![](media/image1.png){width="0.9458333333333333in"
height="0.8430555555555556in"}

##### 

July 7, 2006

Ms. Fiona Alexander

Office of International Affairs

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Room 4701

Washington, DC 20230

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Re: NTIA Notice of Inquiry, The Continued Transition of the Technical
Coordination and Management of the Internet Domain Name and Addressing
System

Dear Ms. Alexander:

The United States Council for International Business (USCIB) is a
founding member of the ICANN GNSO\'s Business Constituency and was very
active in the formative stages of ICANN. We continue to work to inform
the larger business community about ICANN and its important work. The
technical coordination of the Internet is of critical importance to our
members, who come from all sectors of U.S. industry, given the amount of
their business that is conducted over it. Consequently, we continue to
support the private sector leadership as embodied in ICANN and are
pleased to provide comments as the Department of Commerce considers the
continuation of the transition of the technical coordination and
management of the Internet domain name and addressing system (Internet
DNS) to the private sector. 

**Are the principles of stability; competition; private, bottom-up
coordination; and representation still relevant to guide the transition
to private sector management of the Internet DNS?  Should additional
principles be considered in light of:  the advance in Internet
technology; the expanded global reach of the Internet and the
international dialogue?**

 

We believe that the guiding principles remain relevant and fundamental.
The foremost objective must be to ensure the operational stability of
the Internet. Private-sector led, bottom-up consensus policy development
should be preserved and respected, ensuring that all stakeholders, with
geographic and commercial diversity, are involved in the decision-making
process of the technical coordination of the Internet. The technical
coordination of the Internet should respect market forces and promote
competition. We also believe that to the greatest extent possible, the
technical coordination of the Internet should ensure the protection of
intellectual property.

While ICANN should, and is, evolving its structure and practices as
technology advances and the global reach of the Internet expands,
additional, overarching principles are not needed.

# MOU TASKS:

**Has ICANN achieved sufficient progress in its tasks, as agreed in the
MOU, for the transition to take place by September 30, 2006?**

## USCIB supports a private sector-led ICANN. To achieve this goal in a way that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, ICANN must be a mature and stable organization. The MOU was intended to set specific milestones to mark progress as ICANN evolved into such an organization. Indeed, ICANN has substantially fulfilled many of the milestones set in the MOU. USCIB believes that any amended MOU should recognize the milestones that have been completed and focus on only those tasks that remain relevant to demonstrating that ICANN has sufficiently matured to be an independent organization. 

**Are these core tasks and milestones still relevant to facilitate this
transition and meet the goals outlined in the *DNS White Paper*?  Should
new or revised tasks/methods be considered in order for the transition
to occur?  And on what time frame and by what method should a transition
occur?**

Since the September 16, 2003 amendment to the MOU, ICANN has introduced
10 new gTLDs. The introduction of these names has not made a noticeable
impact on the use of the original gTLDs or on the competitiveness of the
registry market. USCIB questions the continued assumption that new gTLDs
are essential and supports the need for applicants of any new gTLD to
demonstrate clearly that there is a market demand for the particular new
gTLD, including well documented support by the affected community for
any new sTLD. Efforts to introduce internationalized domain names should
be given a level of priority consistent with international dialogue on
the issue. This priority should be sufficiently reflected in the MOU
tasks.

**[STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION:]{.underline}**

**Are all key stakeholder groups whose meaningful participation is
necessary for effective technical coordination and management of the
Internet DNS involved effectively in the ICANN process**?  If not, how
could their involvement be improved? 

Participation in ICANN's processes is open to everyone. Practical
constraints may limit participation by some, e.g. cost of participation
in meetings, etc. However, ICANN does provide other avenues for
participation such as online comment fora, webcasting of ICANN meetings,
etc. ICANN actually undertakes great effort to ensure that interested
stakeholders can participate meaningfully. However, such mechanisms can
always be improved. As recent international discussions such as the
World Summit on the Information Society have highlighted, there is an
increasing interest of governments to be involved at an early stage in
the discussion of public policy issues raised by ICANN decisions.
Improved communications between the ICANN Board and the GAC are
necessary for the continued credibility of the current model. USCIB is
pleased that a joint working group has been established to explore
possible improvements. USCIB recommends that ICANN adopt a push rather
than a pull model such that the GAC is notified of all relevant policy
issues being reviewed by ICANN as soon as these issues are placed on
ICANN's agenda. It would then be incumbent on the GAC and/or individual
governments to provide the necessary input to ICANN in a timely manner.

**Is participation in the various supporting organizations and
committees created by ICANN to facilitate stakeholder participation in
ICANN processes meeting the needs of key stakeholders and the Internet
community?  Are there ways to improve or expand participation in these
organizations and committees? **

ICANN should identify mechanisms to enhance participation by
stakeholders outside of the traditional meetings held three times a
year. While we recognize the important role of ICANN we question whether
three meetings per year are actually necessary. The organization of
ICANN meetings is very resource intensive, resources that could be used
to enhance communication flows to the stakeholders (e.g. a push rather
than a pull model) so as to ensure knowledge of ICANN activities and the
ability for meaningful participation in policy development. Virtual
meetings using the Internet would be both appropriate given ICANN's role
and much more efficient in terms of time and resources.

Moreover, the PDP process does not always provide sufficient time for
all interested stakeholders to develop their views on issues being
considered by ICANN. The deadlines for comment as prescribed in the PDP
process need to be extended.

**[ENHANCED COOPERATION:]{.underline}**

**How can information exchange, collaboration and enhanced cooperation
among these organizations be achieved as called for by the WSIS?**

Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda clearly states that "all stakeholders"
and "all relevant organizations" should be involved in the "enhanced
cooperation" process. This principle of inclusiveness is critically
important to success in achieving "enhanced cooperation".

We believe that 'enhanced cooperation' refers to greater cooperation
among existing organizations, not the creation of new entities. Enhanced
cooperation amongst the relevant organizations that address Internet
related issues should be guided by the objective of information sharing,
creating more awareness and where appropriate, coherence in work
programs and collaboration.

Enhanced cooperation should be facilitated across the spectrum of all
relevant organizations including those that are private sector-led,
those that are intergovernmental (IGOs) and those that are
multistakeholder. The dynamic nature of the Information Society and the
Internet are such that new or additional groups will emerge that should
be allowed to be part of this enhanced cooperation process. In keeping
with the Tunis Agenda principle of inclusiveness, "All relevant
organizations" should not be interpreted as a snapshot in time. The fact
that many of the organizations that are addressing Internet-related
issues and their decision-making processes are already multistakeholder
should be recognized since this can be an important foundation for
enhanced cooperation. Business, given its expertise, should be involved
on an equal footing, in any discussions or decisions regarding 'enhanced
cooperation'.