18688 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 

1Memorandum on Electronic Commerce, 2 Pub. 

Papers 898 (July 1, 1997). 

2Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 

63 Fed. Reg. 31,741 (June 10, 1998). 

partnership that owns or holds a 

sablefish endorsed permit to provide an 

ownership interest form listing all 

individuals with ownership interest in 

the entity as part of the annual renewal 

process and as part of any sablefish 

endorsed permit transfer involving a 

business entity either given as the 

permit owner or as the vessel owner. 

Also, for transfer requests after April 1st 

and October 30th, the permit owner is 

required to report the remaining pounds 

(not yet harvested) on a sablefish 

endorsed permit at the time of transfer. 

Applicants for exempted fishing 

permit must submit written information 

that allows NMFS to evaluate the 

exempted fishing activity and weigh the 

benefits and costs of the proposed 

activities. The information included in 

an application is specified at 50 CFR 

600.745(b)(2). Permit holders are 

required to file preseason plans, 

summary reports on the results of the 

experiments or data collection and in 

some cases individual vessels and other 

permit holders are required to provide 

data reports. There is also a requirement 

of a call-in notification prior to the 

fishing trip. This information allows 

NMFS to evaluate the techniques used 

and decide if management regulations 

should be approved as is, modified, or 

disapproved. 

II. Method of Collection 

Renewal forms are mailed to all 

permit owners and are submitted by 

mail to NOAA, NMFS, Northwest 

Region. Transfer forms are available 

from the region’s Web site but must be 

submitted by mail or in person. 

Applications for an exempted fishing 

permit must be submitted in a written 

format. The exempted fishing permit 

data reports may be submitted in 

person, faxed, submitted by telephone 

or e-mailed by the monitor, plant 

manager, vessel owner or operator to 

NMFS or the states of Washington, 

Oregon, or California. 

Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0203. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Not-for-profit 

institutions, state government, 

individuals or households, and business 

or other for-profits organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

336. 

Estimated Time per Response: 30 

minutes per exempted fishing permit 

(EFP) application; 24 hours for an EFP 

summary report; 43 minutes for an EFP 

data report; 2 minutes for EFP trip 

notification; 20 minutes for a limited 

entry permit transfer form; 20 minutes 

for a renewal form; 10 minutes to 

provide mid season transfer information 

for a sablefish endorsed limited entry 

permit; and 30 minutes for a sablefish 

permit ownership interest form. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 2,015. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $757,728. 

III. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: April 21, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–9415 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

[Docket No. 090420688–9689–01] 

Assessment of the Transition of the 

Technical Coordination and 

Management of the Internet’s Domain 

Name and Addressing System 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) seeks comment 

regarding the upcoming expiration of 

the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with 

the Internet Corporation for Assigned 

Names and Numbers (ICANN). This 

agreement has been in existence since 

November 25, 1998, and is scheduled to 

expire on September 30, 2009. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

June 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by mail to Fiona M. 

Alexander, Associate Administrator, 

Office of International Affairs, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

N.W., Room 4701, Washington, DC 

20230. Paper submissions should 

include a three and one–half inch 

computer diskette or compact disc (CD) 

in HTML, ASCII, Word, WordPerfect, 

rtf, or pdf format (please specify 

version). Diskettes or CDs should be 

labeled with the name and 

organizational affiliation of the filer and 

the name of the word processing 

program used to create the document. 

Alternatively, comments may be 

submitted electronically to 

DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov. 

Comments provided via electronic mail 

also should be submitted in one or more 

of the formats specified above. 

Comments will be posted to NTIA’s 

website at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ 

comments/2009/dnstransition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this Notice contact: 

Suzanne R. Sene, Office of International 

Affairs, National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 4701, 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 

482–3180; email ssene@ntia.doc.gov. 

Please direct media inquiries to the 

Office of Public Affairs, NTIA, at (202) 

482–7002. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

A July 1, 1997, Executive 

Memorandum directed the Secretary of 

Commerce to privatize the Internet’s 

domain name and addressing system 

(DNS) in a manner that increases 

competition and facilitates international 

participation in its management.1 In 

order to fulfill this Presidential 

directive, the Department of Commerce 

in June 1998, issued a statement of 

policy on the privatization of the 

Internet DNS, known as the DNS White 

Paper.2 In the DNS White Paper, the 

Department of Commerce articulated, 

based upon public input, four principles 

that would guide the development of an 

entity called ‘‘NewCo’’ to be established 

by the private sector. These principles 

were: stability; competition; private, 

bottom–up coordination; and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 18689 

3For more information on the private sector 

proposals received see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ 

ntiahome/domainname/background.htm. 

4Memorandum of Understanding Between the 

U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet 

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

(Nov. 25, 1998), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ 

domainname/icann-memorandum.htm. 

5 Department of Commerce Statement Regarding 

Extension of Memorandum of Understanding with 

the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers (Sept. 16, 2003), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ 

ntiahome/domainname/agreements/ 

sepstatementl09162003.htm. 

6Notice of Inquiry and Public Meeting on the 

Continued Transition of the Technical Coordination 

and Management of the Internet DNS (Nov. 1, 

2007), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ 

domainname/jpamidtermreview.html. 

7All MOU Amendments are available online at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ 

icann.htm. 

8 Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S. 

Department of Commerce and the Internet 

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, 

Amendment 7, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ 

domainname/agreements/jpa/ 

ICANNJPAl09292006.htm. 

9Notice of Inquiry and comments received are 

available online at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ 

ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html. 

10NTIA Statement on the Mid-Term Review of 

the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) Between NTIA 

and ICANN, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ 

domainname/ICANNlJPAl080402.html. 

11See e.g., Paul Twomey, CEO and President, 

ICANN, Statement Given at the Welcome 

Ceremony, 34th ICANN Conference, Mexico City, 

(Mar. 2, 2009), http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/ 

mexico2009/transcript-opening-ceremony-02mar09- 

en.txt; Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers, 2008 Annual Report (Dec. 31, 2008), at 

21, http://www.icann.org/en/annualreport/annualreport-2008-en.pdf. 

representation. In particular, the 

Department of Commerce committed 

that it would not conclude its role in 

DNS management if doing so would 

cause instability in the DNS. This 

process of transitioning to private sector 

leadership these coordination and 

management functions was termed the 

DNS Project. The DNS White Paper 

went on to state that, in making a 

decision to enter into an agreement to 

establish a process to transfer current 

U.S. Government management of DNS 

to such a new entity, the United States 

would be guided by, and consider, the 

proposed entity’s commitment to the 

principles enumerated above. 

To this end, the Department of 

Commerce stated in the DNS White 

Paper that it was prepared to enter into 

an agreement with a new not–for–profit 

corporation formed by private sector 

Internet stakeholders. Private sector 

interests, in turn, formed the Internet 

Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers (ICANN) for this purpose.3 In 

the fall of 1998, the Department of 

Commerce entered into a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN, a 

California not–for–profit corporation, to 

transition technical DNS coordination 

and management functions to the 

private sector.4 The MOU does not give 

the Department of Commerce the ability 

to exercise oversight in the traditional 

context of regulation and the 

Department of Commerce plays no role 

in the internal governance or day–to– 

day operations of ICANN. 

Since 1998, the MOU evolved through 

several iterations and revisions as 

ICANN tested these principles with the 

community, learned valuable lessons, 

and matured as an organization. 

Amendments occurred in 1999, 2000, 

2001, and 2002. In 2003, the Department 

of Commerce noted the progress that 

ICANN had made since its inception. 

Accordingly, the Department of 

Commerce and ICANN collaboratively 

established more specific milestones to 

further assist ICANN in meeting the 

objectives of the DNS Project. Both the 

Department of Commerce and ICANN 

recognized at this stage that ‘‘much 

work remained for ICANN to evolve into 

an independent, stable, and sustainable 

DNS management organization,’’ and 

the agreement was further amended 

(through September 30, 2006) to allow 

sufficient time for ICANN to meet these 

milestones’ objectives.5

On May 23, 2006, NTIA issued a 

Notice of Inquiry (NOI) and announced 

a public consultation on the Continued 

Transition of the Technical 

Coordination and Management of the 

Internet DNS.6 The public consultation 

resulted in over 700 contributions from 

individuals, private corporations, trade 

associations, non–governmental entities, 

and governments. The consultation 

evidenced broad support for both 

continuing the transition and the 

ongoing involvement of the Department 

of Commerce. On September 29, 2006, 

the Department of Commerce and 

ICANN signed a JPA extending the 

MOU.7 The JPA expires September 30, 

2009.8

The JPA called for a midpoint review 

of ICANN’s progress towards becoming 

an organization with greater 

transparency and accountability in its 

procedures and decision making. NTIA 

conducted this review by releasing an 

NOI on November 2, 2007, and 

conducting a public meeting on 

February 28, 2008.9 This review process 

revealed that, while some progress had 

been made, there remained key areas 

where further work was required to 

increase institutional confidence in 

ICANN.10 Specifically, these included 

long–term stability, accountability, 

responsiveness, continued private sector 

leadership, stakeholder participation, 

increased contract compliance, and 

enhanced competition. ICANN has 

stated publicly on several occasions 

since this midpoint review, most 

recently on March 2, 2009, that the JPA 

will conclude September 30, 2009.11

REQUEST FOR COMMENT: 

Given the upcoming expiration of the 

current JPA between the Department of 

Commerce and ICANN, NTIA seeks 

comments regarding the progress of the 

transition of the technical coordination 

and management of the Internet DNS to 

the private sector, as well as the model 

of private sector leadership and bottom– 

up policy development which ICANN 

represents. 

The questions below are intended to 

assist in identifying the issues and 

should not be construed as a limitation 

on comments that may be submitted. 

Comments that contain references, 

studies, research, and other empirical 

data that are not widely published 

should include copies of the referenced 

materials with the submitted comments. 

1. The DNS White Paper articulated 

four principles (i.e., stability; 

competition; private, bottom–up 

coordination; and representation) 

necessary for guiding the transition to 

private sector management of the DNS. 

Are these still the appropriate 

principles? If so, have these core 

principles been effectively integrated 

into ICANN’s existing processes and 

structures? 

2. The goal of the JPA process has 

been to transition the coordination of 

DNS responsibilities, previously 

performed by the U.S. Government or 

on behalf of the U.S. Government, to the 

private sector so as to enable industry 

leadership and bottom–up policy 

making. Is this still the most appropriate 

model to increase competition and 

facilitate international participation in 

the coordination and management of the 

DNS, bearing in mind the need to 

maintain the security and stability of the 

DNS? If yes, are the processes and 

structures currently in place at ICANN 

sufficient to enable industry leadership 

and bottom–up policy making? If not, 

what is the most appropriate model, 

keeping in mind the need to ensure the 

stability and security of the Internet 

DNS? 

3. The original agreement and the first 

six amendments to the JPA contained a 

series of core tasks, and in some cases, 

date–specific milestones. Have these 

tasks been accomplished and have these 

milestones been met? If not, what 

remains and what steps should be taken 

to successfully address them? 

4. In 2006, the focus on specific 

milestones was adjusted to a series of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

18690 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 

12 Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S. 

Department of Commerce and the Internet 

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, 

Amendment 7, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ 

domainname/agreements/jpa/ 

ICANNJPAl09292006.htm. 

1Tariq Ahmed is also known as Tariq Amin, 

Tariq Ahmad, and Tariq Ahmad Amin. 

2The charged violations occurred during 2002. 

The Regulations governing the violations at issue 

are found in the 2002 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–774 (2002)). The 

2008 Regulations establish the procedures that 

apply to this matter. 

3Since August 21, 2001 the Act has been in lapse. 

However, the President, through Executive Order 

13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 

(2002)), which has been extended by successive 

Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of 

July 23, 2008 (73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008)), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701–1707). 

4 ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to ‘‘Export Control Classification 

Number.’’ Supp. 1 to 15 CFR § 774. 

5The Charging Letter included a second evasion 

charge, Charge Two, relating to BIS’s export control 

documentation filing requirements. By Notice of 

Withdrawal filed with the Administrative Law 

Judge simultaneously with its Motion for Default 

Order, BIS provided notice that it was withdrawing 

Charge Two. Thus, Charge Two was not part of 

BIS’s Motion for Default Order. 

broad commitments endorsed by the 

ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA. 

Specifically, ICANN committed to take 

action on the responsibilities set out in 

the Affirmation of Responsibilities 

established in ICANN Board Resolution 

06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12

Those responsibilities included 

activities in the following categories: 

security and stability, transparency, 

accountability, root server security and 

relationships, TLD management, multi– 

stakeholder model, role of governments, 

IP addressing, corporate responsibility, 

and corporate administrative structure. 

What steps has ICANN taken to meet 

each of these responsibilities? Have 

these steps been successful? If not, what 

more could be done to meet the needs 

of the community served in these areas? 

5. The current JPA called for NTIA to 

conduct a mid–term review. That 

review revealed that ICANN needed to 

take further steps to increase 

institutional confidence related to long– 

term stability, accountability, 

responsiveness, continued private sector 

leadership, stakeholder participation, 

increased contract compliance, and 

enhanced competition. What steps has 

ICANN taken to address the concerns 

expressed in the mid–term review 

process? Have these steps been 

successful? If not, what more could be 

done to meet the needs of the 

community served in these areas? 

6. The JPA between the Department of 

Commerce and ICANN is an agreement 

by mutual consent to effectuate the 

transition of the technical coordination 

and management of the Internet DNS in 

a manner that ensures the continued 

stability and security of the Internet 

DNS. Has sufficient progress been 

achieved for the transition to take place 

by September 30, 2009? If not, what 

should be done? What criteria should be 

used to make that determination? 

7. Given the upcoming expiration of 

the JPA, are there sufficient safeguards 

in place to ensure the continued 

security and stability of the Internet 

DNS, private sector leadership, and that 

all stakeholder interests are adequately 

taken into account? If yes, what are 

they? Are these safeguards mature and 

robust enough to ensure protection of 

stakeholder interests and the model 

itself in the future? If no, what 

additional safeguards should be put in 

place? 

8. The JPA provides that before its 

termination, NTIA and ICANN are to 

collaborate on a DNS Project Report that 

will document ICANN’s policies and 

procedures designed and developed 

pursuant to the agreement. What should 

be included in this report? 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: 

Any oral presentation to NTIA 

regarding the substance of this 

proceeding will be considered an ex 

parte presentation, and the substance of 

the meeting will be placed on the public 

record and become a part of this docket. 

No later than two (2) business days after 

an oral presentation or meeting, an 

interested party must submit a 

memorandum to NTIA, which 

summarizes the substance of the 

communication. Any written 

presentations provided in support of the 

oral communication or meeting will also 

be placed on the public record and 

become a part of this docket. Such ex 

parte communications must be 

submitted to 

DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov in one of 

the above listed formats and clearly 

labeled as an ex parte presentation. All 

ex parte documents will be posted at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/ 

2009/dnstransition. 

Dated: April 20, 2009. 

Anna M. Gomez, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Communications and Information 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9409 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[05–BIS–26] 

In the Matter of Tariq Ahmed; Final 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: Tariq Ahmed, 612 

Business Centre, Mumtaz Hasan Road, 

Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, 

Pakistan, Respondent 

Final Decision and Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order 

(‘‘RDO’’) of an Administrative Law 

Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as further described 

below. 

On December 15, 2005, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) issued a 

charging letter alleging that Respondent, 

Tariq Ahmed,1 committed two 

violations of the Export Administration 

Regulations (currently codified at 15 

CFR parts 730–774 (2008) 

(‘‘Regulations’’)),2 issued pursuant to 

the Export Administration Act of 1979, 

as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 

(2000)) (‘‘Act’’).3 The charging letter 

included a charge that was based on 

actions taken by Tariq Ahmed to evade 

licensing requirements governing the 

export of items subject to the 

Regulations from the United States to a 

Pakistani organization listed on BIS’s 

Entity List. Specifically, Charge One 

alleged as follows: 

Charge 1 (15 CFR 764.2(h)—Actions 

Taken with Intent to Evade the 

Provisions of the Regulations) 

On or about April 27, 2002, T[ariq] 

Ahmed took actions with the intent to 

evade the U.S. Government’s licensing 

requirements for exports to Pakistan. 

Specifically, T[ariq] Ahmed took 

actions, including but not limited to, the 

submission of false information to a 

freight forwarder in connection with an 

export of components for an online 

chemical monitoring system, items 

subject to the Regulations (EAR99 and 

4A994 4), from the United States to the 

Karachi Nuclear Power Plant 

(‘‘KANUPP’’) in Karachi, Pakistan via 

the UAE. T[ariq] Ahmed provided 

shipping information representing that 

the consignee was in the UAE but 

omitting the final destination for the 

items. The purpose of T[ariq] Ahmed’s 

actions was to conceal the end-user, 

KANUPP, a Pakistani organization on 

the Entity List set forth in Supplement 

No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations and 

for which a Department of Commerce 

export license was required by Section 

744.1 of the Regulations. In so doing, 

T[ariq] Ahmed committed one violation 

of Section 764.2(h) of the Regulations.5

In accordance with § 766.3(b)(1) of the 

Regulations, on December 15, 2005, BIS 

mailed the notice of issuance of the 

charging letter by registered mail to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES