We wrote a few days ago about the new bill proposed by Senators Rockfeller and Snowe entitled the Cybersecurty Act of 2009. Yesterday, the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) said they “enthusiastically welcome” the bill.
This is from CADNA’s press release:
“This bill signals the United States’ dedication to national security and to the safety and integrity of the Internet,” said Josh Bourne, President of CADNA.
This proposed legislation would create a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel, which would assess trends in cybersecurity, analyze the ongoing efforts of the United States to address cybersecurity, and report to and advise the President on national cybersecurity programs and strategy. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 also mandates the development of a strategy for implementing a secure domain name addressing system.
The Internet is constantly evolving, and bad actors are deft at finding new opportunities to exploit the space and its users — because of this, we need national and international policymakers to get involved in policing the space,” said Bourne. “CADNA supports initiatives such as the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which make the Internet a safer place for the Internet community.
CADNA is also pleased to see that the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 addresses the relationship between the United States Government (USG) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The Coalition applauds Senators Rockefeller and Snowe for recognizing the need to clarify the USG’s role in Internet regulation and looks forward to supporting their efforts on this legislation as well as any future Internet security initiatives.”
My concern here is 2.
First i have not seen the ICA issue an official position on this bill, although they did bring it to everyone’s attention the day it was introduced.
As I have said before it is important for the ICA to promptly announced public positions on proposed laws, be they federal or states and wide reaching decisions by courts.
In addition to this Bill proposed by Senator Snowe, we also wrote this week on the proposed laws in New Jersey and Illinois that seek to place limitations on “freedom of speak” on the net.
I have no heard any position on the ICA of either of these proposed state laws.
Each of these proposed laws, serve as a vehicle that the ICA could use to get their organization out into the press. CADNA certainly does not miss an opportunity and acts quickly to put out press releases, widely broadcast to increase their own visibility.
The ICA needs to do the same.
I’m not saying that the ICA should object to the new bill proposed by Senator Snowe. The bill might be good leglislation, however the ICA needs to take a position on it, Yeah or Ney.
Second, if this is legislation is a good bill, then it’s an opportunity to support Senator Snowe this time, because we all know what is still coming, Snowe bill 2. This bill is not Snowe Bill 2, but when it comes, there will be CADNA supporting that one too, with the track record of publicly supporting her current legislation.
Non action by the ICA is not going to help our cause.
On each and every opportunity the ICA needs to get their positions and name out there for the benefit of all domainers.
GhettoCaveMan says
“It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet,” Rockefeller mused during the confirmation hearing of Gary Locke (see video), Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary.”
Once you begin to connect the dots you realize that it’s about more than people making money on the net.
The following is the link to the opening quote: http://www.infowars.com/rockefeller-internet-is-number-one-national-hazard/
Regardless of your opinion about Alex Jones, he does provide some thought provoking banter from time to time.
Alexander says
You are right…but the ICA is basically a 1 man operation now. The organization needs funds and additional staffing to be at its most effective.
BullS-Websites says
Does it affect my domain name?
MHB says
Bulls
The official ICA response is coming tomorrow, lets see what they say
MHB says
Alexander
I agree with you but at this point the only way the ICA is going to get an influx of new members is if they get much more viable, not only in true domainer issues but in any law that would restrict free speech and commerce on the net.
I’m saying is that each of these new laws is an opportunity for the ICA to get their name out to the public, not just the domaining world, and hopefully get new members.
Philip Corwin says
Let’s cut the ICA some slack here.
First, we just filed a lengthy comment letter today with ICANN (posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/cyber-safety-petition/msg00301.html ) opposing a proposed Cybersafety Constituency, and we are filing another tomorrow in support of the proposed amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The first would turn the DNS into a content rating and zoning system and begin the transformation of ICANN into a thoroughly politicized Internet legislature sticking its nose into things that are outside its narrow technical mission and sticking registrants with the bill for that mission creep. The second will help prevent a recurrence of the RegisterFly fiasco and the damage it inflicted on registrants. These are issues that affect ICA members around the globe.
Second, there is no way to form an opinion on a complex legislative proposal without reading it, and the text of S. 773 is not printed in the April 1st Congressional Record nor has it been posted at the Library of Congress’ Thomas website. When the bill is available it will be carefully analyzed and that will be shared with ICA’s Board and leadership, as well as made available at our website. We will base our position on that detailed analysis and the feedback we receive.
Third, press reports indicate that this is a complex proposal that may have several controversial elements, and Sen. Rockefeller’s staff has stated that it will be the subject of hearings before any vote is taken to report it out of Committee. The Senate moves slowly and deliberatively. Meanwhile, no companion bill has even been introduced in the House. So there is ample time to form a considered opinion.
Fourth, the ICA does not take positions in kneejerk reaction to CADNA. If this bill has merit we’ll support it, and if it creates significant concerns we’ll address them.
Fifth, we don’t even begin to have the resources to follow much less take positions on every bill introduced in every state legislature that might affect some aspect of the Internet. But we did intervene in the Kentucky domain seizures case, and we are in discussions with a variety of groups in Washington about crafting preemptive federal legislation to prevent a recurrence of that incident.
Rest assured that if S. 773 is good, or bad, for our members we’ll be sharing that view with them and with Congress. But that position will be a fully considered one taken after careful analysis and consultation.
MHB says
Phil
You can find a link to the law on our blog post from this weekend:
http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/06/why-you-should-be-against-the-new-cybersecurity-act/
As far as the rest, I just see each one of these proposed laws as an opportunity to get the ICA name out, not only in the domain community but in the internet community.
Press releases on each of these proposed laws would help accomplish that.
Beyond that no one in the domain community outside of those in the inner circle knows what the ICA is working on.
How about starting a twitter for the ICA just so you can let people know when you the ICA takes action?
Philip Corwin says
That link is to a March 31 working draft, which is probably very close to but may not be exactly the same as the bill introduced the following day.
In any event, Congress is in recess until April 20, so there is plenty of time to review the final bill and gauge its potential effects on ICA members residing in the US.
Based on a quick review of the draft bill, Sections 8 (which requires any change in the IANA contract to be reviewed in advance by a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel) and 9 (which requires the Secretary of Commerce to develop a secure domain name addressing system – whatever that is – within 3 years after enactment) seem most directly relevant. But the US has already made clear that it intends to keep control of IANA regardless of what decision it makes on continued ICANN oversight this September (which, contrary to some press reports, this bill does not seem to affect at all). And I don’t see how the US can have its own secure DN addressing system when it is ICANN that controls the operational rules of the DNS.
GhettoCaveMan says
Not to gang up on you Mr. Corwin, but I agree with MHB 100% in that,
“As far as the rest, I just see each one of these proposed laws as an opportunity to get the ICA name out, not only in the domain community but in the internet community.”
Let me digress; 2 years ago I told everyone I know about the opportunity to buy domain names as an asset class. To nobody’s surprise here, I was ignored. Today, when asked, I own about 90 domain names and most are grade B or worst.
The point is, I am a minnow (or smaller) in the domainer pond and when you see the look on people’s faces when I tell them I control 90 domain names, they think it’s rather impressive (I agree that I need to attend some conferences & meet more people in the domainer community).
However, I know many more people who are conspiratorialist, freedom fighters, and constitutionalists who could and would join an organization who represents their interest. The fact is that this fight (freedom) has been going on much longer than the domainer/internet community has been in existence. Therefore you have a “built-in audience” with which you can “cross market” to.
I know that this is waaaay beyond the charter/bylaws of the ICA, but that is the price you pay when you are first and considered the leader (lobbyist?) in such an “emerging market”.
Ultimately the ICA needs members because from what I’m told, “there is power in numbers”.