In a recent post to CircleID entitled New Domains and ICANN Accountability, Steve DelBianco paints himself as \"frustrated\" that ICANN didn\'t take a different path toward new Top-Level Domains (TLDs). Mr. DelBianco was one of four witnesses at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee\'s Subcommittee on Courts and Competition on September 23, 2009. He is a creative advocate for his clients, an engaging speaker, and a skillful writer, and he produced a synopsis of the hearing which sounded convincing—until I tried to make sense of it.
My take on the proceedings is decidedly different than Mr. DelBianco\'s.
For starters, the panel was not, as Mr. DelBianco claims, historic, except insofar anything that happens, passes, and is recorded is historic. The hearing was mostly a rehash of the familiar pro- and anti-new-TLD arguments, with two notable exceptions: ICANN COO Doug Brent\'s solid testimony, and Mr. DelBianco\'s showmanship and dizzying arguments, neither of which I had experienced before. (Paul Stahura of eNom and Richard Heath of INTA also testified.)
ICANN has in the past represented itself quite poorly before Congress, culminating with Paul Twomey\'s defensive performance (some called it arrogant) before the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet in June 2009. Last week, Doug Brent was the opposite—reasonable, responsive, and firm while remaining humble and respectful. His testimony was, in my opinion, very helpful for ICANN\'s image.
Mr. DelBianco is a different kind of presenter. With stage props, clever quotes from Mark Twain, a mellifluous tone, and a perfect understanding of committee protocol, he presented what seemed to be a well-fashioned argument: non-Roman-character top-level domains now; Roman-character TLDs much later, if ever.
At first, I couldn\'t really make sense of it. Why was DelBianco pushing IDNs? Remember the setting—the House members, which included Howard Coble, a co-author of the members, which include big trademark holders, and, significantly, VeriSign. And while most big trademark holders would like to see no new TLDs—some of them would probably like to see the Internet disappear altogether—VeriSign wants to see new business, but only the kind which doesn\'t threaten the dominant position of .COM. Privately, VeriSign representatives have told me that they want to see .COM replicated world-wide in IDNs, and I don\'t believe that this is much of a secret.
From that point of view, but not from any other that I can discern, Mr. DelBianco\'s testimony makes a kind of sense, which makes it all the more worrying that he is also known to be lobbying the ICANN Board. VeriSign already has considerable influence in ICANN, and has been part of the new gTLD process since the beginning and have had ample opportunity to argue their case through the good offices of Chuck Gomes, their Vice President of Policy and Compliance. I would be disheartened to learn that they are \"triple-dipping\" by also lobbying Congress and the ICANN Board.
Such actions take the debate away from ICANN, its proper venue, and into the shadowy back halls of Congress where campaign contributions may have more weight than reasoned arguments. If ICANN\'s Board responds to this kind of influence, others will have no choice but to follow suit, and much of ICANN\'s purpose will have been compromised.
Written by Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Minds + Machines
