IGF-USA 2012 Workshop: The Changing Landscape of the Domain Name System – New Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) and Their Implications for Users

Brief session description:

Thursday, July 26, 2012 – Early in 2012, ICANN launched the process to introduce vast numbers of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) — allowing, for the first time, the customization of Internet addresses to the right of the dot. Few people understand that there are already 22 existing gTLDs and 242 country code TLDs, with a total of 233 million registered second level names across all TLDs. In the coming years, these existing TLDs will be joined by numerous new gTLDs, likely resulting in the registration of millions of new second-level domains. Some will use scripts that are unfamiliar to English speakers or readers. How exactly these new gTLDs will impact the world of users and registrants is yet to be determined. Will they add significant new registration space, cause confusion, provide some unique innovations, or, most likely all of the above to some degree? ICANN received a wide range of applications – including brand names, generic terms, and geographic and regional terms. The workshop was organized to discuss Issues and questions including: changes to how domain name registrants and users may organize and search for information online; how defensive registrations may impact existing registrants; whether ICANN gave a sufficient focus to Internationalized Domain Names; how applications from potential registries from developing countries are supported; whether fraud and abuse that exists in the existing gTLD space will migrate easily into the new ‘spaces’ or even be compounded; and how conflicts between applicants from noncommercial sector will impact the users of the Internet.

Details of the session:

The session was moderated by Ron Andruff, president and CEO of DotSport, LLC. Panelists included:

• Laura Covington, associate general counsel for global brand and trademarks, Yahoo!
• Bobby Flaim, supervisory special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Suzanne Radell, senior policy adviser, NTIA, and US Government Advisory Council representative at ICANN
• Elisa Cooper, director of product marketing, MarkMonitor (remote participant)
• Alan Drewsen, executive director of the International Trademark Association
• Andrew Mack, principal and founder of AMGlobal Consulting
• Krista Papac, chief strategy officer for ARI Registry Services

Respondents were Dan Jaffe, executive vice president for government relations of the Association of National Advertisers, and Jeff Neuman, vice president for business affairs of Neustar and Generic Names Supporting Organization councilor at ICANN.

Suzanne Radell participates as a panelist about the changing landscape of the Domain Name System at IGF-USA in Washington, D.C. on July 26, 2012.

There is a mix of concern and optimism for how the new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) will change the landscape of the Internet, but it’s certain that a new era of the Internet is coming.

A diverse panel at IGF-USA Thursday at Georgetown Law Center offering perspectives ranging from the side of brands to trademark security agreed on one thing: The introduction of new gTLDs will open the Internet up to more users, but also to more actors and cyber squatters. The panel agreed that the gTLD program will result in a tremendous amount of change, but how it will affect the landscape and whether that change is good, sparked the most discussion.

This year, there are 2.3 billion users of the Internet and 555 million websites. The numbers are staggering, considering the Internet is only about 14 years old, said moderator Ron Andruff, president and CEO of RNA Partners Inc.

There are 22 existing gTLDs – including .com, .net, .org and .edu – and 242 country code TLDs.

Elisa Cooper, director of product marketing at MarkMonitor, joined the panel remotely to give an analysis and breakdown of new gTLD application statistics.

Of 1,930 applications for a new gTLD, 652 were .Brand applications. Cooper divides the applications into three categories: brand names, community based and generic. The two flavors of generic are closed and open – the latter makes registries available to the general public with little eligibility requirements. Cooper also revealed:

• There is a relatively low number of Internationalized Domain Names – only 116.
• Geographically, the majority of the applications have come from North America and Europe.
• Of the .Brand applications – which go through the standard application process – technology,
  media and financial sectors led the way.
• The most highly contested strings were .APP, .INC, .HOME and .ART
• The top three applicants were Donuts, Google and Amazon.

Laura Covington, who serves as chief trademark and brand counsel for Yahoo!, joined the panel from a .brand applicant company and offered a brand owner perspective. Yahoo! applied for .yahoo and .flickr

“I think there are a lot of exciting opportunities from a marketing perspective, even from a security perspective with the new gTLDs and the new .brands in particular,” Covington said. “And I also think that it’s going to have to change the face of how trademark owners, brand owners deal with their enforcement issues, how they approach protecting their marks going forward.”

Yahoo! is viewing the new gTLDs as an amazing new world and new way to reach customers, though Covington admits uncertainty toward what search engines will do once gTLDs are added to the mix of search algorithms. As a brand owner, she has concerns with how to deal with the second-level names because there will be an exponential increase in opportunity for cyber squatters.

Flaim (FBI) and Papac (ARI) participate as panelists about the changing landscape of the Domain Name System at IGF-USA in Washington, D.C. on July 26, 2012.

Bobby Flaim, FBI special agent, is primarily concerned with the pre-existing problems with domestic and international law enforcement of the Internet and how the problems may worsen as bad actors become more prevalent.

The existing system has some major problems with cyber squatting, said Jaffe, group executive vice president of ANA. He said he didn’t want to be the panel’s doomsayer, but he added that no one should assume the new gTLD program will roll out in a smooth or timely manner.

One hugely positive impact of the new gTLDs Covington sees is an influx of new voices and new participants in the multistakeholder process.

Krista Papac, general manager of ARI Registry Services, agreed.

“I do have faith in the multistakeholder model and hope that we continue to find our way through it and deal with the different issues,” Papac said.

Papac is running some of the registries for the new gTLDs and sees a lot of opportunity to create more secure environments and more opportunities from brands.

Suzanne Radell, senior policy adviser in the Office of International Affairs at NTIA and US GAC Representative, said that more people and more interest in the program will be crucial to ICANN’s evolution.

“We’ve got our fingers crossed that the benefits to consumers, to users are not outweighed by risks and costs,” Radell said. “So we’re looking very much forward to a review of the new gTLD program.”

Alan Drewsen, executive director of INTA, said he expects that the introduction of the new gTLDs will go more slowly and be less successful than hoped.

“ICANN will continue to exist, though I think it’s done everything possible to put its life in jeopardy,” Drewsen said, making the audience and panel laugh.

Andrew Mack, AMGlobal, speaks at a workshop about the changing landscape of the Domain Name System at IGF-USA in Washington, D.C. on July 26, 2012.

INTA has been critical of the process that ICANN has led over the last several years in introducing the new gTLDs.

“Given the amount of time and money that the members have invested in this process and the potential consequences that can flow from its failure, INTA will continue to work collaboratively with a lot of these constituencies to get the best possible results,” Drewsen said.

Andrew Mack, principal of AMGlobal Consulting, sees a large concentration in the global North and the English-speaking world. People in the global South won’t be able to participate in a program they don’t know exists. Seventeen gTLD applications are better than none, he said, but the number of applicants from other parts of the globa total to a paltry amount compared to highly connected regions already experiencing huge economic shifts due to the Internet. Mack said his pessimism is rooted in the fact that Africa and Asia are missing out when they could really benefit.

“And we want them to be part of our Internet,” Mack said.

There is an influx of new participants from existing participants, Neuman of Neustar noted.

The new gTLDs open up a lot of opportunities for business and marketing folks, but each person on the panel defined success in different ways.

“It’s definitely going to be an exciting time,” said Brian Winterfeldt, a partner with Steptoe & Johnson LLP. “I think we really are moving into sort of a new era of the Internet with this expansion and I think it’s going to be very exciting to see how it evolves.”

— Ashley Barnas

Internet Governance Forum-USA 2011 Potential-future scenario discussion: Regionalization of the Internet

Brief description:

IGF participants broke into three different rooms to discuss three different, possible potential-future scenarios for the Internet in 2025. In this session, the brief description given to the discussants asked them to respond to the idea of the “Regionalization of the Internet”- a future in which the mostly global Internet we know today becomes more divided, with certain aspects isolated from others based on their geographic or economic similarities. The description noted that, “natural and man-made disasters could easily accelerate this process, leading to an alternate future where the differences between these islands is more pronounced and e-conflict between regions becomes a significant national security and economic development issue.”

Details of the session:

Garland McCoy of the Technology Education Institute and Andrew Mack and Alessandra Carozza of AMGlobal were at the front of the room to facilitate a wide-ranging discussion of the Regionalization of the Internet potential-future scenario at the Internet Governance Forum-USA 2011 at Georgetown University Law Center July 18.

This scenario sets up a divisive future for the Internet. You can read the full description used to launch this discussion in PDF format at the following link: http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/predictions/igf_usa/Regionalization_Internet_Scenario.pdf

The key drivers were to consider as causes for regionalization of the Internet:

• National and corporate security concerns and increased pressure from non-state actors based in “failed state” regions of the world.
• Global economic weakness, budget crises and significant, systemic unemployment.
• Shortages of food and raw materials leading to rises in the prices for commodities, food and energy and supply chain/trade disruptions.
• A rising “black market” dominated by narco/political/religious groups with increasing technical sophistication.
• Expansion of IPv6 and the “Internet of things” creates an environment where citizens can be easily tracked within a region and where a market in false identities flourishes.

While it was considered a “bleak scenario” by its participants and moderators, the majority of the discussants in this possible potential-future scenario session indicated that the majority of the outcomes that were outlined are not only plausible, but that some are already occurring, and occurring at a faster rate than maybe previously anticipated.

JULY 18, 2011 - Members of the audience participated in Regionalization of the Internet, a session held during the Internet Governance Forum USA 2011. Conference attendees were encouraged to enter into discussion during the day's events.

Scenario facilitator Andrew Mack described the regionalization scenario as unique among the other scenarios presented today in that it is “the only scenario that is actually coming to pass.”

“A good chunk is plausible, said Leslie Martinkovics, an IGF participant from Verizon Communications. “When we’re looking at what’s happening today, there are a series of pressures, some economic, some security related. These are all real. There is a growing feeling that change is coming.”

Security is seen as the paramount concern for many areas of the world, prompting some regions to block certain domains, like the “Great Firewall of China.” The problem is that this blocking process is easily circumvented. George Ou of Digital Society maintained that the “Great Wall” is often considered “porous.” China was mentioned as a key player in the rising challenges facing the argument against regionalization. Other country governments listed as key “players” in the conversation included Brazil, Iran and India.

“Any attempts to isolate, to protect, fail,” said Bill Smith, a participant from PayPal. Attempts at blocking, he said, “are doomed to fail as well.”

The proliferation of the hacking group Anonymous in the Arab Spring was a catalyst for discussion surrounding the viability of regulating such isolated Webs, or “islands,” or whether a more unitary Internet is more desirable.

“In order to dissuade users from building up isolated Webs, it’s important to build up the single, unitary net and make it better,” Smith said.

“The Internet,” said Sally Wentworth of the Internet Society, “is a tool. It is not the cause, it’s an enabler. People want to communicate, people want to create. It’s very difficult to put that genie back in the bottle and carve it up.”

Because there is a fundamental need for communication across islands, it was asserted by a number of participants that regionalization may not even be possible. The Arab Spring, Wentworth and others explained, is an example of an inability to maintain separate communities within the greater Web.

The existence of dark nets was referenced as a refutation of the inherent nature of a unitary Web. Scott McCormick explained that dark nets, which are essentially intranets, have existed for quite some time. North Korea, he contended, is a dark net and has been for a while, with very few people who have access to it. Governments like North Korea’s have opted out of a global, unitary Web, but the moderators and panelists questioned whether that action is truly possible.

JULY 18, 2011 - Members of the audience participated in Regionalization of the Internet, a session held during the Internet Governance Forum USA 2011. Conference attendees were encouraged to enter into discussion during the day's events.

“Can you really opt out?” Mack asked. He noted that existing within the metaphorical “castle,” or within the isolated intranet, does not necessarily mean that there is still isolation within the castle itself. And living in the castle does not necessarily guarantee protection.

“If all your people don’t live in the castle, you can’t protect them,” Mack said.

There are technical hindrances to fragmenting the Web. When countries try, they are doing so at the DNS level, not at the IP level, according to McCormick. This is what makes it easy for users with means and motivation to work around the blockages. The introduction of IPv6 will greatly affect the nature of users to navigate those blockades because it will make it much harder to memorize IP addresses, which is the way most users avoid the blockages, McCormick said.

Those in the group in favor of regionalization felt that isolation might make security more plausible and more manageable. Tom Lowenhaupt, who advocates for the development of a .nyc TLD, explained that top-level domains (TLDs) are the way to enable regionalization. Applying security to those TLDs enables a more private, more secure and more manageable, intuitive Internet. Those against regionalization offered that it may open doors to a host of other more problematic issues—the goal is the minimum amount of regulation for the most effectiveness, Smith said.

The future governance of the Internet will be determined by three major players: general users who may not feel a personal stake in Internet governance; the criminal element, like Anonymous, which has a major stake in Internet governance, but that may be undesirable; and a disaffected group that may not feel it has a stake until circumstances start to change. What will come to pass remains to be seen, but the timeline, everyone agreed, is moving far faster than originally anticipated.

– Bethany Swanson