversial content that might be published under any measure to ensure due consideration of domain it. Second, these preventive measures were coupled name holders’ freedom of expression. Keywords: ICANN; gTLD; content regulation; International Chamber of Commerce; freedom of expression © 2016 Caroline Bricteux Everybody may disseminate this article by electronic means and make it available for download under the terms and conditions of the Digital Peer Publishing Licence (DPPL).
    [Show full text]
  • Opendns 1 Opendns
    OpenDNS 1 OpenDNS OpenDNS Type DNS Resolution Service Founded 2005 Headquarters San Francisco, California Key people David Ulevitch (Founder & CEO) [1] Employees 20 [2] Website OpenDNS.com OpenDNS is a Domain Name System (DNS) resolution service. OpenDNS extends DNS adding features such as misspelling correction, phishing protection, and optional content filtering. It provides an ad-supported service[3][4] "showing relevant ads when we [show] search results" and a paid advertisement-free service. Services DNS OpenDNS offers DNS resolution as an alternative to using Internet service providers' DNS servers. There are OpenDNS servers in strategic locations, and they also employ a large cache of the domain names.. OpenDNS has adopted and supports DNSCurve.[5] OpenDNS provides the following recursive nameserver addresses[6] for public use, mapped to the nearest operational server location by anycast routing: • 208.67.222.222 (resolver1.opendns.com) • 208.67.220.220 (resolver2.opendns.com) • 208.67.222.220 [6] • 208.67.220.222 [6] IPv6 addresses (experimental)[7] • 2620:0:ccc::2 • 2620:0:ccd::2 Other features include a phishing filter, domain blocking and typo correction (for example, typing "example.og" instead of "example.org"). OpenDNS maintains a list of malicious sites and blocks access to them when a user tries to access them through their service. OpenDNS also run a service called PhishTank for users to submit and review suspected phishing sites. The name OpenDNS refers to the DNS concept of being open, where queries from any source are accepted. It is not related to open source software; the service is based on closed-source software.[8] OpenDNS earns a portion of its revenue by resolving a domain name to an OpenDNS server when the name is not otherwise defined in DNS.
    [Show full text]
  • Beginner's Guide to Domain Names
    Beginner’s Guide to D O M A I N N A M E S THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF GUIDES ABOUT ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO INTERNET USERS. EDUCATING NEW USERS ABOUT INTERNET ISSUES IS PART OF ICANN’S MISSION TO ENSURE A STABLE, SECURE, GLOBALLY INTEROPERABLE INTERNET. ICANN PREPARED THIS GUIDE AT THE REQUEST OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE VOICE OF THE INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USER AT ICANN. WE SINCERELY HOPE YOU FIND IT HELPFUL. TA b l E O f C ontents Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Domain Names...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 1 What.is.a.domain.name.and.how.does.it.work?...........................................................................................................................................3 2 ...How.do.I.register.a.domain.name?.......................................................................................................................................................................3 . 3 ...How.do.I.select.a.domain.name.to.register?..................................................................................................................................................4 4 What.is.a.registrar.and.how.do.I.select.one?...................................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • The “Agreement”
    .ong Registry-Registrar Agreement This Registry-Registrar Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of , , is made and entered into by and between PUBLIC INTEREST REGISTRY, a Pennsylvania non- profit corporation with its principal place of business located at 1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 100, Reston, VA 20190 (PIR), and , a , with its principal place of business located at ("Registrar"). PIR and Registrar may be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." WHEREAS, PIR has entered a Registry Agreement with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to operate a shared registration system, TLD nameservers, and other equipment for the .ONG top-level domain; WHEREAS, multiple registrars will provide Internet domain name registration services within the .NGO top-level domain; WHEREAS, Registrar wishes to act as a registrar for domain names within the .ONG top-level domain. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, PIR and Registrar, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1. The “APIs” are the application program interfaces by which Registrar may interact, through the EPP, with the Registry System. 1.2. “Confidential Information” means all information and materials, including, without limitation, computer software, data, information, intellectual property, databases, protocols, reference implementation and documentation, financial information, statistics and functional and interface specifications, provided by the Disclosing Party to the Receiving Party under this Agreement and marked or otherwise identified as Confidential, provided that if a communication is oral, the Disclosing Party will notify the Receiving Party in writing, including by email, within 15 days of the disclosure that it is confidential.
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet Society Announces New Appointments to Public Interest Registry Board of Directors
    The Internet Society Announces New Appointments to Public Interest Registry Board of Directors Washington, DC- 13 March 2017 -- The Internet Society today announced that Jeffrey Bedser has been appointed to the Public Interest Registry (PIR) Board of Directors. He will serve a term of three years as will returning board member Eric Burger. Hartmut Glaser is also a returning board member who will serve a term of one year. These appointments will begin at a PIR Board retreat scheduled next month. Jeffrey Bedser is an entrepreneur with extensive private and public sector experience. He is the Chief Executive Officer of the iThreat Cyber Group and has spent decades building technology, services and solutions to combat Internet abuse and crime. Mr. Bedser is a member of the Security and Stability Advisory Council for ICANN (Internet Corporate for Assigned Names and Numbers) and serves on the Editorial Board of the Security Journal. Returning PIR board member Eric Burger is Director of the NSF Security and Software Engineering Research Center (S2ERC) at Georgetown University. His career in technology includes roles as Chief Technology Officer at Neustar and Vice President of Engineering at BEA Systems. He has held board seats for numerous companies that have had exits, and is currently serving as a board member to two stealth startups, one in the cyber security space and one in the luxury technology space. Hartmut Glaser is Executive Director of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br). The committee coordinates and integrates all Internet services in Brazil and promotes technical quality, innovation and use of the Internet in Brazil.
    [Show full text]