|
|
The Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers
Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ)
|
This set of FAQs reflects questions ICANN
has received from many different sources, including questions@icann.org.
This section will be periodically updated in order to keep the
public well informed of operations and developments concerning
the organization.
FAQ Topics:
FAQ on Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy
(Posted September 13, 1999)
Q: What
is ICANN doing regarding resolution of trademark/domain-name
disputes?
A: As envisioned in the U.S. Government's White
Paper on Management of Internet Names and Addresses, one
of the issues ICANN has been addressing is a dispute-resolution
policy for trademark/domain name disputes. At the ICANN meeting
held August 24-26, 1999 in Santiago, Chile, ICANN's Board of
Directors adopted
a dispute resolution policy to be applied uniformly by all ICANN-accredited
registrars in the .com, .net, and .org top-level domains.
Q: How
are disputes to be handled under the policy?
A: In
general, the policy provides that registrars receiving complaints
concerning the impact of domain names they have registered on
trademarks or service marks will take no action until they receive
instructions from the domain-name holder or an order of a court,
arbitrator, or other neutral decision maker deciding the parties'
dispute. There is an exception in the policy, however, for disputes
involving domain names that are shown to have been registered
in abusive attempts to profit from another's trademark (i.e.
cybersquatting and cyberpiracy). In these cases of abusive registration,
the complaining party can invoke a special administrative procedure
to resolve the dispute. Under this procedure, the dispute will
be decided by neutral persons selected from panels established
for that purpose. The procedure will be handled in large part
online, is designed to take less than 45 days, and is expected
to cost about $1000 in fees to be paid to the entities providing
the neutral persons. Parties to such disputes will also be able
to go to court to resolve their dispute or to contest the outcome
of the procedure.
Q: What
process was used to formulate the policy?
A: In
1997 and 1998, the U.S. Government, in connection with its formulation
of the Green
Paper and the White
Paper on privatization of management of the Internet domain-name
system, received many comments regarding problems that had arisen
concerning disputes between holders of domain names and holders
of trademarks. At the conclusion of this process, the U.S. Government
invited the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to
conduct a study of the relationship between domain names and
intellectual property and make recommendations to ICANN. After
a ten-month process of public consultation, WIPO presented recommendations
on dispute resolution on April 30, 1999.
At the May 25-27, 1999 ICANN meeting (held
in Berlin), ICANN's Board of Directors endorsed
the principle that there should be a uniform dispute-resolution
policy for all registrars that register names in the .com, .net,
and .org top-level domains, and asked the ICANN Domain Name Supporting
Organization (DNSO) to study the issues and make recommendations
concerning dispute resolution. In view of the impending introduction
of competition by many registrars under the Shared Registry System
testbed program, the Board also called on the ICANN-accredited
testbed registrars to work together to formulate a model dispute-resolution
policy for prompt voluntary adoption.
On August 3, 1999, the DNSO recommended
to ICANN's Board that it adopt a uniform dispute-resolution policy
for all registrars in the .com, .net, and .org top-level domains.
Later in August, a group of about 20 registrars (including testbed
registrars, post-testbed registrars, and Network Solutions) presented
a model policy they had worked together to prepare. These
two proposed policies, which were quite similar in principle,
were considered by various groups, including ICANN's Board, at
the August 1999 ICANN meeting held in Santiago, Chile.
Q: Was
the public given an opportunity to provide input?
A: Yes.
Throughout the process, there were many invitations for public
comment, both online and at meetings held throughout the world.
These invitations started in the U.S. Government's Green and
White Paper processes in 1997 and 1998, and continued in the
WIPO consultations and in connection with the analysis conducted
by ICANN's DNSO. As a result, several thousand comments were
received from a broad array of Internet stakeholders. The resulting
policy is the collective effort of dozens of individuals who
worked to find the best reconciliation of and compromise among
all the comments.
Q: Is
the policy that was adopted the one that WIPO presented on April
30?
A: In
its April
30 report, WIPO recommended several general principles for
dispute resolution and presented a written policy and procedures
that would implement those principles. Based on the work of the
DNSO and the registrars' group, as well as public comment, there
was strong general support for most of the WIPO-recommended principles.
However, some groups in the ICANN community,
particularly those representing non-commercial organizations
and individual domain-name holders, voiced concerns that some
aspects of the policy would have unintended consequences or did
not adequately meet their concerns regarding individual and non-commercial
uses, free speech, rights to court review, and reverse domain-name
hijacking. In response, ICANN's Board determined that some clarifications
and revisions should be made to address these concerns.
Q: How
will the policy be implemented?
A: Every
ICANN-accredited registrar has
agreed to adhere to the dispute-resolution policies that
ICANN adopts under its established consensus procedures. At the
Santiago meeting, ICANN's Board directed
the ICANN president, working with staff and counsel, to prepare
implementation documents. Once those documents are completed
and approved by the Board after considering any public comments,
the will go into effect as part of registration agreements between
registrars and their customers.
Q: How
are the implementation documents being prepared?
A: Following
guidance in the resolutions passed by ICANN's Board at the Santiago
meeting, ICANN's president has established a small drafting committee
that will use the model
written policy and procedures
prepared by the registrars' group as a starting point and make
revisions to reflect the clarified and revised principles that
were approved by the Board in response to public comment.
Q: What
are the clarifications and revisions?
A: The
resolutions adopted by ICANN's Board set forth some clarifications
and revisions to be made to the policies recommended by WIPO,
the DNSO, and the registrars' group. The resolutions reflect
both the sentiment
expressed at the DNSO General Assembly meeting on August
24, 1999 and various public comments received that a uniform
policy should be adopted promptly, but that clarifications and
revisions should be made to (a) to tighten up the definition
of cybersquatting and cyberpiracy so that legitimate individual,
non-commercial, and free-speech activities are not impaired;
(b) to give both parties equal rights to challenge administrative
decisions in court; and (c) to define, and to minimize use of
the policy for, reverse domain-name hijacking.
Q: Who
is on the drafting committee?
A: The
drafting committee consists of Louis
Touton (ICANN counsel), Kathryn
A. Kleiman (of the Association for Computing Machinery's
Internet Governance Committee, a member of the DNSO Non-Commercial
Domain Name Holders' Constituency, and co-founder of the Domain
Name Rights Coalition), Steven
J. Metalitz (General Counsel of the International Intellectual
Property Alliance, a member of the DNSO Trademark, Intellectual
Property, Anti-counterfeiting Interests Constituency), Rita
A. Rodin (of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, retained
by America Online, a member of the DNSO Registrars Constituency),
A.
Michael Froomkin (of the University of Miami School of Law,
a former member of the WIPO Panel of Experts), and J.
Scott Evans (of the Adams Law Firm P.A., a member of the
International Trademark Association's Internet Committee and
chair of its DNS subcommittee). These individuals were selected
because of their legal drafting abilities and because they represent
a diversity of viewpoints that spans individual, non-commercial,
business, intellectual property, and registrar concerns and interests.
Q: What
is the responsibility of the drafting committee?
A: The
drafting committee's charter is not to establish policy, but
instead to prepare documents implementing the policies expressed
in the resolutions
adopted by ICANN's Board at the August 1999 meeting in Santiago.
The committee expects to prepare two main implementation documents:
a statement of the dispute resolution policy that includes a
precise set of criteria for establishing "abusive registration"
and a set of procedures to be used for administrative resolution
of disputes involving abusive registrations. The Board has asked
that the drafting be completed on a schedule that allows the
policy to be put into place by mid-October.
Q: Will
the public have input on the implementation documents?
A: Yes.
Once the drafting committee completes the implementation documents,
they will be posted on the www.icann.org website (this is scheduled
to occur during the week of September 20) for comment on whether
or not they faithfully implement the policies adopted at the
August meeting. During the drafting process, any comments on
the implementation documents may be sent (preferably by e-mail)
to any or all members of the committee.
Q: What
will happen after public comment on the implementation documents?
A: After
an opportunity for public comment, ICANN's Board will consider
whether the documents appropriately reflect the policies it adopted
at the Santiago meeting and whether they should be approved.
Unless it finds the implementation documents are not consistent
with the policy adopted in Santiago, or that they raise other
issues requiring further consideration, ICANN's Board will promptly
consider approving the implementation documents, probably at
a telephone meeting. To the extent that the implementation documents
prepared by the drafting committee would or may entail revisions
to the policies adopted by the Board, the Board may either require
revisions in the implementation documents or consider whether
policy revisions are needed. If significant revisions are entailed,
the Board may determine that it is appropriate to act on those
revisions only after public notice and opportunity to comment,
including at a public forum held for that purpose. The next ICANN
public forum is currently scheduled for November 3, 1999, in
Los Angeles, California.
Q: After
the policy is implemented, can it be changed if problems arise?
A: Yes.
ICANN's DNSO is responsible
on an ongoing basis for studying and making recommendations concerning
policies relating to the Internet domain-name system. In presenting
its recommendation
to ICANN's Board for adoption of a uniform dispute-resolution
policy, the DNSO recognized that experience under the policy
should be monitored and improvements should be made as appropriate.
FAQ on At Large
Membership and Elections
(Posted September 13, 1999)
Q: What's
the status of ICANN's At Large membership? How and when will
ICANN Directors be elected by Internet users?
A: ICANN
is working hard to implement an At Large membership structure
through which the 9 At Large Directors on the ICANN Board will
be elected by the members of the global Internet community. The
following paragraphs outline the history of the effort, and the
current implementation plan.
Background.
In July, 1997, the Clinton Administration published an executive
order calling for privatization of the Internet Domain Name System
(DNS) and began an open and consultative policy development process
which lead to the publication of a document entitled "Management
of Internet Names and Addresses," commonly known as the
White
Paper, in June, 1998 . The White Paper stated the desire
of the U.S. Government that a private, non-profit corporation
be formed to assume responsibility for the Domain Name and IP
addressing systems and certain related functions, and called
for proposals to be submitted to accomplish this goal.
White Paper Position on Representation
in new DNS Corporation. With
respect to representation, the White Paper stated,
"The new corporation should operate
as a private entity for the benefit of the Internet community
as a whole. The development of sound, fair, and widely accepted
policies for the management of DNS will depend on input from
the broad and growing community of Internet users. Management
structures should reflect the functional and geographic diversity
of the Internet and its users. Mechanisms should be established
to ensure international participation in decision making."
Speaking further to actions to be taken
by the Board of Directors of the new corporation, the White Paper
proposed that the entity's organizational documents:
"2) direct the Interim Board to establish
a system for electing a Board of Directors for the new corporation
that insures that the new corporation's Board of Directors reflects
the geographical and functional diversity of the Internet, and
is sufficiently flexible to permit evolution to reflect changes
in the constituency of Internet stakeholders. Nominations to
the Board of Directors should preserve, as much as possible,
the tradition of bottom-up governance of the Internet, and Board
Members should be elected from membership or other associations
open to all or through other mechanisms that ensure broad representation
and participation in the election process."
Department of Commerce Requirement
concerning ICANN Membership.
Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) recognized
ICANN -- the corporation proposed by Dr. Jon Postel in September,
1998 -- in a Memorandum of Understanding/Joint Project Agreement
dated November 25, 1998. With regard to membership, the MOU specified
that ICANN and DOC would, "8. Collaborate on the design,
development, and testing of appropriate membership mechanisms
that foster accountability to and representation of the global
and functional diversity of the Internet and its users, within
the structure of the private-sector DNS management organization."
ICANN Membership Advisory Committee. The ICANN Bylaws provide for four organizational
units having membership attributes. Three of the units are named
"Supporting Organizations" (SO) and are designed to
provide specific mechanisms for the participation of business
and technical interests in the policy development and consensus
mechanisms of ICANN. The fourth is an At Large membership designed
to ensure adequate representation, on a worldwide basis, of the
interests of all Internet users. Each SO names three ICANN Directors,
while the At Large membership names nine, for a total of eighteen
elected Directors and an ex officio voting Chief Executive Officer.
Consistent with both Internet tradition and the guidance of the
White Paper, the ICANN Board has worked closely with the Internet
community to support bottom-up and self-organizing efforts for
all four of its membership entities. As of August, 1999, constituents
of each of the Supporting Organizations had submitted and received
approval of proposals for their creation and self-administration.
Seeking advice from the community on the
complex issues associated with creation of an At Large membership,
ICANN created a Membership
Advisory Committee (MAC) in January, 1999, and asked for
its recommendations on a range of membership policy and procedural
issues. To assist the MAC with its work, ICANN commissioned a
study by Harvard
Law School's Berkman
Center for Internet & Society. The MAC's interim report
was given to the Board at its meeting in Singapore in March,
1999 and a final
report and commentary was delivered at its meeting in Berlin,
in May, 1999.
ICANN Board Actions to Create At
Large Membership. By resolution
at its Berlin meeting, the ICANN Board asked
staff to review the Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) report
and commentary and make recommendations to the Board, for
consideration at its Santiago, Chile, meeting in August, 1999,
on an implementation plan that was responsive to the MAC's suggestions.
Also in Berlin, the Board adopted
four general principles to guide the creation of an At Large
membership for ICANN:
1. "Members" should be individuals,
and only "members" should vote for At Large Directors.
2. The election process for At Large Directors
should take place in stages, to allow for adjustments in the
process based on experience.
3. At Large Directors should be geographically
diverse and broadly representative of the Internet user community.
4. The costs of At Large membership should
be borne by the At Large members.
Two staff reports on At Large membership were prepared for the Santiago meeting, one dealing
with analysis and recommendations on an implementation plan,
and the other dealing with legal questions concerning membership
provisions in California non-profit corporation statutes.
After considering the staff reports and
hearing public comment, the Board took a series of actions
on At Large membership at the recent Santiago
meeting. Together with its Berlin
resolutions and the recommendations
of the MAC, these decisions establish the basic structure
for an ICANN At Large Membership.
In addition, to give some sustainable momentum
to the planning and implementation of a large and globally diverse
membership, the ICANN Board authorized the creation of a Membership
Implementation Task Force, whose members will initially focus
on membership outreach.
ICANN At Large Membership Structure. After considering a range of issues affecting
structure, the ICANN Directors have adopted an indirect representation
mechanism in which an At Large membership of a minimum size of
5000 individuals will elect an At Large Council composed of up
to eighteen members. The At Large Council will in turn select
nine individuals to become the At Large Directors of ICANN. Up
to ten members of the At Large Council will be elected from each
of the five geographic regions into which ICANN is currently
divided, with no two regional members coming from the same country.
The remaining up to eight members will be elected from a single
global pool of candidates, with no restrictions on geographic
origin.
Balancing a desire to encourage wide participation
in ICANN membership on a worldwide basis with the need to protect
against election fraud, the minimum requirements for an individual
to become an At Large member will be (a) completion of an online
membership application, including a statement of a commitment
to participate in ICANN's activities; (b) a working Internet
email address; and (c) a single physical residence verified by
a postal mail address.
At Large Membership Implementation. The initial appointed At Large Directors of ICANN
wish to proceed expeditiously with implementation of the At Large
membership so that their elected successors may take office as
soon as possible. However, translation of the membership structure
that has been adopted by the Board into detailed plans and procedures
that can operate faultlessly in a worldwide, interactive Internet
environment requires significant staff and technical resources.
The membership implementation plan, which
is being developed under the direction of interim President/CEO
Mike Roberts, has six program elements, which will proceed in
a parallel but coordinated manner.
(1) Identify a funding source sufficient
to meet the minimum expenditure requirements of the initial phase
of the At Large membership program. An estimated budget of $100,000
has been adopted.
(2) Engage staff to manage and implement
the program for at least the next six months. A membership program
manager position has been defined and created. A search for qualified
applicants will begin as soon as funding is assured.
(3) Complete plans for the creation of
an At Large membership component of ICANN. The membership program
manager will be responsible for development of detailed plans,
resource requirements and timing. The plan will be based on previous
work by the MAC and ICANN staff, Board membership resolutions,
and assistance from the new Membership Implementation Task Force.
(4) Obtain necessary computer and network
resources to support the membership database and applications.
The membership database and online server will be located at
the ICANN administrative headquarters in Marina del Rey, California,
using ICANN computer facilities and under the supervision of
ICANN technical staff. Design, development, installation and
testing of membership software and hardware will be contracted
to a qualified technical services firm.
(5) Provide administrative and logistic
support for the new Membership Implementation Task Force. The
membership program manager will be primary liaison to the task
force, whose intended functions include carrying out a worldwide
outreach program to recruit At Large members, reviewing specifications
for membership computer programs, assisting with organization
of the At Large Council, providing independent oversight of the
initial At Large Council election, and proposing a permanent
funding mechanism for the At Large Membership.
(6) Specify, develop and test necessary
processes and procedures and hold the first At Large Council
election. Depending on progress toward meeting the minimum At
Large membership threshold requirement of 5000 individual members,
the ICANN Board is expected to approve election procedures and
set a date for the first election of members of the At Large
Council at its first meeting in the year 2000, currently expected
to be the first week in March. Prior to approving the election
date, the membership staff, working with the task force, will
have completed and tested the required computer programs and
related fraud protection provisions of the election procedures.
FAQ on new generic
top level domains
(Posted September 13, 1999)
Q: When
will ICANN create new generic top level domains, such as .arts,
.shop, .store, .news, .sex, etc.?
A: ICANN
and its constituent organizations have recently begun the process
of considering whether, how, and when to add new generic top-level
domains (gTLDs) to the domain name system. In recent years, a
number of plans have been proposed to create new gTLDs, such
as .firm, .store, .law, and .arts., and some companies have even
taken orders for them. ICANN, which administers the domain name
system, has not yet made a decision for or against the addition
of new generic top-level domains. The ICANN process provides
for the development of consensus-based policies (such as policies
concerning new names) in an open, transparent and bottom-up manner
in which interested individuals have an opportunity to participate
and comment.
There are many arguments both for and against
new gTLDs: for example, those in favor argue that new gTLDs are
technically easy to create, will help relieve perceived scarcities
in existing name spaces, and are consistent with a general push
towards consumer choice and diversity of options; those opposed
point to greater possibilities for consumer confusion, the risk
of increased trademark infringement, cybersquatting and cyberpiracy.
ICANN's Domain
Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) has primary responsibility
for making a recommendation on new gTLDs to the ICANN Board.
On May 27, 1999, the ICANN Board of Directors referred to the
DNSO a set of recommendations on new gTLDs submitted by the World
Intellectual Property Organization; the DNSO's provisional Names
Council responded by creating a Working Group to review the issue.
Any individual interested in participating in the DNSO's Working
Group on the creation of new gTLDs should visit <http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html>.
For more on the DNSO and its working groups,
click here.
For background on ICANN's role in this
area, see the U.S. Department of Commerce's White
Paper , which called upon ICANN to "develop policies
for the addition of TLDs, and establish the qualifications for
domain name registries and domain name registrars within the
system."
For the WIPO recommendations on new gTLDs,
click here.
FAQ on Registrar
Accreditation
(Posted September 13, 1999)
Q: How
can my company apply for accreditation to sell domain name registrations
in the .com, .net, and .org domains?
A: Click
here for the registrar accreditation application, together
with instructions and a range of background materials.
Q: Is
there a deadline for registrar accreditation applications?
A: No.
Applications are accepted on a rolling basis. ICANN endeavors
to make accreditation decisions within 30 days of receiving applications.
Q: Which
companies have already been accredited as registrars for the
.com, .net, and .org domains.
A: Click
here for the list of accredited companies; click
here for descriptions and contact information for those companies.
ICANN Board Meeting
in Santiago (August 24-26)
Q: What
happened at ICANN's meetings in Santiago?
A: Click
here for the resolutions adopted by the Board. Click
here for the multimedia archives of various meetings, including
the ICANN Public Forum, the meeting of the Initial Board of Directors,
the Governmental Advisory Committee's public forum, and the meetings
of the DNSO General Assembly and the DNSO Names Council.
ICANN Board Meeting
in Berlin (May 25-27)
Q: What
happened at ICANN's meetings in Berlin?
A: Click
here for the resolutions adopted by the Board. Click
here for the multimedia archives of various meetings, including
the ICANN Public Forum, the Governmental Advisory Committee's
public forum, and the meeting of the DNSO General Assembly.
ICANN Board Meeting
in Singapore (March 2-4)
Q:
What happened at ICANN's meetings in Singapore?
A:
ICANN held a series of meetings in Singapore March 2-4:
Committee meetings for the Governmental Advisory Committee, DNS
Root Server System Advisory Committee, and Advisory Committee
on Membership; a public forum at which potential ICANN action
items were discussed; and an ICANN Board of Directors meeting.
The multimedia archive of the meetings
is available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/.
A communique generated at the Governmental Advisory Committee
meeting is posted at http://www.icann.org/gac-comm-02mar99.html.
A summary of the Board meeting results
is available at http://www.icann.org/statement.html,
and the draft meeting minutes are posted at http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-4mar99.html.
Among other important actions, the Board of Directors determined
the requirements for accreditation of domain name registrars
in the .com, .net and .org top-level domains (TLDs); and determined
the structure for ICANNs Domain Name Supporting Organization.
FAQ on Advisory
Committees
(Posted December 2, 1998)
Q. Will
ICANN reimburse expenses for participants in advisory committees,
including the Membership Advisory Committee?
A.
Pending the identification of an ICANN funding mechanism and
the actual receipt of funds, ICANN's resources to support meeting
and travel expenses of its committees is very limited.
We ask that committee members assist us by assuming personal
responsibility for their travel expenses, if possible.
ICANN will consider reimbursing reasonable expenses, but since
we have no money yet, we cannot guarantee complete reimbursement.
To reduce travel costs, committees will conduct much of their
business via phone and the Internet, and ICANN will facilitate
phone participation in face-to-face meetings as necessary.
For those committee participants for whom
self-funding is impossible, ICANN will make every effort to either
provide funding or assist participants in identifying outside
funding sources.
Questions
concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this
site should be sent to webmaster@icann.org.
Page Updated 27-September-00
(c) 1998 The Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
All rights reserved.
|