U.S. Seeks Veto Powers Over New Domain Names

The White House

/ Getty Images

The Obama administration is quietly seeking the power for it and other governments to veto future top-level domain names, a move that raises questions about free expression, national sovereignty, and the role of states in shaping the future of the Internet.

At stake is who will have authority over the next wave of suffixes to supplement the venerable .com, .org, and .net. At least 115 proposals are expected this year, including .car, .health, .nyc, .movie, and .web, and the application process could be finalized at a meeting in San Francisco next month.

Some are likely to prove contentious among more conservative nations. Two different groups--the dotGAY Initiative and the .GAY Alliance--already have announced they will apply for the right to operate the .gay domain; additional controversial proposals may surface in the next few months. And nobody has forgotten the furor over .xxx, which has been in limbo for seven years after receiving an emphatic thumbs-down from the Bush administration.

When asked whether it supports or opposes the creation of .gay and .xxx, an official at the U.S. Commerce Department replied that "it is premature for us to comment on those domain names." The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a nonprofit based in Marina del Rey, Calif., that has a contract with the U.S. government to manage Internet addresses, is overseeing the process of adding new domain suffixes.

A statement sent to CNET over the weekend from the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, said its proposed veto procedure "has merit as it diminishes the potential for blocking of top level domain strings considered objectionable by governments. This type of blocking harms the architecture of the DNS and undermines the goal of universal resolvability (i.e., a single global Internet that facilitates the free flow of goods and services and freedom of expression)."

Another way of phrasing this argument, perhaps, is: If less liberal governments adopt technical measures to prevent their citizens from connecting to .gay and .xxx Web sites, and dozens of nations surely will, that will lead to a more fragmented Internet.

In addition, giving governments more influence inside ICANN may reduce the odds of an international revolt that would vest more Internet authority with the not-exactly-business-friendly United Nations. Last year, China and its allies objected to the fact that "unilateral control of critical Internet resources" had been given to ICANN and suggested that the U.N. would be a better fit.

Submitting an application to create and operate a new domain suffix is expected to cost $185,000, ICANN says.

The Obama administration is proposing (PDF) that domain approval procedures be changed to include a mandatory "review" by an ICANN advisory panel comprised of representatives of roughly 100 nations. The process is open-ended, saying that any government "may raise an objection to a proposed (suffix) for any reason." Unless at least one other nation disagrees, the proposed new domain name "shall" be rejected.

This would create an explicit governmental veto over new top-level domains. Under the procedures previously used in the creation of .biz, .name, and .info, among others, governments could offer advice, but the members of the ICANN board had the final decision.

"It's the U.S. government that's proposing this procedure, and they've shown absolutely no interest in standing up for free expression rights through this entire process," says Milton Mueller, a professor of information studies at Syracuse University and author of a recently-published book on Internet governance. Mueller, who said he expects some Middle Eastern countries to object to .gay, says the Obama administration is "completely disregarding" earlier compromises.

According to the latest version of ICANN's proposed procedure, anyone may file objections to a proposed domain suffix on grounds that it may violate "norms of morality and public order," although there's no guarantee that a suffix would be rejected as a result. Two ICANN spokesmen did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

"NTIA will continue to provide advice on how ICANN can promote competition in the domain name marketplace while ensuring Internet security and stability," NTIA said in a statement. "NTIA continues to support a multi-stakeholder approach to the coordination of the domain name system to ensure the long-term viability of the Internet as a force for innovation and economic growth."

The U.S. proposal will be incorporated into what's being called a "scorecard" that governments are drafting to summarize their concerns with the current process of approving new domain suffixes. The scorecard is expected to be published in two weeks.

Then, at the end of this month, ICANN will hold a two-day meeting in Brussels with representatives of national governments to try to reach a compromise on how to share authority over new domain suffixes. (The language of the official announcement says the purpose is to "arrive at an agreed upon resolution of those differences.") ICANN's next public meeting begins March 13 in San Francisco.

A seven-page statement (PDF) in December 2010 from the national governments participating in the ICANN process says they are "very concerned" that "public policy issues raised remain unresolved." In addition to concern over the review of "sensitive" top-level domains, the statement says, there are also issues about "use and protection of geographical names." (For instance, should a U.S.-based entrepreneur be able to register .london or .paris, or should those be under governmental control?)

That statement followed years of escalating tensions between ICANN and representatives of national governments, including a 2007 statement stressing the importance of "national sovereignty." A letter (PDF) sent to ICANN in August 2010 suggested that "the absence of any controversial (suffixes) in the current universe of top-level domains to date contributes directly to the security and stability of the domain name and addressing system." And the German government recently told (PDF) ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom that there are "outstanding issues"--involving protecting trademark holders--that must be resolved before introducing "new top-level domains."

Steve DelBianco, the executive director of the NetChoice coalition, says that the Obama administration's proposed veto "is not surprising." Governmental representatives "were not happy about .xxx getting through," he says. "They want a better mechanism in the future." NetChoice's members include AOL, eBay, Oracle, VeriSign, and Yahoo.

"They're looking at the rear view mirror at .xxx and looking through the windshield at several hundred new" top-level domain names, DelBianco says. "They want a mechanism that if (they) have concerns, they could stop an objectionable domain."

This article originally appeared on CNET

[Red_feather]

The only thing their .whatever is going to do, is sort out the people.

[Magginkat]

I have a suggestion for a domain 'name' for Wall Street and the Banking business. How about dot CON?

[proeliumfessus]

okay- this kinda stuff pisses me off- gotta admit, I'm getting sick of all this expansion of power by the fed gvnt. FIRST start doing a good job with the power you ALREADY have- THEN come to me asking for more. Where are the jobs? Where is the deficit? What is the world opinion of the kind of citizen nation we are? What was that response?- yeah FAIL, FAIL, and FAIL.

[CarloCaraluzzo]

Interesting to note how quickly they followed with this after their attempt to get the internet kill switch. If they cant get it all in one wack they will get it a piece at a time. And they will get it. People are that stupid to let them. Another relavant story today talks about another piece they want. Doesnt take a freaking genius to connect these dots.

[p_syrus]

'Just Say No'. :-)

[djseavy]

I say we should create on suffix specifically for Obama and his lot - dot losers! This will end up in court for years.

[freeamerica31]

I have to agree with the majority on this issue. Why do we need any governments to control the internet? This is a seizure of power/money/taxes by governments over the masses. This is about as bad as the government trying to get a bill through Congress to have authority to throw a "Kill Switch" on the internet without "Judicial Review". Any US government representative, agency, judicial, executive that is pushing this may want to bring back "burn the books campaign" from earlier in the last century. This all smells of censorship and an attack on "Freedom of Speech" not to mention another way of taxing the masses even more. I would just like the government to basically down size and learn to stay within it's means and quit being a social/moral big brother. Please... enough.

[mitdgreenb]

Boo!

There have ALREADY been problems with national governments that are censoring content based on domain names. No, I don't mean Egypt's shut down of the Internet. Have you ever used a URL shortener that's .ly (like ******)? Are you aware that .ly is Libya? Are you aware that Libya has already taken action against sites it does not like? See http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/libya_shuts_down_vbly_bitly_owly_next.php

Now think about what the White House's moves do to our moral standing. Imagine the US Trade Representative going to Qaddafi and saying, "You should not restrict domain names." Can you hear the the laughing all the way from Tripoli?

[Jaylah54]

Does the US government have nothing better to do?

[RickChicago1]

Its not "the US government" Read the first sentence. The Obama administration is quietly seeking the power for it and other governments to veto future top-level domain names, a move that raises questions about free expression, national sovereignty, and the role of states in shaping the future of the Internet.

These are BIG TIME LEFTISTS. They seek to control everything. The nanny state is their utopia. It runs everything and monitors everything. Whether your house is energy efficient, Your kids are educated the way that they think is best etc etc etc.

If we as a country do not stand up and say ENOUGH. In another year or two it can be effectively over.

[Jaylah54]

Jeez, Rick. You were in such an all-fired hurry to spout off your right-wingnut, Obama-hating gibberish that I guess you didn't bother to read more than the first sentence of the article, did you.

"...which has been in limbo for seven years after receiving an emphatic thumbs-down from the BUSH ADMINISTRATION."

This isn't a matter of "left" or "right." This is a matter of the US Government still thinking it is the world's playground police and thinking it must be in charge of everything.

Guess what moron? The Internet doesn't belong to the US.

Our government, whether it's your favorite right-wing, faux-"Christian", brain-dead, do-whatever-Cheney-tells-me, start-more-wars-without-finishing-the-last-one Bush, or our current here-Republicans-let-me-roll-over-and-play-dead-for-you Obama.

Yes, it's the US Government. Try going back to 3rd grade and paying attention this time.

(By the way, completely ignorant people that are completely incapable of doing anything but spouting off their nonsensical parroted sound-bites just to hear themselves talk annoy me....did you catch that?)

And, when it comes to that, I'd rather listen to a leftist capable of independent thought than you right-wingnuts that can't do anything but parrot your talk-radio heroes.

Which is a lot of verbiage which means: If you can't say anything that contributes meaningfully to the discussion (which you obviously can't) then just shut up.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.