U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–603 PDF 2015

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON ICANN: 

THE .SUCKS DOMAIN AND ESSENTIAL STEPS 

TO GUARANTEE TRUST AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

IN THE INTERNET’S OPERATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 13, 2015 

Serial No. 114–23 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Vice-Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

JASON EVERETT, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 13, 2015 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .......................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 5 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 7 

WITNESSES 

Mei-Lan Stark, Immediate Past President, International Trademark Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

Paul Misener, Vice President of Global Public Policy, Amazon.com, Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

John C. Horton, President, LegitScript 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Steven J. Metalitz, Counsel, Coalition for Online Accountability 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

Bill Woodcock, Executive Director, Packet Clearing House 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 68 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 70 

Steve DelBianco, Executive Director, NetChoice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 76 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 78 

Philip S. Corwin, Counsel, Internet Commerce Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 95 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 97 

Jonathan Zuck, President, ACT|The App Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 127 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 129 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ................................................ 143 

Additional material submitted by the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ......................... 158 
Page

IV 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, 

Intellectual Property, and the Internet .............................................................. 176 

Material submitted by the Honorable Doug Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Vice-Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ................................................ 186 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Question posed during the hearing from Mei-Lan Stark, Immediate Past President, International Trademark Association ............................ 196 

Response to Questions for the Record from Steven J. Metalitz, Counsel, Coalition for Online Accountability ............................................................................. 200 

CircleID Article by Representative Bob Goodlatte and Senator Chuck Grassley .......................................................................................................................... 203 

TechPolicyDaily.com Article by Shane Tews ......................................................... 205 

Letter from Terry Hart, Director of Legal Policy, The Copyright Alliance ......... 208 

Prepared Statement of Daniel Castro, Vice President, Information Technology 

and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) ...................................................................... 211 

Prepared Statement of Milton L. Mueller, Ph.D., Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, The Internet Governance Project ............ 219 

Prepared Statement of Donuts Inc. ........................................................................ 222 
(1) 

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON ICANN: 

THE .SUCKS DOMAIN AND ESSENTIAL 

STEPS TO GUARANTEE TRUST AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE INTERNET’S OPERATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Goodlatte, Collins, Smith, Forbes, 

Jordan, Poe, Marino, Farenthold, Nadler, Conyers, Deutch, Bass, 

DelBene, Peters, Lofgren, and Johnson. 

Staff Present: (Majority) David Whitney, Oversight Counsel; Eric 

Bagwell, Clerk; and (Minority) Jason Everett, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. ISSA. Good morning. I want to welcome you all to this intimate dais gathering here. 

The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the 

Internet will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

We welcome today a hearing with the stakeholders of prospective 

changes on ICANN. In particular, we will be dealing today with a 

number of new items, including the .SUCKS domain and essential 

steps to guarantee trust and accountability in Internet operations. 

Today’s hearing comes approximately 14 months after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced its intention to relinquish the existing contract for the 

oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA, to 

the global multi-stakeholder group coordinated by ICANN. Now, 

that is a mouthful. But in a nutshell, we have decided to give up 

our governance control that has been in place effectively since the 

beginning of the Internet. 

The United States has been a critical backstop against censorship and in promoting openness and free speech in the Internet 
2 

once IANA’s contract is surrendered. It is impossible to go back 

once this is done, and we cannot overstate the importance of such 

a transition. If it is to occur, it is important that it be done correctly and recognizing that the long-term aspirations of these organizations that contribute to the operations of the Internet must 

take the utmost caution in establishing a process to transition to 

a new form of control of this critical backbone function. 

Clearly, I was troubled by the NTIA’s sudden announcement late 

on a Friday afternoon, which is known by all of us to bury a story. 

So on September 30, 2014, without first informing or engaging with 

the appropriate parties for collaboration, including the staff of this 

Committee—and I want to make it clear, a minor notice that something would be happening the next week, on a Thursday, without 

recognizing what it was going to be, and then having it stuck in 

on a Friday, is not collaboration. It is certainly not consultation. 

The process that we want to have must be deliberate, conscientious, and, in fact, include a bottom-up evaluation by all the stakeholders. So today’s hearing is really about recognizing successes 

and failures throughout this process. 

But we have the largest group of witnesses I personally have 

ever had in my 15 years in Congress for a reason. Even without 

ICANN at the table, what we have is we have a small segment of 

the stakeholders. To have only eight is a disappointment, because 

there are millions. But to have eight is the bare minimum for us 

to begin to talk about the breadth of concern that seems to exist 

in a transition that, although anticipated for a long time, seems to 

be rushing forward just at a time in which particularly the domain 

name system has some serious questions and perhaps flaws. 

It is particularly important that now that it is about a year later, 

that we begin to ask the question: Is it appropriate to have the 

transition as scheduled, or should there be further delay with a 

short extension in order to ensure that the process that cannot be 

undone is done right the first time? 

An example that particularly concerns this Member is, in fact, 

that in light of the .AMAZON Web site, one that was not done in 

consultation with a company of Internet fame, nor necessarily in 

proper consultation with the countries in which Amazon flows, has 

been with some chaos and lessons to be learned, and I want to 

thank our witness for being here today so we can begin discussing 

what was learned and should be learned before sites such as 

.SUCKS, .PORN, or .IHATECONGRESS are put on the Internet. 

I know that .IHATECONGRESS would be well sold, perhaps oversubscribed. The question is, does it serve the responsibility to ensure sufficient naming so that all may have an appropriate name? 

Or, in fact, have we gotten into a business model that was never 

envisioned? 

There is no question in my mind that since there are billions of 

possibilities in IPv6, a series of three-digit numbers, there are 

enough numbers finally to take care of every point. But since 

names can be assigned by the dozens or even thousands to one 

number, are we simply exaggerating the number of names that are 

going to end up at a single point? 

In closing, the .SUCKS domain was approved by ICANN and 

auctioned last November to a company that now has the right to 
3 

operate a new generic top-level domain. ICANN should not be the 

speech police. However, as I have done individual evaluation, and 

I now place into the record the DarrellIssa.SUCKS opportunity to 

buy, the process being done by the companies that gain the rights 

appears to this Member to be nothing more than legalized extortion. The typical price most Americans see if they go to GoDaddy 

or any other site to buy a name is in the dollars or tens of dollars. 

In the case of these sites, which can be often and most likely used 

in a pejorative way, the sites begin at $249 but are effectively being 

done as an auction. You are given an opportunity to bid, if you are 

the proper name owner, $2,500, with no guarantee that you won’t 

be over-bid by somebody that hates you more than you love your 

own name. 

So as we begin this process, one of the key elements that we are 

going to be exploring is whether, in fact, naming and those sales 

should ever be done to settle past debts that ICANN has, or a bidding process that leads to an unreasonable cost to the legitimate 

owner of a name only to protect his name from either disparagement or dilution. 

And with that, I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Member 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we continue our examination of the Internet Corporation 

for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. This may not be a 

glamorous topic, but it is fundamental to the governance and functioning of the Internet. 

When we type a simple address into our Web browser, we rarely 

give a second thought to how our desired Web site loads almost instantly onto our screen. But there is a complicated and unseen architecture that makes this process work, administered in part by 

ICANN, and we must ensure that it operates smoothly, transparently, and with proper accountability. 

Since this Subcommittee last considered issues related to 

ICANN, there have been many developments that warrant further 

analysis, and I appreciate the Chairman scheduling this hearing 

today. 

Most prominently since our last hearing, ICANN has continued 

to expand its new generic top-level domain program, gTLD, which 

supplements existing top-level domains such as .COM, .NET, and 

.ORG with new ones consisting of brand names or generic terms 

like .MUSIC, .NEWS, or .BOOKS. Supporters of this expansion 

argue that it will increase consumer choice, competition, and innovation. As of last month, there were over 500 new top-level domains added to the Internet, and we expect hundreds more soon. 

However, this expansion has also raised a host of issues related 

to determining which names are allocated, to whom they are allocated, and what it should cost to register a domain. We have seen 

this most vividly in the controversy surrounding ICANN’s approval, 

as the Chairman has mentioned, of the .SUCKS gTLD. This has 

been contentious not only because of the term but also because of 

concerns voiced about the proposed pricing structure associated 

with the domain. 

For obvious reasons, many brand owners have chosen to defensively register their own names in this domain to prevent others 
4 

from using it in a negative context. However, the company that administers the .SUCKS domain, Vox Populi, has chosen to charge 

brand owners $2,500 to register their names instead of the much 

lower prices, as low as $10 in some cases, that it charges the public 

to register these names. 

According to Vox Populi, the .SUCKS domain ‘‘is designed to help 

consumers find their voices and allow companies to find their value 

in criticism.’’ Legitimate criticism is fair, of course, and is protected 

speech. However, this tiered pricing scheme which allows critics to 

register a name for a nominal charge while brand owners must pay 

exorbitant prices to protect their brands looks to many people like 

extortion. 

For example, ICANN’s intellectual property constituency sent a 

letter to ICANN suggesting that the roll-out not continue because 

it ‘‘can best be described as predatory, exploitative, and coercive.’’ 

In response to these concerns, ICANN asked the United States 

Federal Trade Commission and Canada’s Office of Consumer Affairs to consider whether Vox Populi, which is based in Canada, is 

violating any laws or regulations. According to ICANN, because it 

is not a law enforcement agency and is only a contractual relationship with Vox Populi, it cannot act unless it receives guidance that 

the company is acting in some way illegally. 

Many stakeholders have expressed concern that ICANN’s response is inadequate and simply passes the buck to regulators 

rather than taking responsibility for administering its own contracts. 

Given Vox Populi’s scathing letter in response to ICANN, it is 

clear that this issue will not be resolved quickly. Congress must 

closely monitor the situation and hope ICANN will provide answers 

about how it intends to protect intellectual property rights holders 

and consumers as the rollout of the .SUCKS top-level domain continues. 

But this should not be just about one top-level domain expansion. 

We must consider instead what we can learn from the .SUCKS experience and apply these lessons to future top-level domains. We 

should also consider whether there are satisfactory safeguards in 

place to protect trademarks and intellectual property from being 

misused during this process, and whether ICANN’s rights protection mechanism sufficiently addresses concerns raised by active 

parties. 

It is important to recognize that this discussion occurs in the context of oversight responsibility for ICANN’s ministerial IANA functions transitioning from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the U.S. Commerce Department to an 

international multi-stakeholder process. This transition is completely separate and apart from ICANN’s role in the top-level domain expansion. 

However, to the extent that stakeholders have expressed concerns about ICANN’s level of transparency and accountability when 

it comes to managing the gTLD expansion or its other responsibilities, it is fair to ask whether appropriate transparency and accountability will exist once the multi-stakeholder process begins. 

Unfortunately, at times the debate over the ICANN transition 

has veered into a partisan battle based on imagined fears that the 
5 

transition will cause the Internet to be dominated by repressive 

governments overseas. I hope that today’s hearing will be free of 

such overheated rhetoric. In reality, this transition continues a privatization process that started in 1998, which continued through 

the Bush administration and has been supported by various Congresses. Ensuring effective private-sector management of these networks and transitioning functions served by the United States Government has been a goal shared by Republicans and Democrats 

alike over the years. I continue to believe that we need to ensure 

that the transition process and the model developed through the 

process produces a management structure that supports a secure, 

open, and truly global Internet. 

The NTIA has established criteria to help ensure this occurs, and 

I am confident that the agency and ICANN will agree to update us 

periodically. 

Before we delve into a discussion of any shortcomings of ICANN, 

I first want to thank its staff and its leadership for bringing together the multi-stakeholder process and for their hard work in 

building a strong and effective Internet. I hope that today’s hearing 

will not devolve into a discussion that simply blames ICANN for 

all of the things that have gone wrong in this transition. Rather, 

I challenge us to figure out ways we can improve it. I would like 

our conversation to be more constructive, and I am hopeful that we 

can work together in a bipartisan fashion to determine how best to 

improve the current system. 

Since we have eight excellent witnesses, I don’t want to spend 

any more time talking than needed. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just over a year ago the Obama administration and specifically 

the NTIA announced plans to transition oversight over the Internet’s domain name system to the Internet Corporation for Assigned 

Names and Numbers, or ICANN. The Administration’s decision 

kicked off high-profile debates involving many far-reaching questions that relate to the future security, stability, resiliency and integrity of the global Internet’s continued operation. 

At the core of NTIA’s decision to entrust ICANN with the responsibility of convening the multi-stakeholder process to transition the 

IANA functions contract away from the United States is its determination that ICANN has matured as an organization. Presumably, NTIA has concluded that ICANN is not merely likely to conduct itself in a predictable, open, transparent and accountable 

manner in the future but that it generally exercises sound judgment and conducts itself in this manner already. 

Today’s hearing before the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the 

Internet Subcommittee is the second to focus on aspects of the proposed transition of the IANA functions contract to the global multistakeholder community. Two overarching concerns that should be 

tested fully and appropriately validated before concluding any transition are: one, how representative that community is; and two, 

how effective the community is and will be in the future in compel-
6 

ling ICANN to operate in a manner that benefits not merely a privileged few but the global users of the Internet. 

We will direct our attention today to matters that relate to the 

processes being implemented by ICANN and affected stakeholders 

to advance the NTIA’s proposal and also to the substantive concerns routinely expressed by a wide array of stakeholders about 

ICANN’s trustworthiness, accountability, execution and transparency of its current and existing duties and initiatives. 

Regrettably, many of these issues relate to matters presented to 

successive leaders of ICANN and officials at the Commerce Department for years, and yet there remains substantial room for 

progress toward responsible outcomes. 

Despite these matters being neither novel nor unanticipated, 

ICANN too often fails to appreciate their seriousness and implement corrective measures in advance or determines that it is unable or unwilling to do so. In at least one instance, the Obama administration actually aided and abetted efforts within ICANN to 

expand the influence of foreign governments at the expense of 

American companies. 

We will hear what happened when the NTIA and the State Department refused to intervene as the governments of Brazil and 

Peru pressured ICANN’s board to deny Amazon’s application for 

the .AMAZON gTLD even though the application was complete and 

the word was in no way restricted. 

The multi-faceted debate over the .SUCKS gTLD, which has re- sulted in trademark owners being shaken down for $2,499—I love 

that $1.00 discount from the round $2,500—or more annually to 

protect their brands by a registry affiliated with a company in financial default to ICANN raises many troubling questions, including: one, how the registry gained approval in the first instance; and 

two, whether ICANN itself had a financial motive for allowing this 

bid to proceed. 

Beyond this, ICANN’s Chief Contract Compliance Officer’s recent 

public request to consumer protection officials in the United States 

and Canada to investigate the applicant that ICANN just awarded 

the new domain to demonstrates the absurdity and futility of 

ICANN’s own enforcement processes. 

But frustration over ICANN’s enforcement and compliance system is not new. For more than a decade, this Committee has 

worked to encourage ICANN to take meaningful action to suspend 

the accreditation of registrars who disregard abuse notifications, 

and even those who actively solicit criminal activity. Today, we will 

hear testimony from a witness who has documented ICANN’s refusal to deal responsibly with registries that profit from the trafficking of counterfeit drugs and even controlled substances like heroin. 

Before concluding, I want to commend the witnesses here today 

and those who worked to submit statements to the Subcommittee 

for their extraordinary dedication and ongoing efforts to improve 

ICANN’s responsiveness, accountability and transparency. 

As one of our experts who wasn’t able to join us today observed, 

‘‘We think that after more than fifteen years of routinely interacting with each other, ICANN and NTIA may have become a little 

too close. Only Congress can review what NTIA does and keep 
7 

pressure on them to make sure the ICANN/IANA transition is not 

overly influenced or dominated by the agenda of ICANN. Help us 

ensure that the transition responds to the needs of the much 

broader community of Internet users and providers.’’ That is our 

goal and our obligation. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Issa. And to the Members 

of the Committee, and the gentlelady witness with the seven men 

that have accompanied her here today. We welcome you and the interested citizens that join us for this discussion here in the Judiciary Committee. 

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, 

ICANN, is a private-sector, non-profit corporation started in 1998 

to promote competition and to develop policy on the Internet’s 

unique identifiers. The pending transition of key domain functions 

from United States stewardship to the global, multi-stakeholder 

community presents, of course, several new issues. 

Most importantly, ICANN and other stakeholders must abide by 

their contractual provisions to prohibit the use of domain names for 

the pirating of copyrighted material and other illegal activity. As 

many of you know, this Committee is deeply committed to addressing the problems of copyright and trademark infringement. 

Thus, from our perspective, it is critical that ICANN help prevent piracy and other unlawful conduct by both registrars and registrants. And to this end, ICANN prohibits registrants from engaging in unlawful conduct. In fact, ICANN released its Register Accreditation Agreement in 2013 which requires registrars to prevent 

abusive uses of registered domain names. 

Yet, there are reports that registrars are ignoring their obligations to deter online theft of copyrighted material, among other 

concerns. And worse, there are reports that ICANN is not enforcing 

the registrars’ contractual obligations. This raises concerns about 

ICANN and Internet governance. 

Accordingly, I would like the distinguished witnesses to explain 

how ICANN and stakeholders can better respond to concerns about 

piracy and other illegal conduct, and how Congress can hold 

ICANN accountable. 

This leads to the next consideration. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration must adhere to its core 

guiding principles to ensure the security, protection, openness and 

stability of the network to complete the transition. The United 

States has long supported transitioning key Internet domain name 

functions to global multi-stakeholder communities. In fact, the 

House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis in the last Congress, clearly stated their support for a private, multi-stakeholder model of 

Internet governance. 

Nevertheless, any proposal for transition of the domain name 

system must meet certain core principles before it can be approved 

and finalized by the NTIA. These principles ensure that the United 

States will succeed in maintaining freedom, protections, openness, 

security and stability of the network. Adhering to these principles 
8 

would build much-needed public support for the transition, and it 

would make it easier to receive our approval. 

Finally, we must ensure that NTIA abides by its commitment to 

facilitate a truly effective transition. The process should continue 

to be open and transparent and can confirm ICANN’s accountability through core values and bylaws, and it should obtain international stakeholder consensus and support. 

So the hearing today should be the first of a number of oversight 

activities that our Committee conducts throughout the remainder 

of the transition process. Further hearings would allow stakeholders to update us on the transition and provide us with an opportunity to hear concerns. These hearings will also allow us to examine whether further safeguards are necessary. 

Accordingly, I thank the Chairman for holding today’s hearings, 

and I look forward to hearing from this rather large number of witnesses. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. As I said in my opening statement, it is not a large group. It is a sub-segment of millions of people who would like to be sitting here at the witness table. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce the distinguished panel of witnesses. The witnesses’ written statements will be entered into the 

record in their entirety. I ask you to please summarize within 5 

minutes or less, considering the size of the witnesses. To help us 

stay within this time limit, you will notice, as my colleague and 

former Chairman of another Committee, Mr. Towns, would say, 

you will notice that there is a red, a yellow, and a green light, and 

every American knows that green means go, yellow means go faster, and red means you have to stop. So if you will obey those, or 

if you possibly could summarize in less time, it would be appreciated since it will leave more time for the many questions we will 

have. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, I would ask that all the witnesses please rise to take the oath required by the Committee. 

Please raise your right hand. 

Do you all solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 

give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our panel of witnesses. 

Ms. Mei-lan Stark is the Immediate Past President of the International Trademark Association. 

Mr. Paul Misener is Vice President of Global Public Policy at 

Amazon.com, who has already been mentioned more than most witnesses. 

Mr. John Horton is President of LegitScript. 

Mr. Steve Metalitz is Counsel for the Coalition for Online Accountability. 

Mr. Bill Woodcock is Executive Director of Packet Clearing 

House. 

Mr. Steve DelBianco is Executive Director of NetChoice. 

Mr. Phil Corwin is Counsel for the Internet Commerce Association. 
9 

And last but not least is Mr. Jonathan Zuck, President of 

ACT | The App Association. 

And with that, Madam, you get to go first. 

TESTIMONY OF MEI-LAN STARK, IMMEDIATE PAST 

PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION 

Ms. STARK. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Nadler, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Mei-lan Stark, and 

I am Senior Vice President of Intellectual Property for the Fox Entertainment Group, and I am appearing today on behalf of the 

International Trademark Association, otherwise known as INTA, 

where I am serving on a voluntary basis as their Immediate Past 

President. 

It was my privilege to testify before this Committee in 2011. At 

that time, I shared with you the trademark community’s concerns 

regarding the launch of ICANN’s new generic top-level domain, or 

gTLD, program. Today, I offer trademark owners’ perspectives on 

ICANN’s performance regarding the .SUCKS launch and the concerns it raises for the potential relinquishment of the National 

Telecommunications Information Administration, or NTIA’s, stewardship of the IANA function. We greatly appreciate the Committee’s attention to these very important issues. 

The new gTLD program was designed to promote competition 

and innovation. It is a system based upon a participatory multistakeholder model, and as is true with any self-regulatory model, 

trust and accountability are essential. That means the system must 

have strong mechanisms in place to conduct its operations in a reliable and transparent way. 

Intellectual property owners of all sizes, from all industries, both 

commercial and not-for-profit, must be able to trust that the new 

gTLD system will operate according to agreed-upon policies and 

procedures. This is necessary so that business owners can effectively protect their valuable trademarks in this new world. But 

more than that, trust and predictability are required to satisfy the 

purported goal of the new system, fostering innovation. After all, 

no business will invest resources in an unreliable system. 

The launch of .SUCKS by Vox Populi is an example of ICANN’s 

operational deficiencies. The new gTLD program followed extensive 

public comment on how the system would operate and what intellectual property rights mechanisms would be mandatory. In response to grave concerns voiced by trademark owners during the 

public comment periods, ICANN did convene voluntary experts to 

address them, and that led to the implementation of new rights 

protection mechanisms to protect businesses and consumers from 

confusion, cyber-squatting, fraud, and other abuse. 

One such mechanism is the Trademark Clearinghouse, which allows trademark owners to pre-register domains corresponding to 

their trademarks before such names are made available to the general public. It appears that Vox Populi is using this very mechanism designed to protect trademarks and consumers to charge businesses and non-profits, both large and small, exorbitant fees to register their marks as domain names. Vox Populi co-opts the rights 

mechanisms developed by the multi-stakeholder community and 
10 

uses it as a means to identify who pays 250 times more for a domain name. 

ICANN was warned about these bad practices and was asked to 

resolve these issues before the .SUCKS launch, but ICANN chose 

to ignore that request, and the launch continues. The current 

.SUCKS controversy strongly suggests that the critical framework 

required for a successful transition of the IANA function does not 

yet exist. ICANN must enforce its own policies and contracts. The 

trademark community supports the multi-stakeholder model, and 

we are engaged in the processes that are shaping that framework. 

We support a transition, but not until we are assured of the necessary accountability and transparency. 

As ICANN’s management of the .SUCKS launch reveals, we simply are not there yet. Until such accountability mechanisms are implemented, continued U.S. Government and congressional oversight 

is necessary. 

In conclusion, while there are many potential benefits from the 

new gTLD program, those benefits are unlikely to materialize unless the program is effectively and fairly administered. ICANN’s 

decisions and actions directly impact not only the architecture and 

control of the Internet but ultimately how consumers experience 

the Internet. As a trade association dedicated to brands and the 

consumer protection that trademarks afford, INTA stands ready to 

help ICANN develop and implement a reliable framework that promotes fair competition, choice and trust. 

We very much appreciate the Committee’s continued engagement 

in these matters and thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the challenges facing trademark owners under ICANN’s current policies and practices. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stark follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Misener? 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL MISENER, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY, AMAZON.COM, INC. 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Chairman Issa and Mr. Nadler, for 

your attention to this important topic, for holding this hearing, and 

for inviting me to testify. 

Amazon strongly supports the U.S. Government’s policy goals of 

maintaining Internet stability, security, and freedom from government control. But NTIA’s planned transition of Internet governance 

functions to ICANN carries the significant risk that, despite NTIA’s 

intentions, ICANN’s multi-stakeholder process could be dominated, 

coopted, or undermined by national governments, ultimately jeopardizing these policy goals. 

Amazon’s recent experience in ICANN provides a warning that 

seriously calls into question ICANN’s ability and willingness to uphold the multi-stakeholder model. The international community 

simply has not yet demonstrated its commitment to ICANN’s 

multi-stakeholder process free from government control. 

Ideally, this risk would be addressable through a transparent, 

rules-based, accountable, multi-stakeholder process, so there is a 

very important question for Congress to ask: Is the current ICANN 

multi-stakeholder process actually working free from government 

control? From Amazon’s experience, it is not. 

To the contrary, Amazon’s experience provides a warning about 

government control of ICANN. Our familiarity with the multistakeholder process at ICANN comes from our application for several gTLDs, including .AMAZON. We believe the new gTLD program will provide a great opportunity for innovation and competition on the Internet, and we are thrilled to be a part of it. But our 

experience in the program raises serious concerns. 

In brief, the ICANN multi-stakeholder community worked for 

more than 3 years to develop rules for gTLD applicants, only to 

have ICANN ignore these rules under pressure from a handful of 

national governments, principally Brazil and Peru in the case of 

.AMAZON and related applications. 

Our repeated good-faith attempts to negotiate solutions with 

these governments, which have no legal rights to the term ‘‘amazon,’’ were fruitless. Other national governments also quickly caved 

to the pressure, and eventually so did the United States. This willingness of ICANN, other governments, and even the U.S., to abandon the rules developed in a multi-stakeholder process because of 

pressure from a few national governments provides a warning that 

seriously calls into question the commitment of the international 

community to ICANN’s multi-stakeholder process free from government control. 

The implications of this flawed treatment of Amazon stretch well 

beyond unfairness to a single company. This wasn’t just a matter 

of ICANN and national governments, including the U.S. Government, failing to defend an American company, the treatment of 

which had no basis under national law or international law. More 

importantly, these governments also failed to defend the ICANN 

multi-stakeholder process to which they supposedly were com-
19 

mitted, or to demand ICANN accountability. And if ICANN feels 

empowered to disregard its rules and procedures, as well as snub 

the United States, before the NTIA planned transition, one can 

only imagine what ICANN would feel emboldened to do after a 

transition were consummated. 

From a U.S. perspective, the point is not only that my company’s 

legally protected interests were sacrificed to geopolitics, it is the 

way they were sacrificed that undermines the whole ICANN multistakeholder model and sets a precedent for ICANN and the United 

States to quickly cave to future pressure from foreign governments. 

Perhaps ICANN intended to demonstrate that it would not play 

favorites with American interests. If so, it went way too far, and 

instead of treating U.S. interests no differently than those of other 

countries, it consciously broke its own rules and harmed an American company. Bluntly stated, ICANN’s current multi-stakeholder 

process is not free from government control. The mishandling of 

Amazon’s gTLD applications is a blemish on ICANN’s record, and 

because of how the rules developed in an ICANN multi-stakeholder 

process were quickly abandoned in the face of modest government 

pressure, this blemish is disqualifying, at least until cleared. 

Favorable resolution of Amazon’s lawful applications is a necessary first step, but this incident is only part of a broader question 

of whether ICANN and the international community are fully committed to the multi-stakeholder model free from government control. If the commitment is only superficial, the United States 

should recognize it and address it now, and NTIA’s planned transition should not occur unless and until independent review and 

other robust accountability reform mechanisms proposed by the 

multi-stakeholder community are established for ICANN. The 

Internet stability, security, and freedom from government control 

are at stake. 

Thank you again for your attention to this topic, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Misener follows:] 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Horton? 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. HORTON, PRESIDENT, LEGITSCRIPT 

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, when my company, LegitScript, 

identifies an illegal, unsafe Internet pharmacy, we notify the domain name registrar. When a registrar is notified that the domain 

name is being used for illegal activity, ICANN’s accreditation 

scheme requires the registrar to do two things: first, to investigate 

the claims; and second, to respond appropriately. 

The good news is most registrars voluntarily disable domain 

names used to sell illegal, unsafe medicines that put patients’ 

health and safety at risk. However, cyber criminals are rational 

economic actors and carefully choose the registrar that they believe 

will protect them. LegitScript’s data indicate that just 12 among 

about 900 registrars maintain half of all illegal Internet pharmacy 

registrations. In first place is Rebel, a registrar in the Momentous 

Group, which operates .SUCKS, which has only 0.05 percent of the 

total domain name market but over 17 percent of the illegal online 

pharmacy market. 

Now, I’d like to talk about our experience notifying ICANN compliance about the few registrars that are a safe haven for criminal 

activity. Consider the Web site HealthPlugins.com, selling morphine, Percocet, and other addictive drugs without a prescription. 

The domain name was registered with Paknic in Pakistan, which 

refused to take action on this and hundreds of other illegal online 

pharmacies. ICANN closed our complaint against this registrar, 

finding that it responded appropriately despite leaving hundreds of 

illegal Internet pharmacies online. 

Now, if you want to buy heroin online, you can do it at 

smackjunkshot.com. We notified the registrar, Webnic of Malaysia, 

which had told us in the past that it could not just suspend domain 

names because it would lose money. We submitted a complaint to 

ICANN, which closed the complaint, finding that the registrar responded appropriately by leaving a domain name used to sell heroin untouched, as well as hundreds of other illegal online pharmacies. 

Finally, let’s consider an example from a Momentous registrar, 

freeworldpharmacy.com, one of hundreds of illegal online pharmacy 

domain names that we have notified the company about. Mr. 

Chairman, these are the drugs that were sold to us without a valid 

prescription being required from freeworldpharmacy.com. And so 

that Momentous could have no doubt about the domain names used 

for illegal purposes, we sent a photo of these very drugs just a few 

weeks ago to Momentous. They took no action, and we have an 

ICANN complaint pending against Momentous right now. In the 

past, however, we have notified Momentous about illegal online 

pharmacies, including this one. They took little or no action, and 

ICANN has closed our complaints. 

I could go on and on. In these folders, these two folders, I have 

screenshots of another 750 illegal online pharmacies that only continue operating because ICANN closed complaints against the registrar that took no action. We only stopped at 750 in the interest 

of time. 
28 

The point is cyber criminals cluster at a small number of safehaven registrars who are running circles around ICANN compliance by persuading them that they are responding appropriately by 

doing nothing about domain names that they know full well are 

being used for illegal purposes, and those registrars are laughing 

all the way to the bank. 

In all of these cases, when we or law enforcement have asked 

ICANN what a registrar could possibly have done that constitutes 

an appropriate response in light of the ongoing use of domain 

names for illegal activity, ICANN compliance refuses to disclose it, 

keeping it a secret between ICANN and the registrar. 

The fundamental problem with this is a lack of transparency on 

the part of ICANN’s compliance team. No reasonable person would 

believe that a registrar is responding appropriately to evidence that 

a domain name is being used to sell heroin by doing nothing. By 

finding that a registrar is responding appropriately in these cases, 

ICANN in essence gives a green light to the registrar to continue 

facilitating and profiting from the illegal activity, thereby putting 

Internet users at risk. By refusing to explain what the registrar did 

that supposedly constitutes an appropriate response, ICANN lends 

the impression that it is participating in a cover-up. 

Accordingly, in the spirit of ICANN’s longstanding commitment 

to transparency, I want to publicly challenge ICANN to disclose 

what steps these registrars took that purportedly constitute an appropriate response despite being notified by LegitScript and in 

many cases by drug safety regulators and law enforcement that the 

domain names are being used to put everyday Internet users’ 

health and safety at risk. This lack of transparency and turning a 

blind eye to ongoing criminal activity, in my view, is emblematic 

and at the core of ICANN’s problems with trust and accountability. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horton follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Metalitz? 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN J. METALITZ, COUNSEL, 

COALITION FOR ONLINE ACCOUNTABILITY 

Mr. METALITZ. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nadler, Members of the Subcommittee, thanks very much for inviting me to offer once again 

the perspectives of the Coalition for Online Accountability. Our coalition represents U.S. associations, organizations and companies 

that depend on the rules set by ICANN to enable us to enforce 

copyrights and trademarks online. 

First I would like to salute the Subcommittee for the crucial role 

it has played in providing oversight of ICANN issues over the past 

15 years. Maintaining that long-established oversight record is critical to U.S. businesses that depend on copyright and trademark 

protection, and to the millions of American workers that they employ. 

My colleagues at the table, and especially on my left, will have 

a lot to say about the IANA transition process and the accompanying effort to improve ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. I 

think those accountability efforts are basically on the right track. 

But as a wise man once said, the past is prologue, and so is the 

present. So rather than speculate about ICANN’s future, I would 

like to focus on the way in which ICANN is now handling the critical domain name system functions over which the U.S. Government ceded its contractual control years ago. 

As several Members of the Subcommittee have already noted, 

what ICANN is doing and not doing today is highly relevant to the 

terms and conditions of the IANA transition and to what accountability mechanisms are needed in the future. So very briefly, let’s 

look at ICANN’s current track record on three key issues: contract 

compliance, WHOIS, and the new gTLD launch. 

We hear a lot about the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. What 

does that really mean? I think it boils down to this: replacing governmental regulation with private contracts and community oversight in managing the domain name system. For this model to 

work, the contracts must be strong and clear, and they must be 

vigorously and transparently enforced. 

Now, as John Horton has already mentioned, under the 2013 revision of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, domain name registrars have new obligations to investigate and respond to complaints that the domain names they sponsor are being used for illegal activities, and that includes specifically copyright or trademark 

infringement. By now, most registrars have signed the 2013 agreement, but I have to report that registrars are not responding to 

these complaints even when the facts are clear and the evidence of 

wrongdoing is overwhelming. 

Just as concerning, to date, ICANN is not yet taking action to 

clarify and enforce these RAA provisions, and as the previous witness said, it is acting with a lack of transparency in its compliance 

efforts. 

Unless and until ICANN shows that it can effectively enforce the 

agreements that it has signed, its readiness for the completion of 

the transition will remain in question, and this track record must 
53 

be taken into account in fashioning the enhanced accountability 

mechanisms that must accompany any further transition. 

The 2013 RAA also set in motion long-overdue steps toward developing ground rules for the widespread phenomenon of proxy registration services. These have a legitimate role, but today the registered contact data for more than one-fifth of all gTLD registrations, tens of millions, lurks in the shadows rather than in the sunlight of the publicly accessible WHOIS database. Further progress 

in bringing predictability and consistency to this proxy world is 

critical. If ICANN cannot do this, then the role of the WHOIS database in letting Internet users know who they are dealing with online, critical for accountability and transparency, will be seriously 

compromised. The next several months may show whether ICANN 

is up to the task. 

Finally, although ICANN is only about halfway through the current new gTLD launch, it is already starting to review the process. 

That review needs to be searching and comprehensive. We need to 

question and reevaluate the ship’s heading, not just rearrange the 

deck chairs for the next voyage. 

The review has to address the fundamental issue of whether the 

rollout of an unlimited number of new top-level domains actually 

benefitted the general public and brought greater choice to consumers or whether it simply enriched intermediaries and speculators. 

In conclusion, thank you again for this Subcommittee’s continuing oversight of this fascinating experiment in non-governmental administration of critical Internet resources that we call 

ICANN. Our coalition urges you to continue that role, especially 

with regard to contract compliance, WHOIS, and the new gTLD review. 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Metalitz follows:] 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Woodcock? 

TESTIMONY OF BILL WOODCOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PACKET CLEARING HOUSE 

Mr. WOODCOCK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members 

of the Committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity 

to testify. My name is Bill Woodcock. I am the Executive Director 

of Packet Clearing House, the international organization that 

builds and supports critical Internet infrastructure, including the 

core of the domain name system. 

I have served on the Board of Trustees of the American Registry 

for Internet Numbers for the past 14 years, and I have been continuously involved in the IANA process since the mid-1980’s. Most 

relevant to the proceeding at hand, I am one of the two North 

American representatives to the CRISP team, the process through 

which the Internet numbers multi-stakeholder community has developed its IANA oversight transition proposal. 

I am here today to explain why it is in the interests of both the 

U.S. Government and other Internet stakeholders to ensure that 

the IANA oversight transition occurs on schedule and with 

undiminished strength of accountability. 

The IANA function comprises three discrete activities serving 

three different communities: the domain name community, which 

is represented by the other seven witnesses at the table here; the 

Internet protocols community, which sets Internet standards; and 

the Internet numbers community, which manages the Internet addresses that allow our devices to communicate. These three functions are completely independent of and separable from each other. 

Two of the three communities, protocols and numbers, produced 

the requested transition plans on schedule in January. The names 

proposal, however, is still a work in progress. The protocols and 

numbers communities finished promptly because the IANA functions that serve them are very simple. The IANA function that 

serves names is, as you have been hearing, substantially more complex. The names community will not reach consensus in sufficient 

time to achieve a September 30 transition, but the numbers and 

protocols transitions are ready to be implemented now. Moving 

them forward as planned would show good faith on the part of the 

U.S. Government and assure the world that the USG is a productive participant in the multi-stakeholder process rather than an obstacle. 

At the same time, allowing the names community the further 

time it needs would show that the U.S. Government is neither 

throwing caution to the wind nor abandoning its responsibilities 

before ICANN accountability can be firmly established. 

If NTIA delays the protocols and numbers transitions, it will further the interests of those Nations that are already displeased with 

the exceptional nature of the U.S. Government’s role in IANA oversight. A shift in the balance of Internet governance from the multistakeholder model of the U.S. Government and the Internet community to the intergovernmental model advocated by China and 

the ITU would be disastrous. But a timely transition of strong 

stakeholder oversight of the IANA function would achieve the goals 
69 

of both the U.S. Government and the global Internet community, 

responsible administration of a critical resource with strong contractual responsibility to stakeholders enforced within a jurisdiction that ensures that accountability is guaranteed by the rule of 

law. 

Under pressure from foreign governments to internationalize, 

ICANN has over the past 5 years gone from being a U.S. operation 

to one with offices and staff in Beijing, Geneva, Istanbul, Brussels, 

Montevideo, Seoul, and Singapore. This is clear evidence of other 

governments’ influence on ICANN, influence that will only grow 

stronger over time. 

In my written testimony I cite facts, to demonstrate that the 

United States is the legal venue of choice of the international Internet community whenever it is an available option, across a sample 

of more than 142,000 Internet contractual agreements that we analyzed. Strongly accountable contractual oversight of the IANA function allows the Internet community to ensure that performance of 

the IANA function is never relocated to a jurisdiction with weaker 

rule of law or lesser protections against organizational capture. 

ICANN has performed the IANA function successfully because it 

has been disciplined by the mechanisms of U.S. Government procurement, the right to remedy uncured defects with mechanisms up 

to and including contract termination, and the right to seek superior performance in the marketplace through periodic re-competition. We believe retaining these same strong accountability mechanisms after the transition is essential to ensure responsible performance of the IANA function. 

No good can come from delaying the transition of the protocols 

and numbers functions. At the same time, no good can come from 

hurrying the names community into an incompletely considered 

compromise. Their issues require carefully crafted solutions involving significant ICANN accountability reforms. But these policylevel reforms are irrelevant to the simple mechanical tasks the 

IANA performs on behalf of the protocols and numbers communities. 

In conclusion, only the U.S. Government can ensure that commitment to a successful IANA transition is realized and act as the 

guarantor of the success of the multi-stakeholder governance 

model. The interests of the U.S. Government and of the global 

Internet stakeholder community are both served by a transition of 

the IANA protocols and numbers functions on time, on September 

30 of this year, as long as the communities are contractually empowered to enforce the accountability of the IANA function operator in the same manner that the U.S. Government has successfully done for the past 16 years. I ask you to use Congress’ unique 

power of oversight over NTIA to ensure that our commitments are 

met and the transition of the protocols and numbers functions 

occur as scheduled. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodcock follows:] 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Del—I am doing great. And it is a famous name, too. 

Mr. DelBianco? 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE DelBIANCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NETCHOICE 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Nadler, Members of the Committee. You have heard a lot today 

about operational problems at ICANN, but what would really 

.SUCK is an unaccountable ICANN after the transition when we 

have lost the leverage for hearings like this to have much effect on 

the organization. 

Over 17 years, our government has protected ICANN’s multistakeholder model from government encroachment and helped 

ICANN to mature, and that is saying something, because the goal 

for a computer scientist is to build something that can last at least 

as long as it takes to finish building it, and ICANN is still a work 

in process. 

But it is not sustainable for the U.S. to retain its unique role forever, particularly in a post-Snowden political climate. So NTIA 

asked the community for proposals to replace the stewardship role 

for IANA, and Chairman Goodlatte asked in a blog post earlier this 

year, ‘‘What guarantees and capabilities and conditions should first 

be demanded and stress-tested by the global community?’’ 

Well, the global community has answered with hundreds of meetings in the last several months, tens of thousands of man hours, 

many of them overnight since we cycle through global time zones, 

and our community proposals run a very good start. They give the 

community new powers to challenge board actions via independent 

review panels and issue binding decisions, to veto bylaws changes 

proposed by the ICANN board so they can’t undo what we have 

done, to veto strategic plans and budgets proposed by the board, 

and to remove individual board directors or spill the entire board 

if we need to. 

Stress testing has helped us to assess whether these new powers 

would let the community challenge an ICANN decision for inaction 

and to hold the board accountable. As an aside, we saw little need 

to stress test the technical operations of the core Internet functions 

that Bill talked about because they are provided by very experienced operators who are actually stress tested every day. 

However, stress tests did help us see that ICANN’s bylaws have 

to change in other ways. The first stress test in my April 24 testimony to your Committee was ICANN quitting its affirmation of 

commitments. So the community has said let’s move some of the 

commitments and reviews from the affirmation into ICANN’s bylaws. 

Another stress test was the governments changing the way they 

make their decisions at ICANN by moving to majority voting. That 

would expand government power over ICANN decisions. So we, the 

community, have proposed changing ICANN bylaws to seek a mutually acceptable solution with the governments, but only where 

their decision was reached through true consensus. 

Added transparency and powers would also help us to avoid situations like .SUCKS, which I tend to look at as more like a set of 
77 

stress tests, of decisions made by ICANN to pass evaluation on an 

applicant who owed substantial fees, or the decision to negotiate a 

special million-dollar fee with a single applicant. 

So turning back to the community proposals for transition, we 

need details—I understand that—and we need review by global 

stakeholders. So this will not be ready by September of 2015. The 

timeline on the display board in front of you and on some of the 

paper that I distributed shows that we just can’t get there from 

where we are. But even with an extension in time, we worry that 

ICANN’s board and management will resist the approval of these 

plans and impede its implementation. 

The role of Congress, then, in this historic transition could be 

critical. What Congress can do while we still have the leverage is 

to insist that NTIA require ICANN to accept and implement the 

final community proposals as a condition of the IANA transition 

they seek. This is, after all, our last chance to use the leverage we 

are about to relinquish. So let’s leave a lasting legacy where the 

Internet community gets the same kind of accountability from 

ICANN that shareholders demand today from their corporations, 

that my members demand from my trade association and, frankly, 

that voters and citizens demand from you. I don’t think the global 

community deserves anything less than that which we use for the 

other institutions we count upon to make our lives work better. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DelBianco follows:] 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Corwin? 

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP S. CORWIN, COUNSEL, 

INTERNET COMMERCE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. CORWIN. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Nadler, Subcommittee Members, I am Philip Corwin on behalf of the Internet 

Commerce Association, a domain industry trade group and member 

of ICANN’s business constituency which I represent on ICANN’s 

GNSO council. 

I commend the Subcommittee for this hearing. Congress has a legitimate interest in an IANA transition and enhanced ICANN accountability that proceeds soundly and effectively. The stakes include the security and stability of the DNS, Internet free expression, and uncensored information. 

Two cliches are apropos today. The first is, ‘‘If it ain’t broke, don’t 

fix it.’’ The ICA consensus is that U.S. stewardship has been benign and beneficial and that ICANN accountability should proceed 

on its own merits. But the second is, ‘‘You can’t put the toothpaste 

back in the tube.’’ The NTIA’s announcement raised global expectations. Hundreds of ICANN community members have already expended thousands of hours in designing transition and accountability measures. Therefore, Congress should not reflexively oppose 

the IANA transition but should exercise strong oversight and support of ICANN stakeholders. 

While enhanced ICANN accountability measures are overdue, 

they will operate best only if ICANN’s board and senior staff embrace a culture of accountability that assumes responsibility for the 

fallout of ICANN decisions and encompasses early consultation 

with the multi-stakeholder community that provides its organizational legitimacy. 

We are some distance from that culture. The road to the NTIA’s 

announcement led through Montevideo and Brasilia and was paved 

by ICANN’s misappropriation of the Snowden disclosures. The 

CEO’s travels in South America were backed by a secret September 

2013 ICANN board resolution. These actions were not transparent 

or accountable and reflected no community consultation. 

ICANN’s community is now on the right stewardship and accountability track, but a final package will not be ready by September 30, much less the implementation of required pre-transition 

accountability measures. Therefore, NTIA should announce an 

ICANN contract extension soon. The final package must set key 

community rights in tandem with ICANN accountabilities in its bylaws and articles of incorporation. 

Turning to .SUCKS, ICANN’s request that the FTC and OCA in 

Canada determine its legality was an abdication of responsibility 

rather than its embrace. ICANN had more than a year to explore 

and take appropriate action under multiple contract options. There 

are other new TLD program issues. While the jury is still out on 

the program’s ultimate success, the total number of new domains 

seems larger than market demand and many TLDs are practically 

giving domains away, which aids spammers and phishers. Major 

unresolved consumer protection and technical issues remain un-
96 

solved, as well as uncertainty about spending $60 million in auction fees that ICANN has collected. 

The rights protection mechanisms for new TLDs are working 

well, but any review of domain dispute procedures should set 

standard contracts between ICANN and arbitration providers that 

ensure uniform administration. There are no such contracts today. 

ICANN must start taking responsibility for fair administration of 

domain disputes. 

Finally, besides ensuring full satisfaction of NTIA’s principles, 

Congress should confirm that ICANN’s continued post-transition 

U.S. jurisdiction is accepted and not a new irritation for those who 

would make ICANN a multilateral organization. You should also 

know that the transition does not mean ICANN will assume technical operation of key Internet functions. ICANN lacks the technical capacity to do so and is dependent on the experience and expertise of stakeholders for maintaining core functions. While the 

NTIA’s announcement requires stakeholders to address certain important policies, there is no equivalent need to revamp DNS technical operations. The continued operational excellence of those operations will bolster the confidence of global users and the Internet’s stability, security, and resilience. 

I hope my testimony has been helpful to your inquiry. I would 

be happy to answer any questions, and I yield back the remaining 

30 seconds of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corwin follows:] 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Corwin. 

Mr. Zuck? 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN ZUCK, PRESIDENT, 

ACT | THE APP ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ZUCK. Thank you, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Nadler, 

and Members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for the opportunity to 

do clean-up here today, and I guess we will see, as the television 

series in the late ’70’s said, if eight is, in fact, enough. 

ACT | The App Association represents over 5,000 app developers 

and information technology firms, with businesses in every congressional district, and part of a really booming industry. When we 

talk about the domain name system, as we are today, it is important to remember that these small businesses, like the ones I represent, are actually the majority of the domain name holders. 

Small businesses around the world have used the World Wide Web 

to create presence for themselves and distribution for their products that simply wasn’t available in the physical world, on par with 

our larger brethren. This ability and integrity of the DNS is more 

important to small businesses than to any other community. 

The basic question we have in front of us today is whether or not 

ICANN is ready to be independent of the United States Government. The simple answer that one can glean from the testimony 

you have already heard is no, but with the caveat that it can be 

with the enhanced accountability sought by the multi-stakeholder 

community with the proposed measures that were released on May 

4th. 

If you will allow me to paraphrase Winston Churchill, ICANN is 

the worst model for Internet governance, except for all the others. 

My personal journey here has been somewhat circuitous. I am a 

former software developer that went on to represent software developers, and for a number of years small businesses I represent 

were indifferent to the inner workings of ICANN because the DNS 

seemed to be working, until some articles came out in 2005 suggesting that governments wanted the function of ICANN to be 

intergovernmental instead of multi-stakeholder, as it has been. 

Suddenly, all of these small businesses were wearing ‘‘ICANN 

Rocks’’ t-shirts and asking me to get involved directly in the 

ICANN process. 

So over the past 10 years, in some 30 meetings in windowless 

conference rooms around the world, we have worked together with 

the community and the NTIA to make ICANN a stronger, better 

managed, and more accountable organization. I am pleased to say 

we have achieved some success in a number of areas, and my constant refrain on performance metrics has led me to have the nickname ‘‘Metrics Man’’ inside of the community, and it is a nickname 

I wear with pride. 

Of course, as you have already heard today, there is still a lot 

to be done to create the ICANN the multi-stakeholder community 

deserves. As a member of the intellectual property constituency 

within ICANN, I stand with my colleagues in frustration with 

ICANN’s handling of the new gTLD program and the needs of 

rights holders in particular. .SUCKS is just one example and a 
128 

frightening precedent for what lies ahead for those trying to protect 

their intellectual property. 

ICANN needs to find better mechanisms to protect IP while increasing consumer choice and competition in the domain name 

space. And they have to get serious about enforcing their contracts. 

If digital archery is anything to go by, ICANN should certainly 

leave the tech to the experts and keep themselves in a management role. 

Finally, ICANN needs to find better ways to involve small businesses and to resolve their issues when they arise. The system is 

currently overwhelming and over-costly for companies that I represent to be meaningfully involved in the multi-stakeholder process. It is for these reasons that I view the pending IANA functions 

contract expiration as an opportunity on which to capitalize rather 

than something frightening to be avoided. What has been missing 

from all the reform efforts inside ICANN has been the teeth to 

make these reforms binding. It is certainly the case that NTIA provided an essential guidance and protection of ICANN throughout 

the years, but the true utility of this unique relationship reached 

its pinnacle with the affirmation of commitments in 2009. The announcement by NTIA of their plans to sunset the IANA functions 

contract has spurred a discussion of real ICANN accountability, the 

likes of which the organization has never seen. 

As others have mentioned, thousands of people hours in the community have set forth a proposed accountability framework that 

promises binding accountability to the multi-stakeholder community. This new ICANN, ICANN 3.0, if you will, will be stronger, answer to the community it serves, and create an environment of constructive reform that will allow it to develop and grow as the Internet adds its next billion users. 

That said, it is true that we have just one chance to get it right, 

and I believe that is where Congress can play a critical role. As 

Chairman Goodlatte wrote in his recent op-ed, it is certainly Congress’ role to ensure that the proposed framework is indeed the 

work of the bottom-up multi-stakeholder process, the proposed 

framework passes various stress tests or worst-case scenarios, and 

the proposed framework, if accepted, is sufficiently implemented 

prior to the IANA functions contract expiration. 

Real accountability, when you boil it down, is about power, and 

the power needs to be in the hands of the community before it is 

any less in the hands of the U.S. Government. 

So once again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, 

and I hope you will join me in making the most of this historic opportunity. I am happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zuck follows:] 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, and thank you for paraphrasing Churchill. 

He never actually delineated whether the British parliamentary 

system or the U.S. republic system and federalism was better, so 

perhaps we can work that out in ICANN. 

Mr. NADLER. The English and Scots are finding out. 

Mr. ISSA. English and Scots are finding out says the Ranking 

Member. 

With that, I ask unanimous consent that a rather lengthy letter 

to John O. Jeffrey from David Hosp be placed in the record, this 

letter from the offices of Fish and Richardson. It was referred to 

by the Ranking Member and I am sure will come up in our discussions. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 

Mr. ISSA. I will now recognize myself, and I will start with a simple question for all eight panelists. The question is simple; hopefully the answer will be yes or no. 

Do we need more time? Do we need to exercise the extension in 

order to get it right in the transition? 

Ms. STARK. So, what I would say is it is not about focusing on 

a specific date, Chairman. It is what you said: We have to get it 

right. The stakes are very, very high. Rather than trying to put an 

artificial timeline to this, I think what is important is to focus on 

the work that is being done and the progress that is being made. 

Mr. ISSA. I will come back to you on this, I promise. But briefly, 

do we need more time than the short time remaining on the existing transition? 

Ms. STARK. Certainly for public comment. INTA has actually formally requested an extension of time on the comment periods for 

the accountability—— 

Mr. ISSA. To each of you, do we need more time? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes. 

Mr. HORTON. Yes, although that is not the fundamental problem. 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes, we do. 

Mr. WOODCOCK. For protocols and numbers, absolutely not. We 

have already been waiting for 4 months. For names, absolutely, 

yes. They need the time to get it right. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Yes, we need more time, as the chart indicates. 

And a piecemeal approach, as Mr. Woodcock has discussed, leaves 

a very small piece of the meal for the naming community. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Corwin? 

Mr. CORWIN. Chairman, absolutely, we need more time, and in 

particular I would single out that the proposal put out by the working group on the naming functions, they need to schedule a second 

comment period. They put out an incomplete proposal for only 28 

days comment, and they can’t send it on to the next step until they 

give us a full proposal. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Zuck, clean up. What would Churchill say? 

Mr. ZUCK. Churchill would say that of course we need more time, 

but not indefinitely. I mean, I think something along the lines of 

6 months would be enough to really get the proposal locked down 

and get the public comment and feedback and get something implemented. 

Mr. ISSA. So paraphrasing for all of you, you do support a multistakeholder transition as long as all the prerequisites are met, it 

is a bottom-up approach, and the transition is one that we can live 

with for the long run. Good. 

Ms. Stark, I am going to go back to you. In light of, if you will, 

.SUCKS, .AMAZON, perhaps the drug explanations that were so 

articulately said, do we need and how do we get, sort of point by 

point, how do we get to the kind of consistency and enforcement 

that is necessary to protect trademark holders, copyright holders, 

and obviously the unlawful acts on the Internet that are prohibited? 

Ms. STARK. So, I think that the answer—thank you very much 

for that question, because I think it gets really to the heart of the 

matter. I think the real answer is that ICANN needs to actually 

enforce its existing contracts and policies. In a lot of these regards, 
151 

we are not asking for something new or more. We had a multistakeholder process from the bottom up that developed the rights 

protection mechanisms, that developed the WHOIS policies and 

other things that exist in the contracts, but we are not seeing proper resources devoted to compliance and enforcement. 

Mr. ISSA. Do you think there need to be management changes or 

structural changes in the management to get that done? In other 

words, they used to do something, they are doing it less well rather 

than better. Do you see that as a management failure? 

Ms. STARK. You know, I don’t feel that I am qualified to speak 

about their management. 

Mr. ISSA. You don’t need to name names. [Laughter.] 

Ms. STARK. But what I do think is that it is very important for 

this model to work, that all relevant interests are represented and 

listened to, and that that input is actually analyzed in a meaningful way and then incorporated into policies and procedures. 

Mr. ISSA. Now I am going to ask one more question. It will probably get several comments. 

Whether it is .SUCKS, or if you were going to have a German 

version of it, apparently it would be .SAUGT, I have no idea what 

it would be in Italian, in Chinese, in all the other possible languages. What I do know is there are 1,025,000 recognized names 

in the English language, and if we assume for a moment that we 

are going to promote and allow a proliferation of dot-somethings 

simply to gain more money, do you believe that inherently the 

stakeholders—and I will leave those who sell names out of the 

stakeholder business—the stakeholders, the actual users, the people who want perhaps one name for each function, perhaps only 

one name, period, are well served by trying to use every possible 

name in 209-plus languages? 

If I see no answer, I will assume that you all think it is really 

a bad idea to simply proliferate names that end up with people 

having to buy thousands of them. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Chairman Issa. The notion of more 

names comes about because we find ourselves 10 or 11 years ago 

with 20 generic top-level domains and none of them in a script 

other than the Latin script. In other words, nothing in Chinese or 

Korean or Japanese or Arabic. We hadn’t built the Internet out. 

So what the community did is allowed people to propose names. 

That is why we ended up with thousands of names proposed. There 

were no rules or structure about knowing that we would have one 

in the complaint category and one in the car category. If the community were to move in that direction for the next round, we would 

need several years probably of policy to come up with the structure 

of how many would we have in each category. 

There are plenty of conversations along the lines of what you 

suggested, the idea of categories as opposed to wide-open season, 

like we have had in this round. But it would take the community 

to develop that. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Quickly, because my time has expired. 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes, I would agree. What you have described is 

how ICANN approached this most recent round. And while the jury 

is still out because they are only halfway through the round, I 

think we are going to find that the public has not been served by 
152 

letting anybody who wants to get any domain name, top-level domain that they wish without any criteria and without ICANN really making any decisions, letting them do that. 

Mr. WOODCOCK. There are technical security reasons for allowing 

a brand TLD, allowing corporations to register their own top-level 

domain in order to be able to secure it more effectively. 

Mr. ISSA. I will close with just one statement. That letter from 

Fish and Richardson says to me please don’t say that this is legalized extortion. Please don’t say that when we have an auctioning 

process that not only makes more money in debt relief to ICANN 

but, in fact, charges exorbitant prices to the very people who already own the intellectual property that is effectively being ransomed, please don’t call it legalized extortion. 

Well, I take great pride that under speech and debate, right or 

wrong, I call it legalized extortion. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Metalitz—I hope I got that right. Mr. Metalitz, a recent 

NetNames study found that 24 percent of global Internet traffic is 

dedicated to the infringing transfer of copyrighted content. Other 

data indicate that 68 percent of the top 500 pirate sites reside on 

U.S. registries; 59 percent reside on .com, .net, and .org, giving 

them an air of legitimacy. What contractual requirements and obligations should registries, registrars and registrants have to deal 

with this that we don’t have? 

Mr. METALITZ. Thank you for that question, Mr. Nadler. You 

have correctly stated that we have a huge problem in the legacy 

top-level domains, com and net and org, and that the contractual 

restrictions in their contracts with ICANN are not sufficient. One 

of the things that has been pointed out is there may be ways that 

we can use some of the advances that were made in the gTLD 

space. The new gTLDs had to take on some additional commitments to respond to copyright, piracy, and trademark counterfeiting in their spaces. We should look at applying those to the legacy gTLDs as well. That is part of the ICANN answer. Obviously, 

there may be things that can be done on a legislative level because 

these registries are based in the United States. 

Mr. NADLER. To look back—— 

Mr. METALITZ. Pardon? 

Mr. NADLER. To look back and apply some of what is being applied to the new domain names to the old ones. 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes, and it is a step forward that this registrar 

accreditation agreement does apply to registrations in .com and 

.net. So pirate sites or sites engaged in illegal pharmacies can be 

addressed that way, if those agreements are enforced. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. Stark, what are your views on the legality of the fee structure for early registration of certain premium .SUCKS domains at 

nearly $2,500? I understand there are a set of rights protection 

mechanisms and operators of new gTLDs which are intended to 

achieve the laudable goal of combatting cyber-squatting. As the 

chief trademark counsel of a major U.S. corporation, do you believe 

the structure being forwarded by Vox Populi with the ascent of 
153 

ICANN violates at least the spirit of the registry agreement? And 

what can be done about it? 

Ms. STARK. I absolutely do believe that it violates the spirit of 

the agreement. I mean, the whole purpose of these rights protection mechanisms, like the clearinghouse, were to make an efficient 

system for intellectual property owners to protect their rights, and 

ultimately to help protect consumers from confusion and other 

types of abuse online. So when you take that mechanism and use 

it and turn it on its head to create some sort of premium pricing 

structure so that people who are being responsible and taking advantage of the mechanisms that the community developed to help 

them navigate this new world and you turn that on its head and 

turn it into a premium pricing structure, I absolutely think that 

violates the spirit—— 

Mr. NADLER. So that should be banned. 

Ms. STARK. I do think that you don’t—— 

Mr. NADLER. That pricing structure, that is, should be banned. 

Ms. STARK. I don’t think that you want to necessarily set premium—I am not saying there can’t be premium pricing or that you 

can’t have all kinds of pricing arrangements. I just don’t think that 

you want to do it in a way that takes something that is meant to 

protect trademark owners and harm them. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, it would be easy—I don’t know that it would 

be right, but it would be easy to say no premium pricing arrangements. If you didn’t say that, how would you distinguish decent 

ones from ones that shouldn’t be allowed? 

Ms. STARK. So, I think that is a process that has to come up 

through the community in the multi-stakeholder process. There are 

many different relevant stakeholders in that process, and if there 

are going to be limits on what happens in pricing, that should come 

from the community. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. So Congress shouldn’t do anything about 

this. We should leave it to the multi-stakeholder process. 

Ms. STARK. I think if we really are going to believe in the model, 

there should be oversight but that the model should be allowed to 

work. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, than you. 

Mr. Zuck, the concerns over new gTLDs and potential IP and 

trademark infringements are well known. But there are extensive 

infringements in the .com space. I understand there are over 

65,000 .com’s that incorporate the word ‘‘sucks,’’ for example. 

Shouldn’t these be equally concerning? And what can you tell the 

Committee about plans for adding additional rights protections to 

legacy gTLDs like .com? 

Mr. ZUCK. Thank you for the question. It is, in fact, the case that 

a lot of these issues have come up in the old TLDs, as you mentioned, and ‘‘sucks’’ shows up plenty of different places. So there is 

a constant and ongoing debate about whether there is a difference 

between the second-level and the top-level domain in terms of the 

terms used. I think a strong argument can be made that there is 

closer monitoring needed for the top-level domains, the stuff to the 

right of the period, than is necessarily necessary inside of an individual domain. 
154 

I think, as Mr. Metalitz said, I think taking some of the new contract arrangements that have been developed for the new gTLDs 

and applying them to the old ones can go a long way. But the reality is that a lot of the principles of protection are already in 

place, and it is just an execution issue of getting those contracts 

better enforced. That is the best thing that we can do, and to make 

sure the WHOIS database is accurate so that IP owners can go 

after infringers. Those are the key issues. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Corwin, my last question, because I see the warning light is 

on. In your testimony you say there are too many new gTLDs. Will 

the market take care of an over-supply, or should ICANN have limited the number of applications from the outset, or should they now 

limit the number? 

Mr. CORWIN. I am not sure I said there are too many. I said that 

the jury is still out on the overall success of the program. So far— 

and I represent professional domain investors, and they are being 

very selective about which new gTLDs they are acquiring, new domains. 

The way I have thought about it is what company would introduce 1,400 new products in an 18-month period? I don’t know any 

company that would do that. The market gets confused when there 

is that much new choice and new product. Even people within the 

community have a hard time keeping up with all the new names 

introduced each week, and as a result we see some of the leading 

top-level domains in terms of total registrations offering domains 

free or for 49 cents to a dollar to hype up their numbers, but it is 

not clear that anyone is going to renew those domains when they 

push the prices up to market price. 

So the jury is out, but I just don’t personally see market demand 

for 1,400 new ones, of which 800 are for the general public. 

Could I just speak briefly to your last question? 

Mr. NADLER. By all means. 

Mr. CORWIN. The .SUCKS second-level domain treatment under 

the World Intellectual Property Organization arbitration guidance, 

particularly in North America and the U.S. where we have the 

First Amendment, is if you have company name Sucks.com, if it is 

a Web site used for legitimate criticism of a company or an individual, it is not infringement. If it is using that name and then infringing on their trademarks or their copyright and intellectual 

property, it is infringement. So you have to look at the content of 

the Web site. But the big difference is that nobody with a .com 

Sucks site is asking $2,500 a year to register it. 

Mr. NADLER. Why is that? If I may, why is nobody doing that on 

the legacy TLDs? 

Mr. CORWIN. Excuse me? 

Mr. NADLER. Why is nobody doing that on .com? You are saying 

they are doing it on the new ones, they are not doing it on the old 

ones. Why? 

Mr. CORWIN. A .com site pricing is frozen right now under a 

Commerce Department decision, and the other incumbent top-level 

domains tended to price around the same amount as .com, around 

$8 per domain per year, simply to be competitive. They couldn’t get 

too high above that price and attract customers. 
155 

Mr. NADLER. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman briefly yield for a follow-up? 

Mr. NADLER. I will yield my non-existent time gladly. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. [Laughter.] 

I just want to follow up and understand this. I have looked, and 

JerryNadlerSucks.com and .org both are available. 

DarrellIssaSucks.com and .org, for anyone that wants them, are 

available, and I am sure someone will find them. But they are, in 

fact, at GoDaddy $9.99 and $7.99, respectively. 

Mr. NADLER. We are not in great demand. 

Mr. ISSA. We are not in great demand. But my understanding is 

that AmazonSucks.com has been bought up by Amazon. The fact 

is that there has already been a long legacy of buying names to try 

to protect them. This latest shakedown is because there is now a 

new name and a new opportunity, and it is not available for firstcome/first-serve. In other words, GoDaddy and the other sellers are 

not out there competing, something that we believe in, to try to sell 

you a name that multiple people can sell. You have an exclusive 

holder of a name who is holding it ransom as a form of extortion. 

Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. CORWIN. Certainly there is a big difference between 

DarrellIssaSucks.com—excuse me for saying that; it is not my personal belief—being available—— 

Mr. ISSA. The hearing is young. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CORWIN. If it is registered, if it is criticizing your views on 

politics, it is okay. If it—— 

Mr. ISSA. But I am only dealing with the price. 

Mr. CORWIN. But you can still acquire it for $9.99 a year, not $2,500 a year. 

To answer what Ms. Stark said, there was an ICANN staff report 

on new rights protection mechanisms, and this was the numbers as 

of February. At that time there were 4 million total registrations 

in new TLDs, but there were 25 million claims notices generated. 

Now, let me explain that. When someone starts to register a term 

that is registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse, let’s say it is 

Amazon, they get a notice that your use of this domain may be infringing, and then it is their decision. If they want a Web site 

about the Amazon rain forest, they can go ahead. If they want to 

pretend they are Amazon, they do it at their own risk. 

In my opinion, there were not six times as many attempts to register infringing domains as there were actual domains registered at 

that point in time, and I have written an article about this. I have 

talked to the Trademark Clearinghouse people at the INTA meeting last week in San Diego. The only explanation I can get is that 

some parties—and they may be operators of new registries—began 

registrations not with the intent of registering domains but to find 

out—every time they get a claims notice back they say, oh, that 

name is in the clearinghouse, and now I can set a premium price 

for it. So a mechanism that was put in place to protect trademark 

holders is now being used to set extremely high prices from trademark holders. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. Our time has expired. 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 
156 

One aspect of the proposed transfer that we have not talked 

about in this Committee but has received attention in the House 

Armed Services Committee on which I serve is what happens to the 

.mil and .gov top-level domains? Even though .mil and .gov are 

used by the U.S. military, first responders, and Federal and state 

government agencies, the U.S. Government may not actually own 

those domains. So I would like to ask Mr. Corwin and Mr. 

DelBianco whether you agree that a reasonable condition of the 

IANA transition should include a written agreement that the U.S. 

Government has an exclusive, perpetual, no-cost right to those domains. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Representative Forbes. It is quite 

easy, I think, for ICANN to give DOD and GSA permanent contracts, permanent, irrevocable contracts for .mil and .gov. What is 

harder, though, is to ensure that we have legal reach to force 

ICANN to honor those contracts, and let me explain. 

This is about the risks of having a .gov or .mil be redirected during an emergency, like a coordinated attack on U.S. systems and 

infrastructure. For over 100 countries, their .gov domain is at the 

second level, to the left of the dot of gov.ca for Canada or .uk for 

the U.K. Another 50 countries have .mil to the left of the dot for 

their country code. 

What is the difference? Well, their .gov and .mil is housed in a 

server on their soil, under their law and under their total control. 

For the U.S., it is a little different. As the inventor of the Internet, 

our .mil and .gov are at the top level, or the root of the DNS, and 

that is what the IANA contract is all about. 

So we ought to ensure that ICANN remains subject to U.S. law 

and that the root remains physically on U.S. soil to address the 

concerns that you brought up, and we have a stress test on that, 

you will be glad to know we found that Article 18 of ICANN’s bylaws requires the principal office of ICANN to stay in California, 

and if ICANN board attempted to change the bylaws, one of those 

new powers I described earlier could block that change. 

But if this community and this Committee feels strongly, we 

could move Article 18 to the fundamental bylaws of the transition. 

That would mean that the community would have to give 75 percent approval of the board’s attempt to leave the United States’ jurisdiction. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. 

Mr. Corwin? 

Mr. CORWIN. Just to add to that, this is the legacy of the fact 

that the United States invented the Internet and created these two 

top-level domains for military and government use. The transition 

should, of course, ensure that there are permanent contracts for 

the U.S. to continue operating them in perpetuity. 

This is also why it is important that ICANN’s jurisdiction stay 

within the U.S. It is also important to maintain U.S. jurisdiction 

because—I want to commend ICANN. ICANN has funded two very 

expert outside law firms to work at the direction of the community 

to design the new accountability measures, but they are being designed to fit within the framework of California public benefit corporation law, and if the jurisdiction ever changes, the accountability measures may no longer work or work as effectively. 
157 

So keeping these requires a contract, and making sure that it 

stays stable over the decades requires maintaining U.S. jurisdiction. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. Thank you. 

Ms. STARK AND MR. Misener, I am not sure if I will be able to 

get this question in my time, but if you were to visit ICANN’s Web 

site and read the description for the Government Advisory Committee, it states: ‘‘The GAC is not a decision-making body. However, there are growing concerns regarding the GAC’s influence 

over ICANN’s multi-stakeholder process.’’ 

As representatives who are involved in the multi-stakeholder 

process at ICANN, can you shed some light on any notable examples where the GAC has interfered in the multi-stakeholder process 

which directly impacted your company or your respective companies? And what can be done to curb the growing influence of the 

GAC over the ICANN board of directors? And what type of unintended consequences do you think the IANA transition will have on 

the GAC? 

Either one of you can get that. I only have about 60 seconds. 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Mr. Forbes, very much. We have a 

very clear example of where the Government Advisory Committee 

stepped in and caused the board to reverse what had been a fairly 

straightforward process in which we had applied for a .AMAZON 

and some affiliated top-level domain names. 

We support the proposed accountability reforms for ICANN, and 

I think they are a great idea. But I think, very importantly, they 

can’t just be applied prospectively. ICANN always should have 

been accountable, and they shouldn’t just now start to be accountable when they are forced to be so. 

Mr. FORBES. Ms. Stark, anything you would like to add? 

Ms. STARK. I would just say that we do think that the Government Advisory Council plays a very important role in the process 

and should be advisory. But as the Amazon example shows, it is 

dangerous when any one or a few governments are able to block 

what has been the process that was created by the full multi-stakeholder community. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

I now ask unanimous consent that the letter that prompted the 

earlier letter from IPC be placed in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

We also are in receipt of a letter from ICANN that I would like 

placed in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 

Mr. ISSA. We now go to the gentleman from Michigan for his 

thoughtful questions and comments. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to follow up on a Nadler-type question, which I 

would start off with Mr. Metalitz. We have discussed something 

about the obligations on registrars and ICANN. Now, in your view, 

are the registrars meeting these obligations, and is ICANN enforcing them sufficiently? 

Mr. METALITZ. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. Well, with respect to the 

particular obligations I talked about in my testimony, the obligation to investigate and respond when they receive a report that a 

domain name that they have sold is being used to carry out illegal 

activity, no, I do not think that the registrars are complying with 

that, and I do not think that ICANN is yet requiring them to do 

so. This is something we are continuing to engage both with 

ICANN and with registrars about. But if you take a snapshot 

today, these provisions are not being enforced. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Horton, do you concur with that view? Turn 

on your mic. 

Mr. HORTON. My apologies, Mr. Conyers. I concur with part of 

it. Our experience has been a little bit different. As I testified, we 

have actually seen that most domain name registrars voluntarily 

terminate services to illegal online pharmacies, and that may be 

because of the health and safety risks involved in that particular 

area. It is a relatively small number of domain name registrars 

that are responsible for most of the problem. But again, I am only 

talking about one particular area of abuse. We don’t keep data on 

these other types of areas. 

I do concur, however, that when a complaint is submitted to 

ICANN compliance, that they are not requiring compliance with 

Section 3.18. The core problem is this phrase ‘‘to respond appropriately.’’ What does that mean? They have latitude to interpret 

that, and they have not done so in an effective way. 

Mr. CONYERS. Ms. Stark, how do you weigh in on this question? 

Ms. STARK. I agree with Mr. Horton that there are some registrars that are very good about responding. But I do think that 

ICANN has not devoted enough resources in general to compliance, 

and that there are important parts of the contract that need greater attention from ICANN directly. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, Mr. Zuck, you are on ICANN’s IP working 

group. How does your experience stack up to the other contributions that have been made thus far? 

Mr. ZUCK. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I guess our 

experience has been similar. I have been kind of assigned within 

the intellectual property constituency to be sort of the hound dog 

to the compliance department inside ICANN, and I was horrified 

to discover a few years ago that their database of complaints and 

responses was a folder in Outlook some 10 years into the organization’s growth. 

So I think that they have come a long way from the standpoint 

of even keeping track of what they are doing over the past 5 years, 

and they still need to do a lot better job, and I think that the new 

gTLD program came at a time that made it easy to overwhelm 

them, but I think they have made some progress. But there is cer-
169 

tainly a long way to go in terms of contract compliance within 

ICANN. It is not quite the horror that it was 5 years ago. 

Mr. CONYERS. What other suggestions or experience would you 

like to make on this subject? 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. Steve DelBianco here. 

Two other improvements we are making as part of our proposal. 

One is to make sure that when the community feels like compliance isn’t happening, the community would have standing for the 

first time to be able to file for an independent review panel, and 

the community wouldn’t have to come up with the $1 million it 

takes to pay for the attorneys and panelists. 

Mr. CONYERS. Gosh. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. So we are building in the ability to challenge 

those decisions, and when the panel comes back with a decision, it 

will be binding on ICANN. 

The second would be that every year when ICANN puts forth a 

budget, if that budget lacks adequate funding for the systems that 

they need in compliance, like Mr. Zuck talked about, lacks the 

funding for compliance officers, we as a community can veto the 

budget until ICANN board comes back with the right budget. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. METALITZ. Just a footnote to that. Let’s not kid ourselves 

about this. There are many issues here where the community, the 

entire community might not see eye to eye. That community includes the registrars and registries that, in fact, provide over 90 

percent of the funding for ICANN, and this is the problem that 

ICANN is facing in trying to develop a culture of compliance. It is 

very difficult to do that when you have to negotiate with and enforce rules against the people that are writing the checks that pay 

your salary. 

So this is a problem that is inherent in the model, and I think 

it is something where maybe the community as a whole may not 

see the need, but certainly if you look at American businesses that 

depend on copyright and trademark protection, we certainly see the 

need, and we need some mechanism to make sure that ICANN responds appropriately. 

Mr. CONYERS. I see that Mr. Horton concurs with that view. 

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Conyers, I do, and I think that the additional 

thing that I would urge is transparency. As I testified, I think the 

core problem is that ICANN compliance is making decisions about 

what constitutes an appropriate response and then does not explain why. If they are making the right decision, what do they have 

to be afraid about in disclosing it to the multi-stakeholder community? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Metalitz, I understand the importance of protecting intellectual property, and what you are asking ICANN to do here, though, 

kind of sounds a lot like what you all tried and failed to get Congress to do with SOPA and PIPA. Isn’t there in effect the forcing 

down and takedown of Web sites outside of the reach of U.S. law 
170 

on the basis of an allegation of infringement without any type of 

hearing or due process? That is kind of troubling to me. Would you 

like to comment? 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes, I would. I think this is really an issue of 

whether ICANN will enforce the contracts that it has entered into. 

These contracts were negotiated. They were subject to public comment. There was a lot of public input, and throughout the community there was agreement that these would be the contractual 

standards. Those included concern about how domain names were 

used. Anytime you are talking about how a domain name is used, 

it is often being used to point to content, whether it is sales of illegal drugs, whether it is streaming and downloading of pirated material. So this is all firmly within—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The concern remains similar to SOPA and 

PIPA, that you will cast such a broad net that you will infringe on 

people’s free speech rights. 

Mr. METALITZ. I think that is a concern, but I think if we can 

have this dialogue with ICANN about the way in which they will 

interpret, apply, and enforce this requirement to investigate and to 

respond appropriately, we can have that discussion about what the 

safeguards would be. But we need first to get ICANN to commit 

to enforcing, and transparently doing so, these contracts they have 

entered into. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And, Mr. Misener, given ICANN’s accountability problems and the tendency to bend to the will of government, how can we in Congress ensure that ICANN’s problems 

won’t become worse and threaten the stability of the Internet after 

the U.S. Government terminates its contract with ICANN? 

Mr. MISENER. Thanks, Mr. Farenthold, very much. I think what 

Congress needs to do is ensure that NTIA insists on these accountability reforms, that they be made in ICANN’s bylaws as a condition precedent to the actual transition of the IANA functions. Also, 

of course, it would be a very positive sign if ICANN were to move 

ahead with the .AMAZON applications, which were very lawfully 

filed, and the government interference came in and—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I am concerned about—actually, I am going to 

do that question second, and I will open this to folks on the panel. 

At what point do we see such an explosion in top-level domains 

that it becomes worthless? The idea behind more top-level domains 

was to give more people the ability to register a domain name. But 

if I have to register blake.com, blake.net, blake.org, blake.biz, 

blake.us, blake.sucks, where does it stop? Why shouldn’t just general intellectual property law say you can’t register somebody’s 

trademark in any global top-level domain, rather than, as Chairman Issa pointed out, extorting companies to register potentially 

thousands of variations of their domain names? 

Mr. Corwin, you seem eager to jump on that. 

Mr. CORWIN. Well, I think we are carrying out this experiment 

now with the first round of top-level domains and we are going to 

see what the market demand is. It was very expensive for these applicants to bid for each of these so-called strings. There was a 

$185,000 application fee. The average cost, when you put in the 

consultants and attorneys and the back-end technical providers, 

you are talking about half-a-million to a million dollars per applica-
171 

tion just before you open it. If there is no market for this, it is hard 

to think that those types of applicants will be there at the next 

round. There may be .BRAND applicants. Hopefully there will be 

more applicants in foreign letter characters, Arabic and such. 

But the key thing here—and then there are other costs. DotSUCKS, for example, had to spend an additional $3 million to win 

an auction because they were one of three applicants for that. 

So I think the market will take care of this to some extent. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I see a business opportunity in registering 

.SUX. 

Mr. CORWIN. But in terms of pejorative terms like that, ‘‘sucks,’’ 

there has to be some type of public interest standard. If that is allowed to proceed, why wouldn’t we see in the second round applications for .LIAR, .CRIMINAL, .BLOWS the type of top-level domain 

that no person or company wants to be associated with? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD [continuing]. Blake.sucks.com defensively. 

Mr. CORWIN. The program should provide names that people 

want for positive reasons, not that they want to buy to protect 

themselves. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Ms. Stark, did you want to add something? I 

am running out of time. Quickly. 

Ms. STARK. I do. I just want to say that I don’t think trademark 

owners in general are battling against free speech, and that is 

what a total prohibition of any domain names that contain an existing trademark would be. Trademarks are created out of language, and there are fair uses, and there needs to be a balance between free speech and what is intellectual property protection. 

But I will say that in such an expansive new world, every brand 

owner of every size, my company included, is very resource challenged on how we are going to adequately protect what are valuable corporate assets that we have invested in for decades in this 

new world. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. 

I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the Congresswoman from Washington, 

Ms. DelBene. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of you 

for being here with us today. 

Mr. Misener, I wanted to follow up on the opinion on Amazon’s 

application for .AMAZON. It seems like it has basically been a 

draw at this point. The opinion found there wasn’t a basis for 

ICANN to turn down your application but also found that Amazon 

didn’t have a clear right to have its application granted. So I wondered if you could explain for the Committee the process that you 

went through and what information was made available concerning 

ICANN’s decision-making process for you, and kind of what comes 

next. 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you very much, Ms. DelBene. It really 

wasn’t and isn’t a draw. It is a loss for us. The reason why is we 

are the ones who filed the application for .AMAZON and its Chinese and Japanese language equivalents, and we have, to date, 

been denied. No one else filed for those. No one else has intellec-
172 

tual property rights to those names, including the countries in that 

region. 

Those countries exerted influence over the Government Advisory 

Committee, which then persuaded the board to deny our applications. We followed the rules that had been developed over that 3- 

year process, that multi-stakeholder process. It was very clear in 

the guidelines, which are the rules that govern the application 

process, that the name ‘‘Amazon’’ was not in the prohibited class 

of geographic names. There is a whole list of lists, actually, within 

the guidebook, a very expansive list that includes things like Brazil 

and .BR and Peru, but nowhere is Amazon included in any of these 

lists. 

So that process, which had developed the list of lists, just simply 

was ignored, under pressure from these other governments. Unfortunately, and it pains me to say so, but the U.S. Government ended 

up abstaining when they could have objected to this treatment of 

an American company. 

Ms. DELBENE. And so what comes next now on your side? 

Mr. MISENER. Unclear. We have other options, I suppose, legally. 

But the main thing, it seems to me, is during this extended, now 

IANA transition process, ICANN should take this opportunity to 

make itself whole in this regard. The adoption of accountability reforms is coming, and those accountability reforms should not just 

be applied prospectively. They should be applied as if they existed 

today. ICANN always should have been accountable, and if ICANN 

considers the new, improved review processes that are going to be 

adopted and considers them being applicable from Day 1, then that 

I think would solve our problem. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you. 

Ms. DELBENE. Ms. Stark, I understand that part of the process 

for launching the new gTLDs is that ICANN established a committee of trademark law experts that made recommendations for 

stronger and more efficient protection of trademarks, and that 

many of their recommendations were adopted by ICANN, including 

a newer, faster, and cheaper procedure to take down a domain 

name that is violating a trademark owner’s rights. 

Can you compare what happened there and contrast that with 

how things existed in the .com regime, and provide any examples 

for the Committee of instances where a domain name was taken 

down based on those rules? 

Ms. STARK. I am sorry, I don’t have an example just off the top 

of my mind, but thank you for that question because the rights protection mechanisms are, of course, of great concern to INTA and all 

of its members. I think the new mechanism that you are talking 

about is the URS system, and there is one key difference with that 

that has made it maybe not the most optimal solution for trademark owners, and that is that at the end of the day, the domain 

name that is in question and that may be problematic is not actually reassigned to the owner, the trademark owner, at the end of 

that process. 

So, yes, there are some efficiencies to the process, but I think 

that the ultimate resolution can be less than ideal for a lot of brand 

owners. So you will see that, even though it might be more expen-
173 

sive and take more time, there are a lot of brand owners who are 

still resorting to what is called the UDRP, the Uniform Dispute 

Resolution Process, because that does include a transfer of the domain name at the end of the proceeding. 

Ms. DELBENE. So do you think we have the right process in 

place, or what do you think we should do differently based on your 

learning now as we look towards—— 

Ms. STARK. You know, I would say that the process is always 

evolving, as we have seen with ICANN in general, and that while 

we have constantly tried to be an important voice in that multistakeholder community, to achieve the right balance between 

rights protection and innovation and competition and choice and 

free speech, I don’t know that we have totally gotten to the right 

place. I think that the IPC in particular, but as well the BC, and 

even the Brand Registry Group within the ICANN community, are 

continuing to think hard about these kinds of issues, and as we see 

new spaces get launched, and as we see new behaviors, what we 

can do to make sure that the right balance is achieved. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. 

This question is for Ms. Stark. But, Mr. Metalitz and Mr. Zuck, 

if you have a different answer, would you please respond briefly? 

Today, U.S. companies face ever-increasing intellectual property 

threats as more and more Web sites provide access to pirated content and counterfeit goods. I would like to ask about the registrar’s 

accreditation agreement that required new obligations for registrars when presented with evidence of copyright or trademark infringements or other illegal activities. 

Ms. Stark? 

Ms. STARK. Thank you very much for that question. I think that 

piracy, of course, is really of great concern to my company in particular, but also counterfeit merchandise and other products like 

you have talked about in the pharmaceutical world are very important to INTA and its members. So this is an issue very near and 

dear to our hearts. 

What I would say is, at a minimum, what we need to see is 

ICANN enforcing what already exists in the contracts. That would 

be WHOIS. That would be also contract compliance. If they have 

registrars who are not responding in the appropriate ways when 

they are notified of this type of illegal and infringing behavior, then 

there needs to be some teeth in the mechanisms that already exist, 

and I think that would be the thing we would hope to see the most. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Mr. Metalitz, do you find that successful? 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes. I would just add to that that the requirement 

that Ms. Stark is referring to is to take reasonable and prompt 

steps to investigate and respond appropriately to reports of abuse, 

including reports of the kind of illegal activity you are talking 

about. That is what needs to be enforced. This is not a question of 

any kind of automatic takedown. It is investigating and responding 

appropriately. That is not happening now, and we don’t have the 
174 

transparency to even see what ICANN thinks is appropriate in this 

setting. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Mr. Zuck? 

Mr. ZUCK. Yes. Piracy is a growing concern for the app industry 

around the world. And so I support what has been said before, but 

I would also suggest that these new accountability measures we 

are putting in place is in large measure what has been missing 

from the universe in which we have been operating to date. So having the ability to actually enforce some discipline upon ICANN and 

to enact real and binding reform inside of ICANN I believe is the 

key to getting the kind of contractual compliance office inside 

ICANN that we have all been waiting for. 

Mr. MARINO. This question is for Mr. DelBianco. In testimony before the Subcommittee last year, NTIA Administrator Strickling 

spoke of the importance of ensuring a stable legal environment for 

the IANA services. He subsequently informed the Committee that 

while he considered the U.S. to provide such an environment, that 

the stakeholders that are developing the transition plan are better 

placed to examine whether ICANN should continue to remain subject to U.S. law post-transition or not, he declined to answer whether protections need to be in place before the transition occurs to ensure that ICANN remains subject to U.S. law after completion, 

thereby admitting the possibility that this is negotiable. 

It seems to me that it is essential that ICANN and IANA function operators remain subject to U.S. law going forward, and that 

there is no better legal environment to ensure the continued stability of these operations. I would like the record to reflect the opinion of you concerning this. What say you? I know I threw a lot at 

you right there. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. You did, but you started by pronouncing my 

name perfectly, which comes from Marino to DelBianco. No problem. 

In an answer I gave earlier to Representative Forbes, I was reflecting not only my own revised opinion but that of the Community Working Group, who took a look at whether ICANN’s new bylaws should reflect a commitment that was made in the affirmation 

of commitments, a commitment to maintain its headquarters in the 

United States. And when you maintain headquarters or principal 

offices in the United States, that would mean that their legal presence includes the United States. 

At the Commerce hearing in the Senate in February, ICANN 

CEO Fadi Chehade ́? repeated his commitment that they would 

honor that. But the working group did not believe that any one 

person’s commitment would matter and that the affirmation, frankly, could be discarded by ICANN with 120 days’ notice. 

So we followed through on your question by ensuring that the bylaws of ICANN reflect that its principal offices would remain in 

California, and while the community might be able to approve a 

change to that, the board could not do it on its own. The board 

could not change the bylaws to remove the presence in California 

unless the community elected to approve that, if we make it a fundamental bylaw. That is 75 percent of community voting members, 

and we have the voting ratio set up in our proposal. That would 
175 

mean that it would be a very popular decision to vacate the principal offices in California. It would have to have overwhelming support, 75 percent of the global community, not easy to get. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. My time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the Congresswoman from California, Ms. 

Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you. 

As the chair of the California Democratic delegation, we thank 

you for keeping the facility in California. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter dated today from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
176 
177 
178 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would note that basically the Electronic Frontier 

Foundation makes the point that those who are suggesting that 

ICANN require the suspension of Internet domain names based on 

accusations of copyright or trademark infringement are effectively 

making the same proposal that was the centerpiece of the Stop Online Piracy Act, otherwise known as SOPA, that was dropped by 

this Committee after millions of people melted the phone lines here 

in the Congress, and at that time 83 Internet engineers warned 

that we cannot have a free and open Internet unless its naming 

and routing system sits above the political concerns and objectives 

of any one industry or company, and that the only way a domain 

name registrar can address copyright infringement accusations is 

by suspending its domain name. It goes on with other issues. 

My colleague, Mr. Farenthold, was talking about the contractual 

obligations that ICANN has, but one of the things I believe he did 

not mention that I think is key is that the registrars are required 

to take an action where there is a court order or an administrative 

finding, not based on mere allegations of wrongdoing, and I think 

that is an essential element that has been missing here in this discussion. 

I think we are still in the brave new world of the Internet, and 

one of the things that I think is interesting is whose law applies 

where. In listening, Mr. Horton and Mr. Metalitz, to your testimony, talking about Web sites that are selling pharmaceuticals, 

whose law applies? If you go to a chemist in Britain and you buy 

aspirin, you can get aspirin with codeine over the counter. You 

can’t get that in the United States. If you go to Mexico, you can 

buy antibiotics over the counter. You certainly can’t do that here. 

But you can’t buy Sudafed in Mexico even though you can do that 

here. 

So I notice, Mr. Horton, that your redress was really to U.S. 

sites, as well as you, Mr. Metalitz, even though the Web sites complained of were really apparently operating in other countries and, 

so far as I know, complying with the laws of those countries. For 

example, the Romania server that you mentioned, Mr. Metalitz. I 

am not an expert on Romanian copyright law, but I believe they 

do have a right to make private copies for personal use or for what 

is called normal familial groups that would probably be infringement here in the United States. So whose law applies? 

Mr. HORTON. I will go first. Congresswoman Lofgren, that is absolutely incorrect. First of all, as to your point about a court order, 

ICANN has stated in writing that a court order is not required in 

order for a registrar to take voluntary action and suspend a domain 

name. 

The rogue Internet pharmacies that we notify registrars about 

are not operating legally anywhere. There is not a single country 

in the world in which it is lawful to sell prescription drugs without 

a prescription, to practice pharmacy without a pharmacy license, or 

to violate that country’s drug safety laws. Every single domain 

name that we notify a registrar about is operating illegally everywhere it targets, and most of this is common sense. This is very 

easily verifiable on the face of the Web site, like the heroin Web 

site that I mentioned. 

Mr. METALITZ. If I can respond on the copyright issue. 
179 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

Mr. METALITZ. First of all, I don’t have the EFF letter, but as 

you read it—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just got it, too. 

Mr. METALITZ. I don’t think anybody on this panel is advocating 

what that letter says. We are advocating enforcement of a provision 

that says registrars shall take reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond appropriately to any reports of abuse. There 

is nothing in here about automatic takedown or without any 

verification. So that is point one. 

Number two, on the applicable law, I think actually this is less 

of a problem in the copyright area than in almost any other area 

because we have a much clearer international standard. One-hundred-seventy countries belong to the Bern Convention. Approximately the same number of countries belong to the World Trade 

Organization—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if I may interrupt, in Britain, for example, 

they don’t have a First Amendment, and they broadly constrain 

what we would consider to be inviolable free speech. They outlaw 

some of what their press does. That would not be effective here in 

the United States. 

Mr. METALITZ. In copyright and in trademark as well, there is 

much more of a uniform international norm than there is on free 

speech issues or on any of these other issues. So, it is not a nonissue, but—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, my time is up and, Mr. Johnson, I want to 

respect his time. I will pursue this further after the hearing, and 

I think there are some things that need to be clarified. 

I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. 

Mr. MARINO. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, 

Congressman Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

I would like for you to continue your comments. 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. My only 

other point was, I mean, the example about private copying under 

Romanian law, this is not an issue of private copying. The 

itemvn.com Web site that we cite in our testimony is streaming 

and allowing downloads of music that hasn’t been released yet, and 

before it is released it is available on that site without any license. 

So this is not private copying at all. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So what we are really talking about is the ICANN 

Government Advisory Committee enforcing the rules that the 

stakeholders have agreed to in the 4-year process that it took to 

come up with this applicant guidebook, and you just want enforcement of the rules. 

Mr. METALITZ. Essentially that is right, Mr. Johnson. This is a 

contract that we are talking about here that was entered into between ICANN and all of these registrars. It was a multi-year process to develop this contract, but it is down on paper now. Let’s 

make sure that it is enforced and that we understand what the 

ground rules are. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And, Mr. Misener, you complain of Amazon’s adherence to the rules in applying for a gTLD which incorporated 

your very name that you have a trademark on. Though it may de-
180 

note some geographic area, that geographic area or that geographic 

name was not among the names that were set forth in the applicant guide book which were to be prohibited from being assigned. 

So you applied for .AMAZON, and the countries of Brazil and Peru, 

through which the Amazon River runs, objected. I don’t know what 

the basis of their objection was, but apparently your view would be 

that there was no basis in the rules to object based on geography. 

So you engaged in negotiations with those two governments and 

nothing happened, and so when it went to a decision the ICANN 

Government Advisory Committee recommended disapproval or denied your approval. Your contention is that there is no basis in the 

rules for that denial. What is your remedy? 

Mr. MISENER. Mr. Johnson, thank you so much. That was a perfect summary of our circumstance. 

The remedy, frankly, is to ensure that NTIA ensures—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, outside of the NTIA adherence to its guide 

book, how can you enforce, or is there some kind of independent 

review? Because if you are going to have some accountability and 

some reliability and transparency and a rule of law, which is what 

the guidebook represents, a rule of law, there can be disputes about 

the meaning and intent of the rules, and so you would have to have 

some body to make a fair and impartial decision based on the clear 

language of the guidebook. What remedy exists to enable Amazon 

to have a day in court, if you would? 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. There is not a good remedy right now within ICANN. One of the proposed reforms for 

ICANN accountability would establish a stronger independent review process within the body. So that process presumably would 

have allowed us to have our day in court without the government 

influence that occurred. We are just afraid because, frankly, there 

is very strong bipartisan support in the United States, also support 

between Congress and the Administration that the Internet should 

remain free of government control, and right now it is not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me stop you right there and ask Mr. 

Woodcock, why did the U.S. abstain from weighing in on the decision as to Amazon’s registration of that name? 

Mr. WOODCOCK. Fundamentally this is an issue that I have no 

particular expertise on because it is not my area. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Excuse me. Does anybody know why? Can anybody say why? Was it a procedural advantage that the U.S. would 

retain from abstaining? Anybody know? 

Yes, Mr. Zuck. 

Mr. ZUCK. I guess I don’t know for sure what their motivations 

were, but I continue to believe that the IANA contract itself is a 

cumbersome and unwieldy form of accountability, and that the U.S. 

finds itself in a very difficult position to exercise its will over 

ICANN in that way, and the other ways that it can exercise its will 

is through the GAC, through the international organizations which 

participate. But I think the replacement of that accountability 

mechanism with real accountability to the community is the key 

going forward. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. And, Mr. Johnson, I wasn’t in the room. None 

of us were in the GAC room when they made the decision whether 

to block the .AMAZON. So you can chalk it up to perhaps it was 
181 

politics. Maybe it was substantive. But more than likely, it was 

about the politics that go on as Nations decide how to support or 

oppose each other. But after that happened, the ICANN board had 

the opportunity to respectfully say we don’t agree with your advice, 

and the board itself has that opportunity. In today’s world, if we 

don’t like the decision of the board, it is incredibly expensive, and 

only a few parties would have standing to be able to challenge that 

board decision and to have it be reviewed by an independent panel, 

and if that panel came back and said the board was wrong, the 

board could still ignore the panel. 

This is why the reforms we have described would turn that upside-down so that aggrieved parties could appeal, and if the community, 75 percent of us, agreed, ICANN would pay the legal fees. 

And if the panel came back and said your decision was wrong, the 

board would have to do it over. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA [presiding]. Thank you. 

I am just going to make a very quick follow-up as a close. In the 

Fiscal Year 2016 Commerce-Justice-State, language has been inserted for a second year—it was in last year—and it prohibits 

NTIA from using funds to relinquish IANA function. In other 

words, until the end of the Fiscal Year 2016, this transition would 

not be allowed to go forward. 

Does anyone see that as anything other than the minimum that 

we should do within Congress’ authority? In other words, slow 

down this process. It is not a renewal. It simply allows them not 

to relinquish. 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. WOODCOCK. Again, I think that there is a huge distinction 

to be made between the names community and the protocols and 

numbers community. The protocols and numbers community are 

peers, if you will, with ICANN. They develop policy globally 

through the multi-stakeholder process, and the result of that policy 

is merely copied over through the IANA process. 

Mr. ISSA. I understand that the numbers resolve just fine, and 

nobody knows that I am 143196, et cetera. The reality, though, is 

that governance is a package deal, wouldn’t you say? That trying 

to separate them would create a greater bureaucracy. 

Mr. WOODCOCK. I disagree, respectfully. The three are completely 

separable. There are no interconnections between those three functions, and moving two forward on schedule would show good faith 

that the U.S. Government is not willfully impeding a global process. 

Mr. ISSA. Noted. 

Anyone else? 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. Thank you, Mr. Issa. I believe you said it right, 

governance is a package deal, especially when we are saying that 

leverage is necessary to get ICANN to agree to the rather tough 

reforms we are trying to impose upon them. So I do think we 

should keep them together. I think the Commerce Department will 

make a responsible extension of the IANA contract, and then what 

Congress does with respect to the rider, all of which are moving 

parts that have to overlay. 
182 

The chart I had up earlier showed that possibly the earliest is 

next spring, 2016. It might well likely leak into much later in 2016, 

and yet Commerce needs to have enough leeway to spend the resources necessary to answer your questions and to make sure that 

the stress tests have been applied, to make sure that the conditions 

have been met. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Misener, the Administration abstained from weighing in. Do 

you believe that they should have weighed in on this issue rather 

than leaving it as it ended up? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes. They should have maintained their opposition 

to this treatment of Amazon. They initially were supportive, but 2 

years ago I met with the relevant leaders of both NTIA and State, 

and they told us that they were going to abstain. We objected both 

on our private interests, but also on the precedent that had been 

set for the multi-stakeholder model and the U.S. support of that 

model and its commitment to it. We were disappointed, for sure. 

Mr. ISSA. And ICANN, as I understand it, had the ability not to 

issue the name, period, simply to take it back and say it was a big 

mistake, we are not going to have a .AMAZON. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. MISENER. Well, that would have been an abrogation of the 

multi-stakeholder process which came up with that very definitive 

list of list of names on which Amazon was not included. 

Mr. ISSA. You know, George Carlin had seven names he used on 

television, only to find out it locked him out of television. Isn’t it 

possible, or isn’t it prudent that even when names bubble up 

through a multi-stakeholder process, that when down the road you 

discover, like the first day of battle you discover that your battle 

plan had flaws in it because the enemy found them, shouldn’t there 

be a process to go back through that loop and say is it really necessary to have .thisisstupid? 

Mr. MISENER. Well, certainly we are looking for an accountability 

process to be adopted so that there can be strong accountability for 

the organization. But we have something like 1,600 trademarks 

worldwide that incorporate Amazon, 149 different countries worldwide, including in Brazil and Peru. Those are protected trademarks. That is our global brand. It is our core business brand. So 

we feel very slighted by the participants in the GAC who decided 

that some geopolitical interest simply trumped our IPR. 

Mr. ISSA. It is interesting that in over 200 years of this Nation, 

and obviously longer than that ago that the Amazon River was 

named, nobody seemed to have come up and named their company 

Amazon. And yet you do it, and the next thing you know it is a 

great name for the whole world to have in a .AMAZON. 

Let me just close with a question. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. If I might just ask one question. 

Mr. ISSA. Of course. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is it a fact that the name .AMAZON is still available to a different registrant? 

Mr. MISENER. It could be, and that is a serious concern of ours, 

that this could come up in a subsequent round and then be available to someone else who might have obtained that name, and then 
183 

we would be in a very difficult position to try to protect our IPR 

worldwide. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. Great question. 

Earlier I named some other sites that end in .com. I just want 

a yes or no because I think these two questions could be a good yes 

or no. Isn’t it true that the most desirable ending, by far, is .com 

for almost anybody who wants it? It is the first choice of every registrant? Is that correct? Does anyone disagree with that? 

Yes, Mr. Corwin. 

Mr. CORWIN. Representing a trade group of domain investors 

which carefully watches what market value is placed on Web sites, 

.com domains, short non-infringing dictionary words with .com continue to command the highest price in the marketplace. That 

doesn’t mean it will last forever, that there won’t be other new 

TLDs which challenge that dominance down the road. But in today’s marketplace a good short, non-infringing name with .com is 

a very valuable asset. 

Mr. ISSA. And .com sells first. If people go to find something— 

I use GoDaddy, but you could go to any of them—they put a name 

in, and if .com is available, that is the one they take. It is even the 

default on many of them. 

Mr. CORWIN. In fact, even individuals and companies that have 

acquired new TLDs, in many cases that new domain, when you 

type it in, it redirects you and you end up at their older .com Web 

site. So I am not saying—— 

Mr. ISSA. It is the opposite of whitehouse.com, which takes you 

to all kinds of non-.com sites. 

Mr. CORWIN. Yes, don’t send your school child to whitehouse.com. 

I think as .brands enter the market, big corporations advertising 

at .company, the consumer will start to be educated to think more 

about the right of the dot. But we remain primarily in a .com world 

today. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, and I will get to you very quickly. But when Network Solutions had a monopoly, when it was one place, they made 

a lot of money selling these things at less than $15, right? 

I have a basic question. If we assume for a moment that the 

charter of ICANN is or should be the interest of commerce—in 

other words, a fiduciary obligation to promote commerce, not to enrich themselves, or even enrich people who sell the names—then is 

there any real excuse to have a $2,500 price tag on any, absolutely 

any name at all? In other words, first come, first served. If you 

want a name, why does that name need to rise above the $10 that 

.com’s are being sold for every day? I paid more or less the $10 

when I bought DEI.com years ago. I think the price was slightly 

higher when Network Solutions had it, but it was still de minimis. 

Mr. ZUCK. I feel like we enter into dangerous waters when we 

start talking about trying to control prices in that way. 

Mr. ISSA. I didn’t ask about controlling prices. I asked about—— 

Mr. ZUCK. I understand. I guess I am saying that—— 

Mr. ISSA. But please hear the question one more time. If the entity, ICANN, has an obligation in its charter, does or should have, 

that says it exists to make that product available at the lowest possible price, its process of putting those names out—for example, no 
184 

exclusives, sell the auction, don’t buy exclusive rights, three people 

buy it. So when I talk about competition gets you an appropriate 

price and a monopoly gets you a monopolistic price, I understand 

you are saying we shouldn’t be fixing prices, but we have an entity 

that has .SUCKS and is using its monopolistic power to extort 

money. 

My question is that if we assume that ICANN exists for the public benefit, whether it is Amazon in your fight or any of them, and 

if there were fair competition, meaning people wanting to get these 

out there and nobody being able to camp on them unless they pay 

the fee and own it themselves, obviously you would have a reselling 

market, but in the primary, original sale market, is there any reason cost-wise that these names would have to cost more than $10 

a year? 

Mr. ZUCK. Cost-wise, I don’t know. But if the market will bear 

that amount of money, it will show up in the secondary market 

anyway. WallStreet.com sold for a million dollars. So the truth of 

the matter is, whether it happens at the outset or in the secondary 

market, it is going to be a function of whether there is demand for 

that name. 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, Mr. Corwin. 

Mr. CORWIN. It really depends on the specific top-level domain. 

As I said, there was substantial up-front investment to apply for 

each one. Let me give you an example. 

Mr. ISSA. There was substantial up-front to apply because that 

was the model ICANN was using. 

Mr. CORWIN. I think if it gives positive value to the domain registrant and they believe it is worth it, and there may be other costs 

involved—the American Bankers Association and the Financial 

Roundtable applied for and they are getting .bank. That is only 

open to regulated financial institutions. They perceive value in that 

because it will be a tool for preventing phishing and other financial 

scams that are carried out through incumbent TLDs, and that validation process and other security measures associated with a toplevel domain can justify a higher price to the registrant. 

You have to investigate each case, but we don’t want people 

being coerced to buy domains at much higher prices than they 

would ever pay if they didn’t feel that if someone else gets that 

name, it is going to cause them reputational harm. 

Mr. ISSA. There does seem to be two prices, the price when there 

is competition and the price when there is extortion. 

I am going to go to Mr. Collins, but I will go quickly to you, 

ma’am. Go ahead, Ms. Stark. 

Ms. STARK. So, I wanted to just address the principle underlying 

your question, Chairman Issa, which is isn’t there a responsibility 

to promote commerce and competition, and I think by extension innovation? What I would say about the .SUCKS example is there 

are just over 36,000 trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse 

today. If each of those brand owners take their set of marks that 

they have in that clearinghouse and register them in the .SUCKS 

space for the $2,499 it costs, that is $90 million a year, because you 

have to renew those names each year. So that is $90 million. 

And I think that those costs ultimately, as with any business, get 

passed on to the consumer. So when you break it down at its heart, 
185 

this turns out to be a tax on businesses and on innovation and on 

consumers. 

Mr. ISSA. I certainly agree. It couldn’t have been said better. 

Mr. Collins? 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I think this is interesting to see the results and also the 

discussion over ICANN because of the transition of ICANN and the 

termination of the IANA contract. The two main issues are, first, 

should we terminate that contract? Second, are we ready at this 

moment to terminate that contract? 

The Committee a while back, last year actually, explored the 

first question in previous hearings, so my question and my line of 

thought is going to focus on the second. But based on the evidence 

I have seen—and I want to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, 

to enter into the record a laundry list of recent ICANN failures 

that should really—— 

Mr. ISSA. Without objection, the laundry list is placed in the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. And my wife’s part is took out, so it 

is just mine. 

I believe ICANN is engaged in a pattern of behavior that indicates their lack of commitment to follow through on their contractual obligations that exist today. A multi-stakeholder model is effective when the community agreements are respected and enforced 

and when the administrator of ICANN takes seriously the responsibilities to live up to the commitments they made. 

I am concerned about the lack of accountability and transparency 

I have observed on the part of ICANN. In fact, it is probably like 

an old commercial that we have seen on TV, the Cheez-It commercial. I just don’t think they are ready, mature enough to be baked 

into a system, into a cracker. This is the part that just bothers me 

because there just doesn’t seem to be the understanding of the concern that most of us have and that has been discussed here today. 

So, a couple of questions. I want to start with Ms. Stark. The 

first is in 2011, you told Congress that the first round of new 

gTLDs would cost the business community conservatively $12 million in defensive registration fees. Some claim that that number 

was an overstatement. Was it? 

Ms. STARK. No. I would actually say that for some companies 

that are really interested in protecting a whole host of brands, the 

numbers could be even worse. In 2011, I had noted that a large corporation might look to register maybe 300 defensive names in what 

was then anticipated to be about 400 spaces, and we averaged that 

out at just a cost of $100 a name, right? That is how we got to that 

$12 million. 

Well, I think the costs today remain unknown. We haven’t even 

delegated maybe half of the names into the space now. But you are 

not looking at 400 names any longer. You are looking at over 1,300 

new spaces, and from our calculations the average sunrise registration in the spaces that have gone forward is more like in the $300 

to $350 range when you average it across all those spaces. So that, 

again, was triple what we were talking about in 2011. 

And then if you look at this .SUCKS example that we have been 

discussing throughout today, you are talking about for a single 

mark it costing $2,499 a year. And like I said, if the brand owners 

register all the marks they put into that clearinghouse, that is a 

cost to business of $90 million a year. It is extraordinary. 

Mr. COLLINS. It is. I want to say right here just one more question, and it is a concern that rogue Web site operators are increasingly engaging in domain hopping, switching from one TLD to another to maintain their brand. For example, there are several sites 

that trade on the piratebay name, even though the sites’ operators 

have been convicted of criminal copyright infringement. Some of 

these sites are existing TLDs, the piratebay.com, the piratebay.org, 

and others with new gTLDs. 

Do you think it is fair that rights owners or law enforcement 

take action against one domain only to have the same problem 

arise, basically trading on the same name with a different TLD? 

Ms. STARK. I think that that is an extraordinary challenge for 

companies like mine, and I very much appreciate you raising it. We 

are always looking for ways in which to more efficiently address 

these problems without having to tackle people as they hop around 
191 

the world and hop around the Internet from name to name to 

name. I don’t know that I have a solution to that, but I do think 

that it really creates a resource challenge when what we are trying 

to do is get out legitimate content to people and spur innovation 

and productivity in that same Internet world, and what they are 

trying to do is simply steal it. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I think this is something that is very important because it is sort of the tree here. We are following this out, 

and you can do it in other cases, criminal cases. You can do it in 

others. But especially in this kind of case where you have had this 

blatant kind of hopping around that is against, so I appreciate 

that. 

Mr. Metalitz, how important is it for accuracy and integrity of 

the WHOIS database through the function of accountability and 

the rule of law to the online ecosystem? And also, how do these 

issues intersect with the public interest commitment, the registrar 

accreditation agreement, and the other ICANN standards of online 

accountability? 

Mr. METALITZ. Thank you for that question. WHOIS is extremely 

important. It is a key element of accountability and transparency 

to know who you are dealing with online. ICANN was given stewardship of this database 15 years ago, back in the monopoly days, 

right after the monopoly days that the Chairman was referring to, 

and it has not fared well during that period. It is less accessible, 

and it is certainly less accurate, apparently less accurate now than 

it was then, and we have a problem now that 20 percent of the registrations in the gTLDs are registered to proxy services. It just puts 

a barrier between you and finding out who you are dealing with 

online. 

I think your previous question to Ms. Stark was very well put, 

and we have two problems there. One is we have some legacy registries such as .org. So even after old piratebay.org was brought to 

their attention, and piratebay has been the subject of orders in 

many countries, the people who ran it have gone to jail in Sweden 

for copyright infringement, even after that, .org would not take any 

action on the operators of that registry. 

Then we also have a problem with the country code top-level domains, the two-letter domains that ICANN has no control over, and 

some of them have been quite cooperative, but some have not. So 

this is another frontier that we still need to deal with in this effort 

to try to enforce our copyrights. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I think that is something that the Chairman 

and I have worked on a great deal, because if we continue this hopping around, if we continue this non-transparency and this non-accountability, then we are simply setting ways that are affecting 

business. It is affecting really that ingenuity, that spirit that we 

are trying to incorporate, and especially when it comes to just blatant stealing and copyright infringement, let’s just call it what it 

is. So I appreciate that. 

I know Amazon has had an amazing story with ICANN and the 

problems there, and we could go into that. So I wanted to recognize 

that fact. I have seen that. And for all of us here, I think it is just 

an example that ICANN there is the problems here, and it is not 

ready, and I think that is the thing we go back to. 
192 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

I am going to close with a question. It is somewhat rhetorical, 

but I will let you weigh in if you want to, and it is similar to what 

Mr. Zuck and I had sort of a back and forth on. 

ICANN is a California-registered non-profit. Now, non-profits, 

even though they pay their CEO millions of dollars, non-profits can 

only be non-profits if they, in fact, exist for a public benefit. So 

ICANN, contrary to Mr. Zuck and I’s back and forth, has an obligation for service, and I am of the opinion that in a number of examples we have seen here today, including how they oversee, if you 

will, the multi-stakeholder process, they seem to have lost track of 

that. And certainly when you see that a relatively de minimis 

amount of money—it cost me less than $10 to get Issa.cc, which 

happens to be international, but it came through the process of you 

buy it online, and a number of others—most times when you want 

a name, if it is available, it costs you $10 or less. But when, in fact, 

it is a name that exists for the purpose of causing you to buy it 

in defense, it has an extortionary price. 

My closing comments—and I will let anyone weigh in who wants 

to—is doesn’t Congress have an obligation, along with the State of 

California I might say, to look at ICANN and say, you know, 

ICANN is making a ton of money, they seem to be in the operation 

of making a ton of money. It looks like in the case of .SUCKS that 

they simply wanted to recover a $900,000, $1 million IOU from a 

company that had failed to meet its earlier commitments, and this 

deal was a way to do it with an extra incentive to clear up an old 

balance. 

If somebody disagrees, I would love to hear it. If you agree, briefly, and then we will call it a day. 

Mr. DELBIANCO. At 17 years old, ICANN is really just a nascent 

institution. It is an evolving institution in the most rapidly changing industry the world has ever seen. So, guess what? Every year, 

every week, we are going to have new problems, just like the ones 

you have adequately described. And when these problems come up, 

we can’t anticipate to say we check the box to say they have solved 

all the problems that they have, and they have solved all the problems that will ever be in order to say are they ready. 

What we really need to say is that when they make bad decisions 

or implement good decisions poorly, we have got to be able to hold 

them to account, challenge their bad decisions, like this decision on 

the million-dollar fee to the .SUCKS. We ought to be able to challenge it, to know about it, and if they don’t listen to what the community believes, we fire the entire board and start with a new 

board under the same public service principles. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Corwin? 

Mr. CORWIN. As a public benefit corporation, they certainly have 

an obligation to act in the public interest, and there has been a tremendous amount of money generated by the new top-level domain 

program, about a third of a billion dollars in application fees alone. 

There is something going on right now that—— 

Mr. ISSA. Of course ultimately, the auction process, that is not 

serving the public interest. That is making them money. The public 
193 

interest is served when a company like Amazon gets value, and I 

will put it in a term that hopefully you will all agree with. 

Horses running alone run slower than a horse with a jockey on 

it. But a horse with a 500-pound jockey doesn’t run at all. 

We, in fact, have a phenomenal horse. The naming system is 

what makes a string of first four and now six series of sequential 

numbers actually be usable by the public. That is the jockey that 

is making this enterprise work. When I type ‘‘fox.fox’’ for ‘‘fox.com,’’ 

I get what I want in most cases. It works, where numbers would 

never do that. But if I simply put hundreds or thousands of $10 

to $2,500 purchases on the back of an enterprise, I put a 500-pound 

jockey on that enterprise, as you said so well, Ms. Stark. I am taxing an enterprise. 

That public benefit corporation has an obligation to these companies. They have an obligation to the stakeholder. The real stakeholder is commerce. It is not their enrichment in fees and a new 

set of profiteers that simply are in the business of hijacking the 

system and causing other enterprises to pay for, effectively, a heavier jockey. 

We have to end it after this. 

Mr. WOODCOCK. I think part of the issue is that there is a certain degree of complexity and unwieldy-ness to the current system. 

The accountability measures are there to NTIA, but it is a threeparty system where the services that ICANN provides are provided 

to the community, but we rely on NTIA to provide the discipline 

to ICANN. Making ICANN directly responsible to the industry so 

that industry can provide its own self-governance is something I 

think everyone on this panel can probably agree to. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

This will be the very last comment because it is time to go. 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just add 

the perspective of someone who has followed ICANN very closely 

over the past 15 years and had many opportunities to share my 

perspectives with this Subcommittee, which I really appreciate. 

ICANN is an experiment, and experiments don’t always work out 

neatly, and they don’t always work out effectively at a particular 

snapshot. I think if you take the longer view, many of the problems 

we are talking about here show progress. These contracts that 

ICANN is not yet enforcing, they didn’t even have these contracts 

until 2 years ago. And similarly on WHOIS, they are taking on the 

problem of proxy registrations. I don’t know if they will be able to 

deal with it effectively, but they weren’t even taking it on a few 

years ago. 

So I think we have to look at the bigger picture to see—you are 

absolutely right, that as a public benefit corporation, ICANN needs 

to serve the public interest, and I think the oversight of this Subcommittee is an important factor. Continued oversight will be an 

important factor in making sure they do so. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, and this concludes today’s hearing. I want 

to thank all of our witnesses today. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses and additional material for the record. 

I thank you, and we stand adjourned. 
194 

[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(195) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
196 
197 
198 
199 

f 
200 
201 
202 

f 
203 
204 

f 
205 
206 
207 

f 
208 
209 
210 

f 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 

f 
219 
220 
221 

f 
222 
223 
224 
225 

Æ