Centre for Internet and Society

What’s In a Name? — DNS Singularity of ICANN and The Gold Rush

sharath — 2013-03-31T05:35:33Z

March 2013 being the 28th birthday of the first ever registered Internet domain as well as the exigent launch of the Trademark Clearing House disguised as a milestone in rights protection by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for it’s new gTLD program, Sharath Chandra Ram, dissects the transitory role of ICANN from being a technical outfit to the Boardroom Big Brother of Internet Governance.

Click to read more about the Trademark Clearing House.

As a non-profit organization, established in agreement with the US Department of Commerce in 1998, the current arrangement of ICANN has come under serious questions in recent years, with the United Nations wanting the ITU to oversee Internet Governance while Europe seeking more public participation in the decision making process that currently comprises a majority of private stakeholders as ICANN board members with vested interests. In this post we shall look at a few instances that give room for thought about the regulatory powers and methods adopted by ICANN as well as reparatory measures taken to reaffirm it’s image as an able governing body amidst disputes over trademarks and fair competition that might actually call for a wider and objective inclusion in future. An outline of functional and structural arrangements of ICANN maybe found at the CIS Knowledge Repository page.

The Business Model

Earlier this month, (March 15, 2013) was the 28^th birthday of symbolics.com, the first ever domain name registered in 1985 through the formal ICANN process. (nordu.net being the first domain name created by the registry on January 1, 1985 for the first root server, nic.nordu.net) Symbolics, that spun-off the MIT AI Lab and specialized in building workstations running LISP finally sold the domain for an undisclosed amount to XY.com, an Internet investment firm that has been proudly boasting about their acquired relic for over three years now. The golden days of fancy one word domain name resale at exorbitant prices are over, as Google’s page ranking crawler now really looks at unique content and backlinks. Nevertheless, those with the same archaic view of a real estate agent still believe that a good domain name does have a high ROI and have managed to find naïve takers who will offer ridiculous amounts. One of many such examples is the plain looking www.business.com that was bought initially for $1,50,000 and changed hands twice from $7.5 million to an absurd $345 million of R.H. Donnelley Inc., that soon filed for bankruptcy!

The top level domain market however, is consistently lucrative. A TLD registry on an average receives $5 - $7 per domain registered under it. So the .COM registry run by VeriSign which, as of 2013 has over a 100 million registered domains, receives a revenue of $500 to $700 million per year of which a fraction is paid to ICANN periodically on a per-registration or per-renewal basis. Competing registrars and registries across TLDs, their revenue generation practices as well as the application process for new TLDs gradually began to be regulated by ICANN in mysterious ways, as we will see in the following legal case studies.

VeriSign vs. ICANN

VeriSign began to operate the .COM and .NET TLD after taking over Network Solutions Inc. and entering into a contractual agreement with ICANN in 2001. Let’s take a look at some methods used by VeriSign to garner internet traffic and registrant revenue, that were clamped down by the ICANN, which resulted in a lawsuit by plaintiff VeriSign claiming prevention of fair competition and revenue by impeding innovation.

Clamping of Site Finder & WLS: In September 2003, VeriSign introduced a Wild Card DNS Service called Site Finder for all .com and .net domains. This meant that any user trying to access a non-existent domain name no longer received the 404 Error but were instead redirected to the VeriSign website with adverts and links to affiliate registrars. Often a result of a misspelled domain, in ICANN’s view, the redirection by VeriSign amounted to typo squatting internet users as within a month VeriSign’s traffic rose dramatically moving it to the top 20 most visited websites on the web. As seen below in this archived image of Alexa’s 2003 traffic statistic (Courtesy: cyber.law.harvard.edu).

Shortly, in October 2003, ICANN issued a suspension ultimatum pointing Site Finder in violation of the 2001 .Com agreement. This was not the first time ICANN clamped down on VeriSign’s ‘profiteering’ methods. In 2001, ICANN prevented VeriSign’s WLS (Wait Listing Service) that allowed a registrant (through selected participating affiliate registrars of VeriSign) to apply to register an already registered domain in the event that the registration is deleted – a nifty scheme considering the fact that about 25000 domains are deleted everyday!

Remarks and Submissions

The long drawn case of VeriSign Vs. ICANN ended on a reconciliatory note, with ICANN bringing the Site Finder service to a halt at the cost of VeriSign walking away happier with a free 5 year extension on the .COM domain (2007 extended to 2012).

While the ingenious Site Finder service did pose a huge problem to spam filters, both the WLS and yet another service that VeriSign launched to allow registration of non-English language SLDs were also met with a cringe by ICANN.

However looking closer, one may realize that the act of ICANN permitting a DNS root redirect service such as Site Finder for all TLD operators (with an acceptable template that also carried information about the 404 error besides other marketing options) meant the first step towards paving the way towards a plausible scenario of multiple competing DNS roots across TLDs being able to interact with each other — a system often argued by network theorists to be the most efficient and competitive model that would reduce the disjoint between the demand and supply of TLDs in a decentralized infrastructure, and that definitely was not in the best interest of ICANN’s monopolistic plan. Hence, this could be seen as a move by ICANN to nip the Site Finder bud while still young.

Finally, as brought to public notice in more than one instance (name.Space Vs. ICANN, IOD Vs. ICANN), the vested interests of ICANN board members has come under glaring light. Can the ICANN leadership consisting of members from the very same domain name business industry be able to objectively deal with competing registry services and legal issues? Conspicuous targets have been chairperson Steve Crocker who owns a consulting firm Shinkuro, whose subtle investor is infact AFILIAS INC which runs the .INFO and .MOBI TLDs, provides backend services to numerous TLDs (.ORG, .ASIA, .AERO (aviation)), has applied for a further 31 new TLDs and has it’s CTO Ram Mohan on the Board of Directors of ICANN. Also ICANN Vice Chariman, Bruce Tonkin is Senior Executive at Australia’s largest domain name provider Melbourne IT, and Peter Thrush former chairman of the ICANN Board of Directors is Executive Chairman of Top Level Domain Holdings,Inc which filed 92 gTLD applications in 2012.

Trademark Protection and Domain Names

Image Online Design (IOD) is a company that since 1996 has been providing Internet registry services using the trademark .WEB (trademark #3,177,334 including computer accessories) registered with the US Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO).

It’s registry services however, were not through the primary DNS root server maintained by ICANN, but through an alternate DNS root that required prospective users to manually make changes in their browser settings in order to resolve .WEB domains registered through IOD. Despite not running the primary DNS root server for. WEB, by the year 2000 IOD had acquired about 20,000 registered .WEB customers.

The beacon of ‘hope’ arrived upon IOD in mid-2000 as ICANN (on advise of supporting organization GNSO) opened a call for proposals for registrations of new TLDs, with a non-refundable deposit of $50,000 for an application to be considered. By then the importance of the .WEB TLD for e-commerce was well known amongst ICANN board members with Louis Touton lobbying for his preferred applicant AFILIAS INC to be given the .WEB TLD, with others raising concerns about IOD’s preregistration of .WEB domains. One of the founding fathers of the internet, Vinton Cerf, the then Chairman of ICANN took a benevolent stance-- "I'm still interested in IOD," he repeated over Touton's objections. "They've worked with .WEB for some time. To assign that to someone else given that they're actually functioning makes me uneasy," he said, prompting board member Linda Wilson to chime in, "I agree with Vint." (http://goo.gl/d1v6X , http://goo.gl/eV9Jd).

Finally amidst all the contention, no one was offered the .WEB domain and ICANN announced that all applications not selected will remain pending and those who submitted will have the option of being re-considered when additional TLD selections are made in future. And the future being, 2012, when ICANN invited a new round of TLD applicants, this time with the non-refundable deposit of whopping $185,000 for a single application (1 TLD/application as opposed to the $50,000 in the year 2000 that allowed multiple TLD requests within the same application) to be considered. While 7 new applicants for the .WEB TLD registered their interest, IOD considered their application to be still pending and did not join the new pool that included AFILIAS INC. and GOOGLE.

The litigation of IOD Vs ICANN ended in Feb 2013, with IOD claiming weak causes of action under “Trademark Infringement” and “Breach of Contract” &“Fair Dealing” hinging on the fact that the initial $50,000 application was still pending and never was officially rejected by ICANN. Further, there was not enough room to make a valid trademark infringement, as there was no substantial room for consumer confusion in the .WEB case.

Remarks and Submissions

The IOD Vs. ICANN case not only increased concerns globally, over the uncertainty associated with the ICANN application process for generic TLDs along with questions regarding the objectivity of its board members, but at the same time has alerted ICANN to take the necessary big sister steps to ensure that it’s well in the game.

The fact of the matter is that the USPTO does not provide trademark protection services for the Top level Domain industry citing the reason that TLDs trademarks do not provide a distinct service mark that can identify or differentiate the service of an applicant from others, and further cannot be used to ascertain the source of an applicant’s services. This view is flawed, as by looking at a TLD, say BBC.com, an informed person can easily say that VeriSign INC manages the service of directing a user to a correct location on the .COM registry. With introduction of new gTLDs, perhaps BBC would shift it’s content to BBC.news, where the source may be an abstracted Registrar and the nature of service being quite evident. And to those registered trademarks, especially those that shall result in substantial brand confusion to the customer if infringed, granting a TLD like .ibm or .bbc may well be granted to the owner of the trademark who may then outsource registry services to a service provider. This shall invert the current model by relegating the role of a TLD registry holder to that of a contracted service provider.

So the question is, should have the US Department of Commerce, who contracted ICANN in the first place, mediated with USPTO to place the business of a registrar on par with other trades and businesses, and modify it’s trademark infringement policies? And more importantly, will ICANN view this as introducing yet another key stakeholder to the gTLD assignment process?

The answer to the latter is already clear as ICANN being in the top of it’s game decided to take matters into its own hands and on March 26, 2013) launched http://trademark-clearinghouse.com/ with a new set of guidelines for accepted trademarks and a mechanism that allows trademark holders to submit their application to a central repository.

Accepted trademark holders shall be given priority to register gTLDs during the ‘sunrise’ period. Deloitte Enterprise Risk Services have been assigned the responsibility of evaluating submitted trademarks while IBM shall maintain the actual database of trademarks by the later half of 2013.

The tip of the iceberg is well in scope of view. ICANN46 is currently being hosted in Beijing, at the China Internet Network Information Centre (CINIC) from April 7 to 11, 2013 while hopefully parallel discussions will happen on all other global forums to hopefully re-consider a future of multiple competing DNS root servers towards healthy competition that is decentralized.

Key References

http://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/tlds/
Lynn, S. [2001] “Discussion Draft: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS” Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, 28 May, 2001.
Internet Architecture Board [2000] “IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root.” RFC 2826, Internet Society, May 2000.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dns-singularity-of-icann-and-the-gold-rush

Control Shift?

pranesh — 2011-08-02T07:22:12Z

The USA has ceded control of the Internet over to Icann, but only partially. (This post appeared as an article in Down to Earth, in the issue dated November 15, 2009.)

After dominating operations of the Internet for decades Washington has said it will relinquish some control. On September 30, the US department of commerce decided to cede some of its powers to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the body which manages the net’s phone book—the Internet’s Domain Naming System (dns).

The system deals with online addresses: human understandable names (like google.com) are made to work with computer understandable names (81.198.166.2, for example). Managing this is critical because while Madras can be a city in both Tamil Nadu and Oregon, everyone wishing to go to madras.com must be pointed to the same place. For the Internet to work, everyone in the world must use the same telephone directory.

The Internet is not a single network of computers, but an interconnected set of networks. What does it mean, then, to control the Internet? For those wishing to access YouTube in late February 2008, it seemed as though it was controlled by Pakistan Telecom—the agency had accidentally blocked access to YouTube to the entire world for almost a day. For Guangzhou residents, it seems the censor-happy Chinese government controls the Internet. And for a brief while in January 1998, it seemed the net was controlled by one Jon Postel.

Postel was one of the architects of the Internet involved from the times of the net’s predecessor arpanet project, which the US department of defence funded as an attack-resilient computer network. He was heading the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (iana), an informal body in de facto charge of technical aspects of the Internet, including the domain network system. But iana had no legal sanction. It was contracted by the department to perform its services. The US government retained control of the root servers that directed Internet traffic to the right locations.

On January 28, 1998, Postel got eight of the 12 root servers transferred to iana control. This was when the defence department was ceding its powers to the commerce department. Postal soon received a telephone call from a furious Ira Magaziner, Bill Clinton’s senior science adviser, who instructed him to undo the transfer. Within a week, the commerce department issued a declaration of its control over the dns root servers—it was now in a position to direct Internet traffic all over the world.

Soon after, the US government set up ICANN as a private non-profit corporation to manage the core components of the Internet. A contract from the department of commerce gave the organization in California the authority to conduct its operations. iana and other bodies (such as the regional Internet registries) now function under ICANN.

Right from the outset, ICANN has been criticized as unaccountable, opaque and controlled by vested interests, especially big corporations which manipulated the domain name dispute resolution system to favour trademarks. Its lack of democratic functioning, commercial focus and poor-tolerance of dissent have made ICANN everyone’s target, from those who believe in a libertarian Internet as a place of freedom and self-regulation, to those (the European Union, for instance) who believe the critical components of the Internet should not be in the sole control of the US government.

The department of commerce has from time to time renewed its agreement with ICANN, and the latest such renewal comes in the form of the affirmation of commitments (AoC). Through the AoC, the US government has sought to minimize its role. Instead of being the overseer of ICANN's working, it now holds only one permanent seat in the multi-stakeholder review panel that ICANN will itself have to constitute. But two days after the AoC, ICANN snubbed a coalition of civil society voices calling for representation; the root zone file remains in US control. It is too early to judge the AoC; it will have to be judged by how it is actualized.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-control-shift

The ICANN-US DOC 'Affirmation of Commitments' - A Step Forward?

anja — 2011-08-02T07:16:09Z

On 30 September 2009, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) signed an Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with the US Government's Department of Commerce. For those of us who are concerned that the Internet should serve the global public good, is the new arrangement a step forward? An assessment.

On 30 September 2009, ICANN signed an Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with the US Government's Department of Commerce. ICANN is the not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that coordinates the Internet's naming system. The Affirmation has been widely hailed for the loosening of US-ICANN ties that it implies. The unilateral control that the US exercised over the organisation had for long been criticised in various quarters as inappropriate for a – by now - global resource such as the Internet. A central instrument of this control was constituted by the reviews that the US's NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) would conduct of the organisation, based on which the country's Department of Commerce would rework and renew its contract with ICANN. With the signing of the AoC, reviews will henceforth be conducted by panels to be appointed by the Chair of ICANN's Board of Directors, as well as the Chair of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in consultation with the other members of the GAC. Since the Affirmation of Commitments is of long standing – unlike earlier Memoranda of Understanding, which had a limited validity – and since the US has demanded for itself a permanent seat on only one of the four panels that the AoC institutes, the US has indeed given up significant amounts of the control that it wielded over the organisation so far.

A clear step forward? Well, not necessarily – and in many ways it is too early to tell. Because while the denationalisation of ICANN was high on many stakeholders' agenda, so was the strengthening of ICANN as an accountable tool for global governance. And where the latter is concerned, the AoC falls sorely short. Although ICANN likes to posit itself as an organisation rooted in communities, where policy is developed from the bottom up, this wonderfully democratic discourse stands in rather ugly contrast to the quite questionable practices that are all too frequently reported from the organisation (the rather stepsisterly treatment meted out to noncommercial users in ICANN in recent times, for example, immediately comes to mind [1]). At the root of this contradiction seems to lie the fact that, while ICANN may be a public interest organisation on paper, in practice it is heavily dominated by large businesses, in particular those US-based, who seem to be willing to go to considerable lengths to defend their interests. The AoC has done nothing to check these tendencies. The review panels suggested are an internal affair, where those who develop policy will get to appoint the people who will assess the policy development processes, and most of those appointed, too, will come from within the organisation. While the suggested wider involvement of ICANN communities, including governments, in reviewing the organisation is a welcome move, it remains to be seen, then, to what extent these review panels will have teeth – in any case their recommendations are not binding. But some go even further and argue that the AoC has effectively removed the one democratic control that existed over ICANN's Board: that of the US Government. As the communities that supposedly make up ICANN do not have the power to unseat the Board, the Board now is effectively accountable... to none.

Since it does not directly address accountability problems within ICANN, the AoC is not so much an improvement, then, as simply a change: it has closed a few old doors, and opened some new ones. Whether this is for good or for bad remains to be seen: in the absence of clear structures of control and oversight, the shape of things to come is never fixed. For those within ICANN who genuinely want to work towards an Internet in the service of the public good, rather than of big business, there is, therefore, a tough task ahead of trying to ensure that the most will be made of the opportunities that the new arrangement does provide. Considering ICANN's institutional culture, this will undoubtedly mean that much of their energy will need to be invested in simply trying to shape new procedures and frameworks of governance in more democratic and accountable directions, eating into valuable time that could and should have been devoted to policy development instead. Indeed, irrespective of the final outcome of the AoC, the spectre of ICANN's lack of accountability and its glaring democratic deficit, for now, remains. And for a forum such as ICANN, that is unbecoming to say the least.

1] For more information, please see http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of, http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil, and http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/2/4338930.html.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-icann-us-doc-affirmation-of-commitments-a-step-forward