Using the current 21 gTLDs as examples, Heath argued that allowing unlimited generic extensions would increase consumer confusion, decrease Internet security and safety, tarnish brands, and increase business costs. To counter ICANN’s oft-made claim that new gTLDs will increase competition and benefit the economy, he made it clear that no empirical research has been done to back up this claim.

He also blasted ICANN for its inability to regulate a web full of ever-increasing abuses, stating:

Despite the hard work of the ICANN Board and staff, Mr. Chairman, we see significant increases in abuses of the domain name system and inadequate management by ICANN to address the problems, including their inability to enforce contracts.

The two expressed worry over “serious negative consequences” that could result if the new domain system is implemented, such as increased fraud, cybersquatting, and confusion among Internet users. They were also worried about how the lack of price caps on the new extensions would affect American businesses.

Smith and Coble also stated that they have “serious misgivings” about the expiration of the JPA given ICANN’s “less than stellar track record.” They have asked Beckstrom to respond provide more details about the gTLD system and the termination of the JPA by September 22.

Source | Nextgov
Photo | Flickr

The letter published by the congressmen calls for the following to occur at ICANN:

Any further involvement of the United States in ICANN will more than likely cause an international uproar, and there is the possibility that it could refuse to cooperate with the government. Either way, I think ICANN hasn’t been as transparent and responsible as it could have been over the years and someone needs to clamp down on it. What the two politicians are calling for isn’t too unreasonable.

Considering the JPA expires on September 30, we should hear about any formal steps by the government to take hold of ICANN soon.

Source | DN Journal
Photo | Flickr

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D.-Calif., and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., made a statement regarding their views today:

Rather than replacing the JPA with additional JPAs or Memoranda of Understandings that expire every few years, we believe the time has come for a permanent instrument to which ICANN and the Department of Commerce are co-signatories. This statement of commitments and principles would ensure that ICANN remains perpetually accountable to the public and to all of its global stakeholders.

ICANN has previously declared that it neither wants government involvement nor a renewal of the JPA. The California organization has never really experienced any government oversight before, and it is unclear how the U.S. government could push itself into ICANN.

Personally, I think government involvement in ICANN is a good thing. Every other industry is regulated. Why the Internet has not already been made privy to federal oversight I do not know.

Source | eWeek

The non-profit organization received a battering of criticism from congressmen on a number of issues.

Republican Cliff Stearns of Florida attacked ICANN for its $7 million surplus. He questioned how a non-profit could have a surplus, but also had a few other choice words for Twomey:

You should take that $7 million and make sure that cyber-squatters are gone. I think your job should be not just developing a surplus but actually implementing — making it cheaper for consumers — and actually doing your mission.

Indeed, the issue of cybersquatting was a major contention with lawmakers. Verizon had complained prior to the meeting that cybersquatting is a rampant problem ICANN is doing little to address, and Democrat Rick Boucher of Virginia asked many questions about this. He wanted to know why cybersquatting is being permitted to persist and what the organization is doing to fix the problem.

One domain registrar attacked ICANN’s accountability and transparency:

ICANN holds three open board meetings a year, the rest of their board meetings are done in private. We make requests for information. We basically get stonewalled.

Twomey defended ICANN, stating that he has taken a number of steps to ensure greater transparency and accountability within the organization. He plans on stepping down by the end on the year.

Sources: Internet News and Domain Name Wire