Rod Beckstrom, former Director of the National Cybersecurity Center at the US Department of Homeland Security, has been named as the new CEO of ICANN, the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, responsible for policy and regulations about Internet domain names and IP addresses. I’ve been privileged to know Mr. Beckstrom during his tenure at DHS, and I’m pleased that he is now taking on the leadership role at ICANN. As part of my activities with the Anti-Phishing Working Group, I’m involved with domain name policies regarding accelerated takedowns of domains that are used for phishing or spreading malware.
Here is an excerpt from an interview by Brian Krebs of the Washington Post online:
Krebs: As I’m sure you’re aware, ICANN’s decision to move forward on hundreds of new gTLDs has ruffled some feathers, particularly in the business and intellectual property communities. Critics of the current process say it’s moving forward too quickly and that the new gTLDs are merely going to create a myriad of costly, legal headaches for brand owners, who will be forced to go out and register variations of their brand name in hundreds of new gTLDs to protect their brands. Are their concerns valid, and are they being addressed well enough?
Beckstrom: Having just spent the week here, I can tell you one of the prominent topics of debate were the intellectual property questions, with various parties proposing solutions. There are still different thoughts in the community: On the one hand, ICANN is receiving a lot of pressure from many companies around the world who want new gTLDs…who want them opened up and available. And others want reasonable mechanisms for some intellectual property review and process.
So, ICANN’s role is to try to play a balancing role. ICANN doesn’t have a firm position on what the solution is. ICANN is simply asking the global community of IP attorneys and others to develop the best possible solutions they can which can actually be implemented. But one of the solutions is not avoiding the gTLDs, because there’s tremendous demand from all over the world to have those, and the number of companies who are opposing them appear to be a minority compared to those who think they should be out there and present.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 at 2:23 pm and is filed under Law Enforcement, Security, eCrime.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
