.

Internet Domain Names: Background and
Policy Issues

Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
June 8, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
97-868
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

Summary
Navigating the Internet requires using addresses and corresponding names that identify the
location of individual computers. The Domain Name System (DNS) is the distributed set of
databases residing in computers around the world that contain address numbers mapped to
corresponding domain names, making it possible to send and receive messages and to access
information from computers anywhere on the Internet.
The DNS is managed and operated by a not-for-profit public benefit corporation called the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Because the Internet evolved
from a network infrastructure created by the Department of Defense, the U.S. government
originally owned and operated (primarily through private contractors) the key components of
network architecture that enable the domain name system to function. A 1998 Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between ICANN and the Department of Commerce (DOC) initiated a
process intended to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to a private
sector not-for-profit entity. While the DOC currently plays no role in the internal governance or
day-to-day operations of the DNS, ICANN remains accountable to the U.S. government through a
Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the DOC.
Many of the technical, operational, and management decisions regarding the DNS can have
significant impacts on Internet-related policy issues such as intellectual property, privacy, e-
commerce, and cybersecurity. The ICANN-DOC Joint Project Agreement is due to expire on
September 30, 2009. Congress and the Administration are assessing the appropriate federal role
with respect to ICANN and the DNS, and examining to what extent ICANN is presently
positioned to ensure Internet stability and security, competition, private and bottom-up
policymaking and coordination, and fair representation of the Internet community. A related issue
is whether the U.S. government’s unique authority over the DNS root zone should continue
indefinitely. Foreign governments have argued that it is inappropriate for the U.S. government to
have exclusive authority over the worldwide DNS, and that technical coordination and
management of the DNS should be accountable to international governmental entities. On the
other hand, many U.S. officials argue that it is critical for the U.S. government to maintain
authority over the DNS in order to guarantee the stability and security of the Internet.
The expiration of the JPA and the continuing U.S. authority over the DNS root zone remain two
issues of keen interest to the 111th Congress, the Administration, foreign governments, and other
Internet stakeholders worldwide. How these issues are addressed will likely have profound
impacts on the continuing evolution of ICANN, the DNS, and the Internet.

Congressional Research Service

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

Contents
Background and History.............................................................................................................. 1
ICANN Basics ............................................................................................................................ 2
Issues in the 111th Congress......................................................................................................... 3
ICANN’s Relationship with the U.S. Government ................................................................. 4
Joint Project Agreement .................................................................................................. 5
DOC Agreements with IANA and VeriSign ..................................................................... 6
Adding New Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) ............................................................... 8
ICANN and Cybersecurity .................................................................................................... 9
Privacy and the WHOIS Database ....................................................................................... 10
Concluding Observations .......................................................................................................... 10

Figures
Figure 1. Organizational Structure of ICANN.............................................................................. 4

Appendixes
Appendix. Congressional Hearings on the Domain Name System.............................................. 12

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 13

Congressional Research Service

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

Background and History
The Internet is often described as a “network of networks” because it is not a single physical
entity but, in fact, hundreds of thousands of interconnected networks linking many millions of
computers around the world. Computers connected to the Internet are identified by a unique
Internet Protocol (IP) number that designates their specific location, thereby making it possible to
send and receive messages and to access information from computers anywhere on the Internet.
Domain names were created to provide users with a simple location name, rather than requiring
them to use a long list of numbers. For example, the IP number for the location of the THOMAS
legislative system at the Library of Congress is 140.147.248.9; the corresponding domain name is
thomas.loc.gov. Top Level Domains (TLDs) appear at the end of an address and are either a given
country code, such as .jp or .uk, or are generic designations (gTLDs), such as .com, .org, .net,
.edu, or .gov. The Domain Name System (DNS) is the distributed set of databases residing in
computers around the world that contain the address numbers, mapped to corresponding domain
names. Those computers, called root servers, must be coordinated to ensure connectivity across
the Internet.
The Internet originated with research funding provided by the Department of Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to establish a military network. As its use expanded, a
civilian segment evolved with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other
science agencies. While there were (and are) no formal statutory authorities or international
agreements governing the management and operation of the Internet and the DNS, several entities
played key roles in the DNS. For example, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),
which was operated at the Information Sciences Institute/University of Southern California under
contract with the Department of Defense, made technical decisions concerning root servers,
determined qualifications for applicants to manage country code TLDs, assigned unique protocol
parameters, and managed the IP address space, including delegating blocks of addresses to
registries around the world to assign to users in their geographic area.
NSF was responsible for registration of nonmilitary domain names, and in 1992 put out a
solicitation for managing network services, including domain name registration. In 1993, NSF
signed a five-year cooperative agreement with a consortium of companies called InterNic. Under
this agreement, Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), a Herndon, Virginia engineering and management
consulting firm, became the sole Internet domain name registration service for registering the
.com, .net., and .org. gTLDs.
After the imposition of registration fees in 1995, criticism of NSI’s sole control over registration
of the gTLDs grew. In addition, there was an increase in trademark disputes arising out of the
enormous growth of registrations in the .com domain. There also was concern that the role played
by IANA lacked a legal foundation and required more permanence to ensure the stability of the
Internet and the domain name system. These concerns prompted actions both in the United States
and internationally.
An International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), a coalition of individuals representing various
constituencies, released a proposal for the administration and management of gTLDs on February
4, 1997. The proposal recommended that seven new gTLDs be created and that additional
registrars be selected to compete with each other in the granting of registration services for all
new second level domain names. To assess whether the IAHC proposal should be supported by
Congressional Research Service
1

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

the U.S. government, the executive branch created an interagency group to address the domain
name issue and assigned lead responsibility to the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce (DOC). On June 5, 1998, DOC issued a
final statement of policy, “Management of Internet Names and Addresses.” Called the White
Paper, the statement indicated that the U.S. government was prepared to recognize and enter into
agreement with “a new not-for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders
to administer policy for the Internet name and address system.”1 In deciding upon an entity with
which to enter such an agreement, the U.S. government would assess whether the new system
ensured stability, competition, private and bottom-up coordination, and fair representation of the
Internet community as a whole.
The White Paper endorsed a process whereby the divergent interests of the Internet community
would come together and decide how Internet names and addresses would be managed and
administered. Accordingly, Internet constituencies from around the world held a series of
meetings during the summer of 1998 to discuss how the New Corporation might be constituted
and structured. Meanwhile, IANA, in collaboration with NSI, released a proposed set of bylaws
and articles of incorporation. The proposed new corporation was called the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). After five iterations, the final version of ICANN’s
bylaws and articles of incorporation were submitted to the Department of Commerce on October
2, 1998. On November 25, 1998, DOC and ICANN signed an official Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), whereby DOC and ICANN agreed to jointly design, develop, and test the
mechanisms, methods, and procedures necessary to transition management responsibility for
DNS functions—including IANA—to a private-sector not-for-profit entity.
On September 17, 2003, ICANN and the Department of Commerce agreed to extend their MOU
until September 30, 2006. The MOU specified transition tasks which ICANN agreed to address.
On June 30, 2005, Michael Gallagher, then-Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information and Administrator of NTIA, stated the U.S. government’s
principles on the Internet’s domain name system. Specifically, NTIA stated that the U.S.
government intends to preserve the security and stability of the DNS, that the United States would
continue to authorize changes or modifications to the root zone, that governments have legitimate
interests in the management of their country code top level domains, that ICANN is the
appropriate technical manager of the DNS, and that dialogue related to Internet governance
should continue in relevant multiple fora.2
On September 29, 2006, DOC announced a new Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with ICANN
which continues the transition to the private sector of the coordination of technical functions
relating to management of the DNS. The JPA extends through September 30, 2009, and focuses
on institutionalizing transparency and accountability mechanisms within ICANN.
ICANN Basics
ICANN is a not-for-profit public benefit corporation headquartered in Marina del Rey, California,
and incorporated under the laws of the state of California. ICANN is organized under the

1 Management of Internet Names and Addresses, National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
Department of Commerce, Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 111, June 10, 1998, 31741.
2 See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

California Nonprofit Public Benefit Law for charitable and public purposes, and as such, is
subject to legal oversight by the California attorney general. ICANN has been granted tax-exempt
status by the federal government and the state of California.3
ICANN’s organizational structure consists of a Board of Directors (BOD) advised by a network
of supporting organizations and advisory committees that represent various Internet
constituencies and interests (see Figure 1). Policies are developed and issues are researched by
these subgroups, who in turn advise the Board of Directors, which is responsible for making all
final policy and operational decisions. The Board of Directors consists of 15 international and
geographically diverse members, composed of one president, eight members selected by a
Nominating Committee, two selected by the Generic Names Supporting Organization, two
selected by the Address Supporting Organization, and two selected by the Country-Code Names
Supporting Organization. Additionally, there are six non-voting liaisons representing other
advisory committees.
The explosive growth of the Internet and domain name registration, along with increasing
responsibilities in managing and operating the DNS, has led to marked growth of the ICANN
budget, from revenues of about $6 million and a staff of 14 in 2000, to revenues of $60 million
and a staff of 110 in 2009. ICANN is funded primarily through fees paid to ICANN by registrars
and registry operators. Registrars are companies (e.g. GoDaddy, Google, Network Solutions) with
which consumers register domain names.4 Registry operators are companies and organizations
who operate and administer the master database of all domain names registered in each top level
domain (for example VeriSign, Inc. operates .com and .net, Public Interest Registry operates .org,
and Neustar, Inc. operates .biz.).5 In 2009, ICANN is receiving 92% of its total revenues from
registry and registrar fees (41% from registry fees, 51% from registrar fees).6
Issues in the 111th Congress
Congressional Committees (primarily the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) maintain oversight on how
the Department of Commerce manages and oversees ICANN’s activities and policies. Other
Committees, such as the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, maintain an interest in other
issues affected by ICANN, such as intellectual property and privacy. Specific issues of
Congressional interest include ICANN’s relationship with the U.S. government and the
international community, the proposal to add new generic top level domains, and privacy. The
Appendix shows a complete listing of Congressional committee hearings on ICANN and the
domain name system dating back to 1997.

3 ICANN, 2008 Annual Report, December 31, 2008, p. 24, available at http://www.icann.org/en/annualreport/annual-
report-2008-en.pdf.
4 A list of ICANN-accredited registrars is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/agreements.htm.
5 A list of current agreements between ICANN and registry operators is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/
agreements.htm.
6 ICANN, Draft FY10 Operating Plan and Budget, May 17, 2009, p. 47, available at http://www.icann.org/en/
financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v1-fy10-17may09-en.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3


.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

Figure 1. Organizational Structure of ICANN


Source: ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/structure/)
ICANN’s Relationship with the U.S. Government
The Department of Commerce (DOC) has no statutory authority over ICANN or the DNS.
However, because the Internet evolved from a network infrastructure created by the Department
of Defense, the U.S. government originally owned and operated (primarily through private
contractors such as the University of Southern California, SRI International, and Network
Solutions Inc.) the key components of network architecture that enable the domain name system
to function. The 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Department of
Commerce initiated a process intended to transition technical DNS coordination and management
functions to a private sector not-for-profit entity. While the DOC plays no role in the internal
governance or day-to-day operations of ICANN, the U.S. government, through the DOC, retains a
level of authority over the DNS via three separate contractual agreements. These are:
• the Joint Project Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding between DOC and
ICANN, due to expire on September 30, 2009;
• the contract between IANA/ICANN and DOC to perform various technical
functions such as allocating IP address blocks, editing the root zone file, and
coordinating the assignment of unique protocol numbers; and
• the cooperative agreement between DOC and VeriSign to manage and maintain
the official DNS root zone file.
Congressional Research Service
4

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

Joint Project Agreement
The current Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between DOC and ICANN, an extension of the
revised and amended MOU dating back to 1998, is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009.7
Under the JPA, ICANN agreed to “continue in its commitment to the private sector management
of the Internet DNS, by promoting the security and stability of the global Internet, while
maintaining, and promoting competition through its multi-stakeholder model.”8 Among the
responsibilities ICANN agreed to be guided by are: ensuring the security and stability of the
Internet; promoting transparency in its operation and decisions; promoting responsive and
effective accountability mechanisms to ensure bottom-up participatory policy development
processes; ensuring that competition, consumer interests, and Internet DNS stability and security
issues are considered in TLD management decisions; facilitating effective consideration of advice
from governments through the Government Advisory Council; and exhibiting corporate
responsibility and an administrative structure that promotes good governance.
The JPA directed DOC to conduct a “mid-term review” of ICANN’s continuing transition to the
private sector. On October 30, 2007, DOC asked for public comments on ICANN’s progress
towards becoming a more stable organization with greater transparency and accountability in its
procedures and decision making. On February 28, 2008, DOC/NTIA held a public meeting to
hear the views of Internet stakeholders.9 The ICANN Board stated that ICANN had met its
responsibilities under the JPA, that the JPA should conclude during the months leading up to
September 2009, and that DOC oversight and authority over ICANN under the JPA should be
ended at that time.
Various Internet stakeholders disagreed as to whether DOC should maintain control over ICANN
after the current JPA expires. Many U.S. industry and public interest groups argued that ICANN
was not yet sufficiently transparent and accountable, that U.S. government oversight and
authority (e.g. DOC acting as a “steward” or “backstop” to ICANN) was necessary to prevent
undue control of the DNS by international or foreign governmental bodies, and that continued
DOC oversight was needed until full privatization is warranted. On the other hand, many
international entities and groups from countries outside the United States argued that ICANN had
sufficiently met conditions for privatization, and that continued U.S. government control over an
international organization was not appropriate. In the 110th Congress, Senator Snowe introduced
S.Res. 564 which stated the sense of the Senate that although ICANN had made progress in
achieving the goals of accountability and transparency as directed by the JPA, more progress was
needed.10
On April 24, 2009, NTIA issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking public comment on the
upcoming expiration of the JPA between DOC and ICANN.11 According to NTIA, the mid-term

7 Joint Project Agreement between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers, September 29, 2006, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/
jpa/ICANNJPA_09292006.htm.
8 Affirmation of Responsibilities for ICANN’s Private Sector Management, approved by the ICANN Board of
Directors September 25, 2006, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/
ICANNBoardResolution_09252006.htm.
9 See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html.
10 In the 110th Congress, S.Res. 564 was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It did
not advance to the Senate floor.
11 Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “Assessment of the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

review showed that while some progress had been made, there remained key areas where further
work was required to increase institutional confidence in ICANN. These areas included long-term
stability, accountability, responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, stakeholder
participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced competition. Given that ICANN has
stated publicly that, from its point of view, the JPA will conclude on September 30, 2009, NTIA
asked for public comments regarding the progress of transition of the technical coordination and
management of the DNS to the private sector, as well as the model of private sector leadership
and bottom-up policy development which ICANN represents. Specifically, the NOI asked
whether sufficient progress has been achieved for the transition to take place by September 30,
2009, and if not, what should be done.
On June 4, 2009, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Communications, Technology, and the Internet, held a hearing examining the expiration of the
JPA and other issues. Most Members of the Committee expressed the view that the JPA (or a
similar agreement between DOC and ICANN) should be extended.
DOC Agreements with IANA and VeriSign
A contract between DOC and ICANN, which currently extends through September 30, 2011,
authorizes the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to perform various technical
functions such as allocating IP address blocks, editing the root zone file, and coordinating the
assignment of unique protocol numbers. Additionally, a cooperative agreement between DOC
and VeriSign (operator of the .com and .net registries) authorizes VeriSign to manage and
maintain the official root zone file that is contained in the Internet’s root servers that underlie the
functioning of the DNS.12
By virtue of these legal agreements, the DOC has policy authority over the root zone file,13
meaning that the U.S. government can approve or deny any changes or modifications made to the
root zone file (changes, for example, such as adding a new top level domain). The June 30, 2005
U.S. government principles on the Internet’s domain name system stated the intention to
“preserve the security and stability” of the DNS, and asserted that “the United States is committed
to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient
operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or
modifications to the authoritative root zone file.”14
The JPA is separate and distinct from the DOC legal agreements with ICANN and VeriSign. As
such, the expiration of the JPA would not directly affect U.S. government authority over the DNS

(...continued)
Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System,” 74
Federal Register
18688, April 24, 2009.
12 “The root zone file defines the DNS. For all practical purposes, a top level domain (and, therefore, all of its lower-
level domains) is in the DNS if and only if it is listed in the root zone file. Therefore, presence in the root determines
which DNS domains are available on the Internet.” National Research Council, Committee on Internet Navigation and
the Domain Name System: Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications, Signposts on Cyberspace: The Domain
Name System and Internet Navigation, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2005, p. 97.
13 Milton Mueller, Political Oversight of ICANN: A Briefing for the WSIS Summit, Internet Governance Project,
November 1, 2005, p. 4.
14 See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

root zone file. Although ICANN has not advocated ending U.S. government authority over the
root zone file, foreign governmental bodies have argued that it is inappropriate for the U.S.
government to maintain exclusive authority over the DNS. ICANN and the International
Community
Because cyberspace and the Internet transcend national boundaries, and because the successful
functioning of the DNS relies on participating entities worldwide, ICANN is by definition an
international organization. Both the ICANN Board of Directors and the various constituency
groups who influence and shape ICANN policy decisions are composed of members from all over
the world. However, many in the international community, including foreign governments, have
argued that it is inappropriate for the U.S. government to maintain its legacy authority and control
over ICANN and the DNS, and have suggested that management of the DNS should be
accountable to a higher intergovernmental body.
The United Nations (U.N.), at the December 2003 World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS), debated and agreed to study the issue of how to achieve greater international
involvement in the governance of the Internet and the domain name system in particular. The
study was conducted by the U.N.’s Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). On July 14,
2005, the WGIG released its report, stating that no single government should have a preeminent
role in relation to international Internet governance. The report called for further
internationalization of Internet governance, and proposed the creation of a new global forum for
Internet stakeholders. Four possible models were put forth, including two involving the creation
of new Internet governance bodies linked to the U.N. Under three of the four models, ICANN
would either be supplanted or made accountable to a higher intergovernmental body. The report’s
conclusions were scheduled to be considered during the second phase of the WSIS held in Tunis
in November 2005. U.S. officials stated their opposition to transferring control and administration
of the domain name system from ICANN to any international body. Similarly, the 109th Congress
expressed its support for maintaining U.S. control over ICANN (H.Con.Res. 268 and S.Res.
323).15
The European Union (EU) initially supported the U.S. position. However, during September 2005
preparatory meetings, the EU seemingly shifted its support towards an approach which favored an
enhanced international role in governing the Internet. Conflict at the WSIS Tunis Summit over
control of the domain name system was averted by the announcement, on November 15, 2005, of
an Internet governance agreement between the United States, the EU, and over 100 other nations.
Under this agreement, ICANN and the United States remained in control of the domain name
system. A new international group under the auspices of the U.N. was formed—the Internet
Governance Forum—which provides an ongoing forum for all stakeholders (both governments
and nongovernmental groups) to discuss and debate Internet policy issues. The Internet
Governance Forum does not have binding authority. It is slated to run through 2010, at which
point the U.N. will consider whether to continue the body.
With the JPA between ICANN and DOC scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009, the
international community is again suggesting various mechanisms for ensuring ICANN’s
accountability on an international level. On May 4, 2009, Viviane Reding, European
Commissioner for Information Society and Media, released a statement stating that a “moment of

15 In the 109th Congress, H.Con.Res. 268 was passed unanimously by the House on November 16, 2005. S.Res. 323
was passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent on November 18, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
7

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

truth will come on 30 September this year, when the current agreement between ICANN and the
US Government expires,” and that “in the long run, it is not defendable that the government
department of only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by hundreds of
millions of people in countries all over the world.”16 Commissioner Reding proposed a fully
privatized and fully independent ICANN that would be advised on selected issues by a “G-12 for
Internet Governance,” an informal group of twelve government representatives from around the
world. Additionally, judicial review of ICANN decisions, if requested by aggrieved parties, would
be provided by a small independent international tribunal.17
Adding New Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)
Top Level Domains (TLDs) are the suffixes that appear at the end of an address (after the “dot”).
TLDs can be either a country code such as .us, .uk, or .jp, or a generic TLD (gTLD) such as .com,
.org, or .gov. Prior to ICANN’s establishment, there were eight gTLDs (.com, .org, .net, .gov,
.mil, .edu, .int., and .arpa). In 2000 and 2004, ICANN held application rounds for new gTLDs;
there are currently 21 gTLDs. Some are reserved or restricted to particular types of organizations
(e.g. .museum, .gov, .travel) and others are open for registration by anyone (.com, .org, .info).18
Applicants for new gTLDs are typically commercial and non-profit organizations who seek to
become ICANN-recognized registries that will establish and operate name servers for their TLD
registry, as well as implement a domain name registration process for that particular TLD.
With the growth of the Internet and the accompanying growth in demand for domain names,
debate has focused on whether and how to further expand the number of gTLDs. In October
2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) approved a recommendation to
initiate a process that could yield an indefinite number of new generic top-level domains.
Although previous gTLD application rounds in 2000 and 2004 were competitions designed to
award a limited number of gTLDs, the new process is intended to award gTLDs to any applicant
that meets ICANN’s set criteria and that withstands any objections (if any) raised by outside
parties. The result could be an unlimited number of new gTLDs, depending on the volume of
applications.
The ICANN Board of Directors approved the GNSO recommendations in June 2008, and in
October 2008, ICANN published a draft applicant guide book, available for public comment,
which detailed how new gTLDs would be made available to applying prospective registries.
Among the major criticisms raised in the public comments were the magnitude of ICANN’s
suggested gTLD application and registry fees, and concerns over the impact of multiple new
gTLDs on trademark holders who, many argued, would be compelled to assume high costs of
addressing the possible proliferation of cybersquatters inhabiting an unlimited number of new
gTLDs.
ICANN released a revised applicant guide book (“Second Draft Applicant Guidebook”) in
February 2009. The Second Draft Applicant Guidebook maintains the gTLD evaluation fee at

16 Commissioner Reding’s Weekly Videomessage Theme: “The Future of Internet Governance: Towards an
Accountable ICANN,” May 4, 2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/text/
message_20090504.pdf.
17 Because ICANN is currently incorporated in the State of California, legal challenges to ICANN decisions are
adjudicated in California state courts.
18 The 21 current gTLDs are listed at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/#.
Congressional Research Service
8

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

$185,000, but reduces the yearly registry fee from (at a minimum) $75,000 to $25,000 plus $0.25
per transaction year for registries with more than 50,000 registrations. ICANN identified four
particularly controversial and/or complex issues that “need more examination and discussion
before they can be changed in a future draft guidebook.”19 These are: security and stability,
malicious conduct, trademark protection, and the need for a demand/economic analysis that
examines whether additional gTLDs will result in increased competition and consumer choice.
ICANN is currently studying and collecting further information and analysis on these issues.
Regarding trademark protection, the ICANN board, on March 6, 2009, authorized the GNSO’s
Intellectual Property Constituency to form an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) to
provide possible solutions to trademark issues raised by the implementation of new gTLDs.20
ICANN has said that there will be a third draft version of the applicant guidebook, and that the
new gTLD application round is anticipated to open in the first quarter of 2010.
ICANN and Cybersecurity
The security and stability of the Internet has always been a preeminent goal of DNS operation and
management. One issue of recent concern is an intrinsic vulnerability in the DNS which allows
malicious parties to distribute false DNS information. Under this scenario, Internet users could be
unknowingly re-directed to fraudulent and deceptive websites established to collect passwords
and sensitive account information.
A technology called DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) has been developed to mitigate those
vulnerabilities. DNSSEC assures the validity of transmitted DNS addresses by digitally “signing”
DNS data via electronic signature. “Signing the root” (deploying DNSSEC on the root zone) is a
necessary first and critical step towards protecting against malicious attacks on the DNS.21 On
October 9, 2009, NTIA issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking public comment on the
deployment of DNSSEC into the Internet’s DNS infrastructure, including the authoritative root
zone.22 On June 3, 2009, NTIA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
announced they will work with ICANN and VeriSign to develop an interim approach for
deploying DNSSEC in the root zone by the end of 2009.23
Meanwhile, section 8 of S. 773, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, would require that any renewals
or modifications made to DOC contracts regarding the operation of IANA be subject to review by
a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel. S. 773 would also require NTIA to “develop a strategy to
implement a secure domain name addressing system.”


19 ICANN, New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook: Analysis of Public Comment, February 18, 2009, p. 3, available at
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv1-analysis-public-comments-18feb09-en.pdf.
20 See http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26mar09-en.htm.
21 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, “DNSSEC – What Is It and Why Is It Important?” October
9, 2008, available at http://icann.org/en/announcements/dnssec-qaa-09oct08-en.htm.
22 Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “Enhancing the Security
and Stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System,” 73 Federal Register 59608, October 9, 2008.
23 Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST News Release, “Commerce
Department to Work With ICANN and VeriSign to Enhance the Security and Stability of the Internet’s Domain Name
and Addressing System,” June 3, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
9

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

Privacy and the WHOIS Database
Any person or entity who registers a domain name is required to provide contact information
(phone number, address, email) which is entered into a public online database (the “WHOIS”
database). The scope and accessibility of WHOIS database information has been an issue of
contention. Privacy advocates have argued that access to such information should be limited,
while many businesses, intellectual property interests, law enforcement agencies, and the U.S.
government have argued that complete and accurate WHOIS information should continue to be
publicly accessible. Over the past several years, ICANN has debated this issue through its
Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which is developing policy recommendations
on what data should be publicly available through the WHOIS database. On April 12, 2006, the
GNSO approved an official “working definition” for the purpose of the public display of WHOIS
information. The GNSO supported a narrow technical definition favored by privacy advocates,
registries, registrars, and non-commercial user constituencies, rather then a more expansive
definition favored by intellectual property interests, business constituencies, Internet service
providers, law enforcement agencies, and the Department of Commerce (through its participation
in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee). At ICANN’s June 2006 meeting, opponents of
limiting access to WHOIS data continued urging ICANN to reconsider the working definition. On
October 31, 2007, the GNSO voted to defer a decision on WHOIS database privacy and
recommended more studies. The GNSO also rejected a proposal to allow Internet users the option
of listing third party contact information rather than their own private data. It will now be up to
the ICANN Board to decide whether or how to proceed.24
Concluding Observations
Many of the technical, operational, and management decisions regarding the DNS can have
significant impacts on Internet-related policy issues such as intellectual property, privacy, e-
commerce, and cybersecurity. As such, decisions made by ICANN affect Internet stakeholders
around the world. In transferring management of the DNS to the private sector, the key policy
question has always been how to best ensure achievement of the White Paper principles: Internet
stability and security, competition, private and bottom-up policymaking and coordination, and fair
representation of the Internet community. What is the best process to ensure these goals, and how
should various stakeholders—companies, institutions, individuals, governments—fit into this
process?
ICANN has established governance processes which are intended to give access to Internet
stakeholders into important decisions. With the impending expiration of the ICANN-DOC Joint
Project Agreement on September 30, 2009, Congress and the Administration are examining
whether those processes are sufficient to give the full range of Internet stakeholders meaningful
input into ICANN decisions, and whether ICANN is sufficiently accountable to those Internet
stakeholders. 25

24 See ICANN “Whois Services” page, available at http://www.icann.org/topics/whois-services/.
25 ICANN has established internal accountability mechanisms (an Ombudsman, a Reconsideration Committee, and an
independent review process) which are intended to address complaints and disputes over ICANN decisions. See
http://www.icann.org/en/general/accountability_review.html.
Congressional Research Service
10

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

A related issue is whether the U.S. government’s unique authority over the DNS root zone should
continue indefinitely. Foreign governments have argued that it is inappropriate for the U.S.
government to have exclusive authority over the worldwide DNS, and that technical coordination
and management of the DNS should be accountable to international governmental entities. On the
other hand, many U.S. officials argue that it is critical for the U.S. government to maintain
authority over the DNS in order to guarantee the stability and security of the Internet.
The impending expiration of the JPA and the continuing U.S. authority over the DNS root zone
are two issues of keen interest to the Administration, Congress, foreign governments, and other
Internet stakeholders worldwide. How these issues are addressed will likely have profound
impacts on the continuing evolution of ICANN, the DNS, and the Internet.


Congressional Research Service
11

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

Appendix. Congressional Hearings on the Domain
Name System


Date Congressional
Committee
Topic
June 4, 2009
House Energy and Commerce
“Oversight of the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)”
September 21, 2006
House Energy and Commerce
“ICANN Internet Governance: Is It
Working?”
September 20, 2006
Senate Commerce, Science and
“Internet Governance: the Future of ICANN”
Transportation
July 18, 2006
House Financial Services
“ICANN and the WHOIS Database: Providing
Access to Protect Consumers from Phishing”
June 7, 2006
House Smal Business
“Contracting the Internet: Does ICANN
Create a Barrier to Smal Business?”
September 30, 2004
Senate Commerce, Science and
“ICANN Oversight and Security of Internet
Transportation
Root Servers and the Domain Name System
(DNS)”
May 6, 2004
House Energy and Commerce
“The ‘Dot Kids’ Internet Domain: Protecting
Children Online”
July 31, 2003
Senate Commerce, Science and
“Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
Transportation
and Numbers (ICANN)”
September 4, 2003
House Judiciary
“Internet Domain Name Fraud – the U.S.
Government’s Role in Ensuring Public Access
to Accurate WHOIS Data”
September 12, 2002
Senate Commerce, Science and
“Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act
Transportation
of 2002”
June 12, 2002
Senate Commerce, Science and
“Hearing on ICANN Governance”
Transportation
May 22, 2002
House Judiciary
“The Accuracy and Integrity of the WHOIS
Database”
November 1, 2001
House Energy and Commerce
“Dot Kids Name Act of 2001”
July 12, 2001
House Judiciary
“The Whois Database: Privacy and Intel ectual
Property Issues”
March 22, 2001
House Judiciary
“ICANN, New gTLDs, and the Protection of
Intellectual Property”
February 14, 2001
Senate Commerce, Science and
“Hearing on ICANN Governance”
Transportation
February 8, 2001
House Energy and Commerce
“Is ICANN’s New Generation of Internet
Domain Name Selection Process Thwarting
Competition?”
July 28, 1999
House Judiciary
“Internet Domain Names and Intel ectual
Property Rights”
July 22, 1999
Senate Judiciary
“Cybersquatting and Internet Consumer
Protection”
Congressional Research Service
12

.
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

Date Congressional
Committee
Topic
July 22, 1999
House Energy and Commerce
“Domain Name System Privatization: Is
ICANN Out of Control?”
October 7, 1998
House Science
“Transferring the Domain Name System to
the Private Sector: Private Sector
Implementation of the Administration’s
Internet ‘White Paper’”
June 10, 1998
House Commerce
“Electronic Commerce: The Future of the
Domain Name System”
March 31, 1998
House Science
“Domain Name System: Where Do We Go
From Here?”
February 21, 1998
House Judiciary
“Internet Domain Name Trademark
Protection”
November 5, 1997
House Judiciary
“Internet Domain Name Trademark
Protection”
September 30, 1997
House Science
“Domain Name System (Part 2)”
September 25, 1997
House Science
“Domain Name System (Part 1)”



Author Contact Information

Lennard G. Kruger

Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070




Congressional Research Service
13