Assessment of the Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System, 18688-18690 [E9-9409]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18688
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices
partnership that owns or holds a
sablefish endorsed permit to provide an
ownership interest form listing all
individuals with ownership interest in
the entity as part of the annual renewal
process and as part of any sablefish
endorsed permit transfer involving a
business entity either given as the
permit owner or as the vessel owner.
Also, for transfer requests after April 1st
and October 30th, the permit owner is
required to report the remaining pounds
(not yet harvested) on a sablefish
endorsed permit at the time of transfer.
Applicants for exempted fishing
permit must submit written information
that allows NMFS to evaluate the
exempted fishing activity and weigh the
benefits and costs of the proposed
activities. The information included in
an application is specified at 50 CFR
600.745(b)(2). Permit holders are
required to file preseason plans,
summary reports on the results of the
experiments or data collection and in
some cases individual vessels and other
permit holders are required to provide
data reports. There is also a requirement
of a call-in notification prior to the
fishing trip. This information allows
NMFS to evaluate the techniques used
and decide if management regulations
should be approved as is, modified, or
disapproved.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
II. Method of Collection
Renewal forms are mailed to all
permit owners and are submitted by
mail to NOAA, NMFS, Northwest
Region. Transfer forms are available
from the region’s Web site but must be
submitted by mail or in person.
Applications for an exempted fishing
permit must be submitted in a written
format. The exempted fishing permit
data reports may be submitted in
person, faxed, submitted by telephone
or e-mailed by the monitor, plant
manager, vessel owner or operator to
NMFS or the states of Washington,
Oregon, or California.
Data
OMB Control Number: 0648–0203.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Not-for-profit
institutions, state government,
individuals or households, and business
or other for-profits organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
336.
Estimated Time per Response: 30
minutes per exempted fishing permit
(EFP) application; 24 hours for an EFP
summary report; 43 minutes for an EFP
data report; 2 minutes for EFP trip
notification; 20 minutes for a limited
entry permit transfer form; 20 minutes
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:20 Apr 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
for a renewal form; 10 minutes to
provide mid season transfer information
for a sablefish endorsed limited entry
permit; and 30 minutes for a sablefish
permit ownership interest form.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 2,015.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $757,728.
III. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: April 21, 2009.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–9415 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
[Docket No. 090420688–9689–01]
Assessment of the Transition of the
Technical Coordination and
Management of the Internet’s Domain
Name and Addressing System
AGENCY: National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Commerce’s National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) seeks comment
regarding the upcoming expiration of
the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with
the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN). This
agreement has been in existence since
November 25, 1998, and is scheduled to
expire on September 30, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DATES: Comments are due on or before
June 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted by mail to Fiona M.
Alexander, Associate Administrator,
Office of International Affairs, National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Room 4701, Washington, DC
20230. Paper submissions should
include a three and one–half inch
computer diskette or compact disc (CD)
in HTML, ASCII, Word, WordPerfect,
rtf, or pdf format (please specify
version). Diskettes or CDs should be
labeled with the name and
organizational affiliation of the filer and
the name of the word processing
program used to create the document.
Alternatively, comments may be
submitted electronically to
DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov.
Comments provided via electronic mail
also should be submitted in one or more
of the formats specified above.
Comments will be posted to NTIA’s
website at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/
comments/2009/dnstransition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this Notice contact:
Suzanne R. Sene, Office of International
Affairs, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 4701,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202)
482–3180; email ssene@ntia.doc.gov.
Please direct media inquiries to the
Office of Public Affairs, NTIA, at (202)
482–7002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
A July 1, 1997, Executive
Memorandum directed the Secretary of
Commerce to privatize the Internet’s
domain name and addressing system
(DNS) in a manner that increases
competition and facilitates international
participation in its management.1 In
order to fulfill this Presidential
directive, the Department of Commerce
in June 1998, issued a statement of
policy on the privatization of the
Internet DNS, known as the DNS White
Paper.2 In the DNS White Paper, the
Department of Commerce articulated,
based upon public input, four principles
that would guide the development of an
entity called ‘‘NewCo’’ to be established
by the private sector. These principles
were: stability; competition; private,
bottom–up coordination; and
1 Memorandum on Electronic Commerce, 2 Pub.
Papers 898 (July 1, 1997).
2 Management of Internet Names and Addresses,
63 Fed. Reg. 31,741 (June 10, 1998).
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
representation. In particular, the
Department of Commerce committed
that it would not conclude its role in
DNS management if doing so would
cause instability in the DNS. This
process of transitioning to private sector
leadership these coordination and
management functions was termed the
DNS Project. The DNS White Paper
went on to state that, in making a
decision to enter into an agreement to
establish a process to transfer current
U.S. Government management of DNS
to such a new entity, the United States
would be guided by, and consider, the
proposed entity’s commitment to the
principles enumerated above.
To this end, the Department of
Commerce stated in the DNS White
Paper that it was prepared to enter into
an agreement with a new not–for–profit
corporation formed by private sector
Internet stakeholders. Private sector
interests, in turn, formed the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) for this purpose.3 In
the fall of 1998, the Department of
Commerce entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN, a
California not–for–profit corporation, to
transition technical DNS coordination
and management functions to the
private sector.4 The MOU does not give
the Department of Commerce the ability
to exercise oversight in the traditional
context of regulation and the
Department of Commerce plays no role
in the internal governance or day–to–
day operations of ICANN.
Since 1998, the MOU evolved through
several iterations and revisions as
ICANN tested these principles with the
community, learned valuable lessons,
and matured as an organization.
Amendments occurred in 1999, 2000,
2001, and 2002. In 2003, the Department
of Commerce noted the progress that
ICANN had made since its inception.
Accordingly, the Department of
Commerce and ICANN collaboratively
established more specific milestones to
further assist ICANN in meeting the
objectives of the DNS Project. Both the
Department of Commerce and ICANN
recognized at this stage that ‘‘much
work remained for ICANN to evolve into
an independent, stable, and sustainable
DNS management organization,’’ and
the agreement was further amended
(through September 30, 2006) to allow
3 For more information on the private sector
proposals received see https://www.ntia.doc.gov/
ntiahome/domainname/background.htm.
4 Memorandum of Understanding Between the
U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(Nov. 25, 1998), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
domainname/icann-memorandum.htm.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:20 Apr 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
sufficient time for ICANN to meet these
milestones’ objectives.5
On May 23, 2006, NTIA issued a
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) and announced
a public consultation on the Continued
Transition of the Technical
Coordination and Management of the
Internet DNS.6 The public consultation
resulted in over 700 contributions from
individuals, private corporations, trade
associations, non–governmental entities,
and governments. The consultation
evidenced broad support for both
continuing the transition and the
ongoing involvement of the Department
of Commerce. On September 29, 2006,
the Department of Commerce and
ICANN signed a JPA extending the
MOU.7 The JPA expires September 30,
2009.8
The JPA called for a midpoint review
of ICANN’s progress towards becoming
an organization with greater
transparency and accountability in its
procedures and decision making. NTIA
conducted this review by releasing an
NOI on November 2, 2007, and
conducting a public meeting on
February 28, 2008.9 This review process
revealed that, while some progress had
been made, there remained key areas
where further work was required to
increase institutional confidence in
ICANN.10 Specifically, these included
long–term stability, accountability,
responsiveness, continued private sector
leadership, stakeholder participation,
increased contract compliance, and
enhanced competition. ICANN has
stated publicly on several occasions
since this midpoint review, most
recently on March 2, 2009, that the JPA
will conclude September 30, 2009.11
5 Department of Commerce Statement Regarding
Extension of Memorandum of Understanding with
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (Sept. 16, 2003), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/
ntiahome/domainname/agreements/
sepstatementl09162003.htm.
6 Notice of Inquiry and Public Meeting on the
Continued Transition of the Technical Coordination
and Management of the Internet DNS (Nov. 1,
2007), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
domainname/jpamidtermreview.html.
7 All MOU Amendments are available online at
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/
icann.htm.
8 Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S.
Department of Commerce and the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
Amendment 7, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
domainname/agreements/jpa/
ICANNJPAl09292006.htm.
9 Notice of Inquiry and comments received are
available online at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/
ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html.
10 NTIA Statement on the Mid-Term Review of
the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) Between NTIA
and ICANN, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
domainname/ICANNlJPAl080402.html.
11 See e.g., Paul Twomey, CEO and President,
ICANN, Statement Given at the Welcome
Ceremony, 34th ICANN Conference, Mexico City,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18689
REQUEST FOR COMMENT:
Given the upcoming expiration of the
current JPA between the Department of
Commerce and ICANN, NTIA seeks
comments regarding the progress of the
transition of the technical coordination
and management of the Internet DNS to
the private sector, as well as the model
of private sector leadership and bottom–
up policy development which ICANN
represents.
The questions below are intended to
assist in identifying the issues and
should not be construed as a limitation
on comments that may be submitted.
Comments that contain references,
studies, research, and other empirical
data that are not widely published
should include copies of the referenced
materials with the submitted comments.
1. The DNS White Paper articulated
four principles (i.e., stability;
competition; private, bottom–up
coordination; and representation)
necessary for guiding the transition to
private sector management of the DNS.
Are these still the appropriate
principles? If so, have these core
principles been effectively integrated
into ICANN’s existing processes and
structures?
2. The goal of the JPA process has
been to transition the coordination of
DNS responsibilities, previously
performed by the U.S. Government or
on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the
private sector so as to enable industry
leadership and bottom–up policy
making. Is this still the most appropriate
model to increase competition and
facilitate international participation in
the coordination and management of the
DNS, bearing in mind the need to
maintain the security and stability of the
DNS? If yes, are the processes and
structures currently in place at ICANN
sufficient to enable industry leadership
and bottom–up policy making? If not,
what is the most appropriate model,
keeping in mind the need to ensure the
stability and security of the Internet
DNS?
3. The original agreement and the first
six amendments to the JPA contained a
series of core tasks, and in some cases,
date–specific milestones. Have these
tasks been accomplished and have these
milestones been met? If not, what
remains and what steps should be taken
to successfully address them?
4. In 2006, the focus on specific
milestones was adjusted to a series of
(Mar. 2, 2009), https://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/
mexico2009/transcript-opening-ceremony-02mar09en.txt; Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, 2008 Annual Report (Dec. 31, 2008), at
21, https://www.icann.org/en/annualreport/annualreport-2008-en.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
18690
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices
broad commitments endorsed by the
ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA.
Specifically, ICANN committed to take
action on the responsibilities set out in
the Affirmation of Responsibilities
established in ICANN Board Resolution
06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12
Those responsibilities included
activities in the following categories:
security and stability, transparency,
accountability, root server security and
relationships, TLD management, multi–
stakeholder model, role of governments,
IP addressing, corporate responsibility,
and corporate administrative structure.
What steps has ICANN taken to meet
each of these responsibilities? Have
these steps been successful? If not, what
more could be done to meet the needs
of the community served in these areas?
5. The current JPA called for NTIA to
conduct a mid–term review. That
review revealed that ICANN needed to
take further steps to increase
institutional confidence related to long–
term stability, accountability,
responsiveness, continued private sector
leadership, stakeholder participation,
increased contract compliance, and
enhanced competition. What steps has
ICANN taken to address the concerns
expressed in the mid–term review
process? Have these steps been
successful? If not, what more could be
done to meet the needs of the
community served in these areas?
6. The JPA between the Department of
Commerce and ICANN is an agreement
by mutual consent to effectuate the
transition of the technical coordination
and management of the Internet DNS in
a manner that ensures the continued
stability and security of the Internet
DNS. Has sufficient progress been
achieved for the transition to take place
by September 30, 2009? If not, what
should be done? What criteria should be
used to make that determination?
7. Given the upcoming expiration of
the JPA, are there sufficient safeguards
in place to ensure the continued
security and stability of the Internet
DNS, private sector leadership, and that
all stakeholder interests are adequately
taken into account? If yes, what are
they? Are these safeguards mature and
robust enough to ensure protection of
stakeholder interests and the model
itself in the future? If no, what
additional safeguards should be put in
place?
8. The JPA provides that before its
termination, NTIA and ICANN are to
12 Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S.
Department of Commerce and the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
Amendment 7, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
domainname/agreements/jpa/
ICANNJPAl09292006.htm.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:20 Apr 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
collaborate on a DNS Project Report that
will document ICANN’s policies and
procedures designed and developed
pursuant to the agreement. What should
be included in this report?
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:
Any oral presentation to NTIA
regarding the substance of this
proceeding will be considered an ex
parte presentation, and the substance of
the meeting will be placed on the public
record and become a part of this docket.
No later than two (2) business days after
an oral presentation or meeting, an
interested party must submit a
memorandum to NTIA, which
summarizes the substance of the
communication. Any written
presentations provided in support of the
oral communication or meeting will also
be placed on the public record and
become a part of this docket. Such ex
parte communications must be
submitted to
DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov in one of
the above listed formats and clearly
labeled as an ex parte presentation. All
ex parte documents will be posted at
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/
2009/dnstransition.
Dated: April 20, 2009.
Anna M. Gomez,
Acting Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–9409 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–60–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[05–BIS–26]
In the Matter of Tariq Ahmed; Final
Decision and Order
In the Matter of: Tariq Ahmed, 612
Business Centre, Mumtaz Hasan Road,
Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi,
Pakistan, Respondent
Final Decision and Order
This matter is before me upon a
Recommended Decision and Order
(‘‘RDO’’) of an Administrative Law
Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as further described
below.
On December 15, 2005, the Bureau of
Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) issued a
charging letter alleging that Respondent,
Tariq Ahmed,1 committed two
violations of the Export Administration
Regulations (currently codified at 15
CFR parts 730–774 (2008)
1 Tariq Ahmed is also known as Tariq Amin,
Tariq Ahmad, and Tariq Ahmad Amin.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(‘‘Regulations’’)),2 issued pursuant to
the Export Administration Act of 1979,
as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420
(2000)) (‘‘Act’’).3 The charging letter
included a charge that was based on
actions taken by Tariq Ahmed to evade
licensing requirements governing the
export of items subject to the
Regulations from the United States to a
Pakistani organization listed on BIS’s
Entity List. Specifically, Charge One
alleged as follows:
Charge 1 (15 CFR 764.2(h)—Actions
Taken with Intent to Evade the
Provisions of the Regulations)
On or about April 27, 2002, T[ariq]
Ahmed took actions with the intent to
evade the U.S. Government’s licensing
requirements for exports to Pakistan.
Specifically, T[ariq] Ahmed took
actions, including but not limited to, the
submission of false information to a
freight forwarder in connection with an
export of components for an online
chemical monitoring system, items
subject to the Regulations (EAR99 and
4A994 4), from the United States to the
Karachi Nuclear Power Plant
(‘‘KANUPP’’) in Karachi, Pakistan via
the UAE. T[ariq] Ahmed provided
shipping information representing that
the consignee was in the UAE but
omitting the final destination for the
items. The purpose of T[ariq] Ahmed’s
actions was to conceal the end-user,
KANUPP, a Pakistani organization on
the Entity List set forth in Supplement
No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations and
for which a Department of Commerce
export license was required by Section
744.1 of the Regulations. In so doing,
T[ariq] Ahmed committed one violation
of Section 764.2(h) of the Regulations.5
In accordance with § 766.3(b)(1) of the
Regulations, on December 15, 2005, BIS
mailed the notice of issuance of the
charging letter by registered mail to
2 The charged violations occurred during 2002.
The Regulations governing the violations at issue
are found in the 2002 version of the Code of Federal
Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–774 (2002)). The
2008 Regulations establish the procedures that
apply to this matter.
3 Since August 21, 2001 the Act has been in lapse.
However, the President, through Executive Order
13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783
(2002)), which has been extended by successive
Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of
July 23, 2008 (73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008)), has
continued the Regulations in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701–1707).
4 ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to ‘‘Export Control Classification
Number.’’ Supp. 1 to 15 CFR § 774.
5 The Charging Letter included a second evasion
charge, Charge Two, relating to BIS’s export control
documentation filing requirements. By Notice of
Withdrawal filed with the Administrative Law
Judge simultaneously with its Motion for Default
Order, BIS provided notice that it was withdrawing
Charge Two. Thus, Charge Two was not part of
BIS’s Motion for Default Order.
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 78 (Friday, April 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18688-18690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9409]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
[Docket No. 090420688-9689-01]
Assessment of the Transition of the Technical Coordination and
Management of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System
AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) seeks comment regarding the
upcoming expiration of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This
agreement has been in existence since November 25, 1998, and is
scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by mail to Fiona M.
Alexander, Associate Administrator, Office of International Affairs,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 4701,
Washington, DC 20230. Paper submissions should include a three and one-
half inch computer diskette or compact disc (CD) in HTML, ASCII, Word,
WordPerfect, rtf, or pdf format (please specify version). Diskettes or
CDs should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of
the filer and the name of the word processing program used to create
the document. Alternatively, comments may be submitted electronically
to DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov. Comments provided via electronic mail
also should be submitted in one or more of the formats specified above.
Comments will be posted to NTIA's website at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this Notice
contact: Suzanne R. Sene, Office of International Affairs, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 4701, Washington, DC
20230, telephone (202) 482-3180; email ssene@ntia.doc.gov. Please
direct media inquiries to the Office of Public Affairs, NTIA, at (202)
482-7002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
A July 1, 1997, Executive Memorandum directed the Secretary of
Commerce to privatize the Internet's domain name and addressing system
(DNS) in a manner that increases competition and facilitates
international participation in its management.\1\ In order to fulfill
this Presidential directive, the Department of Commerce in June 1998,
issued a statement of policy on the privatization of the Internet DNS,
known as the DNS White Paper.\2\ In the DNS White Paper, the Department
of Commerce articulated, based upon public input, four principles that
would guide the development of an entity called ``NewCo'' to be
established by the private sector. These principles were: stability;
competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and
[[Page 18689]]
representation. In particular, the Department of Commerce committed
that it would not conclude its role in DNS management if doing so would
cause instability in the DNS. This process of transitioning to private
sector leadership these coordination and management functions was
termed the DNS Project. The DNS White Paper went on to state that, in
making a decision to enter into an agreement to establish a process to
transfer current U.S. Government management of DNS to such a new
entity, the United States would be guided by, and consider, the
proposed entity's commitment to the principles enumerated above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum on Electronic Commerce, 2 Pub. Papers 898 (July
1, 1997).
\2\ Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg.
31,741 (June 10, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To this end, the Department of Commerce stated in the DNS White
Paper that it was prepared to enter into an agreement with a new not-
for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders.
Private sector interests, in turn, formed the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for this purpose.\3\ In the fall of
1998, the Department of Commerce entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with ICANN, a California not-for-profit
corporation, to transition technical DNS coordination and management
functions to the private sector.\4\ The MOU does not give the
Department of Commerce the ability to exercise oversight in the
traditional context of regulation and the Department of Commerce plays
no role in the internal governance or day-to-day operations of ICANN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For more information on the private sector proposals
received see https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/background.htm.
\4\ Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(Nov. 25, 1998), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1998, the MOU evolved through several iterations and
revisions as ICANN tested these principles with the community, learned
valuable lessons, and matured as an organization. Amendments occurred
in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. In 2003, the Department of Commerce
noted the progress that ICANN had made since its inception.
Accordingly, the Department of Commerce and ICANN collaboratively
established more specific milestones to further assist ICANN in meeting
the objectives of the DNS Project. Both the Department of Commerce and
ICANN recognized at this stage that ``much work remained for ICANN to
evolve into an independent, stable, and sustainable DNS management
organization,'' and the agreement was further amended (through
September 30, 2006) to allow sufficient time for ICANN to meet these
milestones' objectives.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Department of Commerce Statement Regarding Extension of
Memorandum of Understanding with the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (Sept. 16, 2003), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/sepstatement_09162003.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 2006, NTIA issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) and
announced a public consultation on the Continued Transition of the
Technical Coordination and Management of the Internet DNS.\6\ The
public consultation resulted in over 700 contributions from
individuals, private corporations, trade associations, non-governmental
entities, and governments. The consultation evidenced broad support for
both continuing the transition and the ongoing involvement of the
Department of Commerce. On September 29, 2006, the Department of
Commerce and ICANN signed a JPA extending the MOU.\7\ The JPA expires
September 30, 2009.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Notice of Inquiry and Public Meeting on the Continued
Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management of the
Internet DNS (Nov. 1, 2007), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html.
\7\ All MOU Amendments are available online at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann.htm.
\8\ Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, Amendment 7, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/ICANNJPA_09292006.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The JPA called for a midpoint review of ICANN's progress towards
becoming an organization with greater transparency and accountability
in its procedures and decision making. NTIA conducted this review by
releasing an NOI on November 2, 2007, and conducting a public meeting
on February 28, 2008.\9\ This review process revealed that, while some
progress had been made, there remained key areas where further work was
required to increase institutional confidence in ICANN.\10\
Specifically, these included long-term stability, accountability,
responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, stakeholder
participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced competition.
ICANN has stated publicly on several occasions since this midpoint
review, most recently on March 2, 2009, that the JPA will conclude
September 30, 2009.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Notice of Inquiry and comments received are available online
at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html.
\10\ NTIA Statement on the Mid-Term Review of the Joint Project
Agreement (JPA) Between NTIA and ICANN, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html.
\11\ See e.g., Paul Twomey, CEO and President, ICANN, Statement
Given at the Welcome Ceremony, 34th ICANN Conference, Mexico City,
(Mar. 2, 2009), https://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-opening-ceremony-02mar09-en.txt; Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers, 2008 Annual Report (Dec. 31, 2008), at
21, https://www.icann.org/en/annualreport/annual-report-2008-en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST FOR COMMENT:
Given the upcoming expiration of the current JPA between the
Department of Commerce and ICANN, NTIA seeks comments regarding the
progress of the transition of the technical coordination and management
of the Internet DNS to the private sector, as well as the model of
private sector leadership and bottom-up policy development which ICANN
represents.
The questions below are intended to assist in identifying the
issues and should not be construed as a limitation on comments that may
be submitted. Comments that contain references, studies, research, and
other empirical data that are not widely published should include
copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments.
1. The DNS White Paper articulated four principles (i.e.,
stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and
representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector
management of the DNS. Are these still the appropriate principles? If
so, have these core principles been effectively integrated into ICANN's
existing processes and structures?
2. The goal of the JPA process has been to transition the
coordination of DNS responsibilities, previously performed by the U.S.
Government or on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the private sector
so as to enable industry leadership and bottom-up policy making. Is
this still the most appropriate model to increase competition and
facilitate international participation in the coordination and
management of the DNS, bearing in mind the need to maintain the
security and stability of the DNS? If yes, are the processes and
structures currently in place at ICANN sufficient to enable industry
leadership and bottom-up policy making? If not, what is the most
appropriate model, keeping in mind the need to ensure the stability and
security of the Internet DNS?
3. The original agreement and the first six amendments to the JPA
contained a series of core tasks, and in some cases, date-specific
milestones. Have these tasks been accomplished and have these
milestones been met? If not, what remains and what steps should be
taken to successfully address them?
4. In 2006, the focus on specific milestones was adjusted to a
series of
[[Page 18690]]
broad commitments endorsed by the ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA.
Specifically, ICANN committed to take action on the responsibilities
set out in the Affirmation of Responsibilities established in ICANN
Board Resolution 06.71, dated September 25, 2006.\12\ Those
responsibilities included activities in the following categories:
security and stability, transparency, accountability, root server
security and relationships, TLD management, multi-stakeholder model,
role of governments, IP addressing, corporate responsibility, and
corporate administrative structure. What steps has ICANN taken to meet
each of these responsibilities? Have these steps been successful? If
not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the community served
in these areas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, Amendment 7, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/ICANNJPA_09292006.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The current JPA called for NTIA to conduct a mid-term review.
That review revealed that ICANN needed to take further steps to
increase institutional confidence related to long-term stability,
accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership,
stakeholder participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced
competition. What steps has ICANN taken to address the concerns
expressed in the mid-term review process? Have these steps been
successful? If not, what more could be done to meet the needs of the
community served in these areas?
6. The JPA between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is an
agreement by mutual consent to effectuate the transition of the
technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS in a manner
that ensures the continued stability and security of the Internet DNS.
Has sufficient progress been achieved for the transition to take place
by September 30, 2009? If not, what should be done? What criteria
should be used to make that determination?
7. Given the upcoming expiration of the JPA, are there sufficient
safeguards in place to ensure the continued security and stability of
the Internet DNS, private sector leadership, and that all stakeholder
interests are adequately taken into account? If yes, what are they? Are
these safeguards mature and robust enough to ensure protection of
stakeholder interests and the model itself in the future? If no, what
additional safeguards should be put in place?
8. The JPA provides that before its termination, NTIA and ICANN are
to collaborate on a DNS Project Report that will document ICANN's
policies and procedures designed and developed pursuant to the
agreement. What should be included in this report?
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:
Any oral presentation to NTIA regarding the substance of this
proceeding will be considered an ex parte presentation, and the
substance of the meeting will be placed on the public record and become
a part of this docket. No later than two (2) business days after an
oral presentation or meeting, an interested party must submit a
memorandum to NTIA, which summarizes the substance of the
communication. Any written presentations provided in support of the
oral communication or meeting will also be placed on the public record
and become a part of this docket. Such ex parte communications must be
submitted to DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov in one of the above listed
formats and clearly labeled as an ex parte presentation. All ex parte
documents will be posted at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2009/dnstransition.
Dated: April 20, 2009.
Anna M. Gomez,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-9409 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-S
