Chapter 10: ICANN as Global Regulatory Regime

---

1. U.S. Congress, Hearings of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 'Is ICANN's New Generation of Internet Domain Name Selection Process Thwarting Competition?' February 8, 2001.

2. Of course, the IETF originated as an extension of government research contracts, and received funding from the National Science Foundation and other government agencies (see chapter 5).

3. The registries and registrars regulated by ICANN, for example, 'would not voluntarily agree to contracts that submit decision-making to voting by an unpredictable populace of those who may or may not have a significant stake in (or even pay much attention to) the resulting rules' (Johnson and Crawford 2000, 2).

4. International regimes are defined by Krasner (1984, 2) as 'arrangements that pertain to well-defined activities, resources or geographical areas,' consisting of 'principles, rules, norms and decision-making procedures, around which actors' expectations converge.'

5. Internationally, radio spectrum management through the International Telecommunication Union is mostly confined to technical coordination. Allocation and assignment of frequencies at the international level is not leveraged to exert policy control over national telecommunication regimes because the ITU is subordinate to national governments and they (or at least, the most powerful ones) would never relinquish such authority.

6. Paul Twomey, National Office for the Information Economy (Australia), Minutes of the .au Domain Administration Board Meeting, Melbourne, January 10, 1999, <http://www.auda.org.au/minutes/2000-01.html>.

7. The IETF's Internationalized Domain Name (idn) Working Group first met in November 1999. Beginning in August 2000 it began to miss its deadlines. Its work also was affected by the opening of working 'testbeds' by major industry players, notably Verisign. See <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idn-charter.html>.

8. A spokesman for China's Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), reacting to the announcement by the U.S. company Verisign that it would begin testbed registration of Chinese-character domain names under .com, said, 'A company shouldn't be allowed to provide Chinese domain name registration services in China without the approval of the Chinese government.' He added, ' Related Chinese departments have protested to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that Chinese-character domain names are quite different from the ASCII (English) ones, since they have unique . . . cultural and historic implications. China is seeking to participate in the formulation of the international standard for Chinese character domain names.' China Online, November 3, 2000.

9. John Klensin, IAB chair, urged ICANN to 'start warning the relevant domains' of the harm being caused by the testbeds and accompany the warning with a threat to 'start a redelegation process' of their domain. Cited in 'Status Report of the Internationalized Domain Name Internal Working Group of the ICANN Board of Directors,' June 1, 2001, <http://www.icann.org/committees/idn/status-report-05jul01.htm>.

10. In a January 22, 2001, email to Roger Cochetti initiating negotiations on revision of the Verisign-NSI divestiture agreement, Sims refers to 'revision of the registry agreement to make it clearer that ICANN has the right and power to set technical standards (a current example would be multilingual).' Posted on ICANNWatch site, 'Text of Joe Sims' ‘Willing to Advocate' Email,' May 17, 2001, <http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=156>.

11. 'Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy Document,' version released May 28, 1999, and amended July 14, 1999, <http://www.apnic.net/drafts/ipv6-policy-280599.txt>.

---