Cyber-rights groups and scholars have issued a joint letter to the
US Department of Commerce calling for hearings before the
department acts on recent internet domain name decisions that the
signatories claim will limit free expression.
The coalition argues that limitations placed on the number of
generic top-level domain names, such as .com and .org, present a
serious threat to freedom of expression.
The groups also say that the closed process imposed by both the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the
Commerce Department violates a Due Process clause of the US
Constitution and the Federal Administrative Procedures Act
(APA).
"Top-level domain names make content visible on the Net and are
the road signs for navigating cyberspace," the coalition said in
its letter. It also argues that, by severely limiting the domain
space, ICANN and the Commerce Department have failed to recognise
the needs and free speech rights of individual internet users and
non-commercial organisations.
ICANN is the global organisation originally chartered by the US
government to administer the Internet addresses and the Domain Name
System that govern what a internet site can be called and how it
can be found. It recently approved seven new top level domain
names. This decision came as some observers voiced concerns over
corporate domination of the internet domain name system through a
combination of bulk registrations and intellectual property-based
legal threats.
The coalition, including Professor Michael Froomkin from the
University of Miami Law School, the American Civil Liberties Union
and the Electronic Privacy Information Center is hoping “to broaden
internet democracy and defend free speech on-line.”
The group also voiced concerns over the undemocratic process by
which domain names are administered, saying that ICANN's decision
making process may have violated various federal laws (such as the
APA) that are designed to ensure openness and public
accountability.
"ICANN's decision-making process was characterised by a large
number of arbitrary decisions, process failures, and plain mistakes
of fact," the letter said. "The process got off to a bad start when
ICANN announced that it would require a $50,000 non-refundable fee
from domain name applicants, thus skewing the pool towards those
organisations able to afford a $50,000 lottery ticket. Deadlines
for public comment were missed, and the period for public input was
small."
The letter specifically cited ICANN's rejection of the ".union"
proposal based on unfounded speculation that the international
labour organisations that proposed this new top level domain name
were somehow undemocratic. The procedures being used gave the
proponents no opportunity to reply to this unfounded
accusation.
The coalition also argues that ICANN wrongly rejected ".iii"
because it was concerned that the name was difficult to pronounce,
even though the ability to pronounce a proposed domain name had
never before been mentioned as a decision criterion.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), a subdivision of the Commerce Department, will soon receive
ICANN's recommendations and has the final say on which new domain
names will be introduced. The coalition pointed out the general
need for oversight (including a more open notice and public comment
procedure) and urged NTIA to help remedy this situation by holding
hearings on this matter and allowing opportunities for the public
to comment on these developments.
"Any attempt by the U.S. government or its agents to decide such
an important matter of public policy without adherence to
principles of notice and public participation embodied in the APA
would be wrong as a matter of principle, and indeed illegal not to
mention potentially unconstitutional," the letter said.
According to the groups, ICANN must follow these federal
guidelines for a number of reasons, including that its funding
originates from the authority that the Commerce Department has
given it.
"We therefore believe that it is essential for you to carefully
consider the substance of this decision rather than to rubber-stamp
ICANN's recommendations, and to allow the public to comment before
making any decisions," the coalition said. "Indeed, we believe that
it would be arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of basic due
process, to do anything less."
