Access Denied! Why You Should Care about Net Neutrality

This article was originally featured on the Truman National Security Project’s Doctrine Blog on April 26, 2017.

If you get frustrated when it takes longer than normal for a site to load or appreciate the freedom to visit the site of your choosing without impediment, you should be watching what happens with net neutrality.

But what is net neutrality? Often referred to as “Open Internet,” net neutrality is the underlying principle of the Internet that internet service providers (ISPs) provide open and consistent access to any application or content that rides over their networks. This prevents ISPs that provide broadband and telecom service, like AT&T and Comcast, from also providing preferential treatment to companies willing and able to pay more for faster speeds. After all, if ISPs aren’t required to maintain consistent connectivity, consumers will likely limit their searches and consumption to sites that load easily.

Net neutrality additionally prevents the ISPs from blocking content of their choosing, which becomes important in that such blocking can put limits on free speech and press. The Internet is often a platform for marginalized voices. Small businesses, people of color, citizens of oppressive regimes, and activists can use the Internet to amplify their otherwise discreet and often silenced messages. Without net neutrality, ISPs could block unpopular speech and prevent dissident voices from speaking freely online. Without net neutrality, we may not know of many of the injustices perpetuated around the world or in our own back yard! On another note, less politically harmful but equally as disruptive, you may not be able to find the business or product you’re looking for or watch the movie of your choosing without an additional fee. Equally alarming, limited access to information and content can also impede competition, therefore potentially manipulating the market.

No matter your economic status, political beliefs, racial identity, sexual orientation, or ISP, you deserve to have the same access to any website you choose to visit. However, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has a draft plan, which he has not presented publicly, that will reportedly severely weaken net neutrality rules for all. Instead of clear rules that require ISPs to treat all data the same, Pai is proposing a voluntary system where providers promise in writing they will not block web pages or slow down traffic. Theoretically, under his plan, as long as ISPs commit to protecting net neutrality in their terms of service, the FCC can eliminate its rules defaulting to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to punish ISPs that do not comply with their net neutrality promises.

This may sound “ok” on the surface, but ISPs would only be bound by net neutrality requirements to the extent they promise to follow them — no standardization or mandatory level of protection. This type of voluntary system leaves too much room for “creativity” on how to make money by manipulating internet traffic or how to silence unwelcomed perspectives. Importantly, this construct would require changes to FTC Act, leaves unclear how consumers would know whether content is being blocked in order to file a claim, and requires claims be tied to consumer harm. Additionally, there isn’t enough competition among telecom and broadband providers to demand compliance. Not to mention, there is little to stop ISPs from removing net neutrality clauses from their terms of service in the future.

Essentially, the greatest attribute of the Internet is its freedom, and the ability to search without restriction or limit is fundamental to such freedom. Rolling back current consumer and competition protections stands in direct opposition to maintaining a free and open internet.

In 2014, citizens and businesses successfully cried out for protection from manipulation of service speeds and paid prioritization. Then FCC Chairman Wheeler released rules, “the Open Internet Order,” one year later. Earlier this month, current FCC Chairman Pai discussed plans for net neutrality with the Internet Association — a lobbying group representing Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other large tech companies — and the organization took to the media to underscore their support for these rules. Internet Association members have made clear they are prepared to fight against any dilution of net neutrality rules. Hopefully, this strong show of support for strong net neutrality will cause Chairman Pai to reimagine his plan.

On the heels of President Trump signing the Congressional resolution to overturn Internet privacy rules — the first sign of an agenda to roll back FCC protections implemented in recent years — Pai’s inclination toward a voluntary framework is a call to vigilance, if not a call to action, for those invested in and enjoying net neutrality.

This week, members of Congress have answered the call by requesting Pai to reveal his net neutrality plans. Democracy and a stable economy demand access to information. Every citizen and business who values the freedom to search the Internet without restrictions and receive all content consistently should lend their voice to preserving net neutrality rules.

View at Medium.com

Conversational Commerce: Are You Ready?

Guest post by Jason Miller.

Texting Dominos a pizza emoji and a deliveryman showing up at you door “30 minutes” later with a pizza exemplifies the integration of Business to Consumer (B2C) transactions. Well, the same transactional principles may forever change the B2C relationship. Imagine if instead of sending a text and receiving a pizza, you could text your local grocery store your shopping list or text Amazon about a product you want—and have it delivered the same day.

These possibilities represent the next evolution of the B2C relationship called, “conversational commerce,” which has already taken Asia by storm. It allows users to order on-demand services and products through text messages or other messaging services, established a new commercial platform that may change the game yet again. TechCrunch reported that: China’s WeChat generates over $1B in revenue from its 440 million users, which allows them to use text messages to their pay bills and order products, while Japan’s LinePay takes a similar approach.

The principle is most mobile-phone users spend most of their time texting; why should they have to switch a different app, search for the product, enter their payment information, and then place their order. But soon consumers will be able too simply send a text to the company they wish to make a purchase from. Expanding texting’s potential to making payments, buying products, etc. may alleviate these cumbersome tasks altogether.

While at first-glance commercial communication may seem a bit novel, the United States has certainly taking notice of its impact in Asia. American tech-giants, like Facebook and Google, are jumping on the bandwagon. TechCrunch noted that Facebook, for example, is in the process of implementing these capabilities into their “Messenger App,” allowing users to order food and even speak with businesses directly. Meanwhile, many start-ups have also developed to take their share of this expanding market. Such as Magic, a concierge-type delivery service that lets uses order almost any product for delivery through text, which oddly enough I started using the day I read about it.

Though the market is young in the States, its validity as a commercial platform is clear and a possibly lucrative one at that. If there’s money to be made, then I think its safe to presume that large companies will attempt to adapt their current systems to implement this developing commercial space within their business model (i.e., Facebook, etc.). Hopefully allowing me text a masseuse to and recreate my favorite scene from Boy Meets World; Griff was my hero.

Note from the Digital Counselor:

Entrepreneurs and small business owners should be on the look out for ways to integrate this into their business model. Early adoption could be a standout feature and create a niche that may enable rapid growth. However, rapid growth necessitates the ability to scale quickly, which can be hard for a small business with little capital. Although a great tool, businesses looking to implement must look at potential impacts to their business model and ultimately their bottom line.

About the Author:

Jason Miller is law student at American University Washington College of Law. Jason is originally from Rockville, MD, and studied communications at University of Maryland. While in undgrad, Jason & his friends founded a globally followed music blog, with about 100k unique visitors per month. After graduating, Jason worked at the U.S. Senate for two years before going to law school.

 

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of TheDigitalCounselor.com, any other poster/blogger of this blog or any entity affiliated with blog posters. Any comments by TheDigitalCounselor.com do not reflect the views or ideas of any organization or individual that may or may not be affiliated or associated. 

Accepting Guest Blog Posts

I have accepted a position that will not allow me to write in 2016. However, I want to continue to provide information on cyber, intellectual property (IP), social media, security, privacy, and technology law and policy to you all.  So…. I am accepting  submissions from guest bloggers!

Please send me your best cyber, IP and tech law and policy posts. Many of this blog’s followers are entrepreneurs, technophiles, tech novices, bloggers, social media user and those intrigued by tech, so please cater your posts to that audience. Please send posts to thedigitalcounselor@gmail.com. I will notify you if your post is selected.

Thank you for your submission, in advance, and more importantly, THANK YOU FOR READING!

I hope the readers find previous posts and any information others are able to provide in my absence helpful! And I look forward to returning in 2017!!

The Future of the Internet of Things: Utopia or Disaster?

Guest post by Mr. Leon Silver.

Leon Silver, National Practice Group leader of Gordon & Rees’ Retail & Hospitality Practice Group and a privacy law expert, hosted a seminar on Privacy and The Internet of Things on June 25 at the State Bar of Arizona annual convention at the Arizona Biltmore. He provided this recap of the discussion.

Throughout the many articles and blog posts on the topic of the Internet of Things (IoT), I’ve noticed a recurring theme. Everyone is talking about the fact that no one is talking about the privacy implications of ubiquitous connectivity and data mining through the IoT. This summer I had the opportunity to lead a panel discussion at the Arizona State Bar convention to further the conversation about privacy and security on the Internet of Things.

The panel included K Royal, Privacy Counsel at CellTrust, Inc., an attorney and compliance professional with over 20 years of experience in the legal and health-related fields; Dan Christensen, Global Group Counsel of IT, Privacy & Security at Intel Corporation; and David Bodney, partner at Ballard Spahr, LLP, a litigator focusing on media and constitutional law.

I kicked things off by posing the question of the day: “Will the Internet of Things result in a utopian future, or a dystopian future?”

I then asked the audience not to shut off in our back pockets, but to grab their phones, turn them on and make use of them to actively share the information being discussed. My intention? To spark more of the very conversations the seminar was seeking to have.

We were honored to have guest speaker Frank Jones, vice president of the Internet of Things Group and general manager of the Operations and Group Marketing Division at Intel Corporation, share his insight with the group. Mr. Jones provided an overview of the vast scope and rapid progress being made on the IoT. He explained that in today’s world, we create as much electronic data every two days as we did from the dawn of civilization up until 2003.

The IoT will help solve challenges around the globe, he explained, by driving growth and helping to solve critical problems such as illiteracy and water supply. According to Mr. Jones, this movement is already in process and actually began with the introduction of the smartphone.

Intel is committed to making this a positive movement, he said. “The core value and base of IoT will be security,” said Mr. Jones. “Without security as the foundation, nothing is possible.”

In order for IoT to progress, “cooperation across the industry is necessary.” Mr. Jones said companies that are otherwise competitors will have to join forces and create a uniform platform to make way for IoT because this is something that can’t be done alone. With security as the foundation and an established industry-wide standard, adopting IoT to generate global solutions will be a reality.

In his words, IoT is about connecting the unconnected and unleashing data to enable unprecedented transformations. IoT will touch everyone on Earth.

So how much connectivity can we bear to have in our personal life?

As ideal and exciting as IoT seems to be, the panel, the audience and I were all too aware of the dangers and risks associated with this new era of technology.

I asked if the one layer of security that manufacturers build into systems is enough to protect us. Mr. Christensen replied, “No it’s not. One layer at the base is not enough.” He explained that IoT is like turning a house with only one, easily secured window, into a glass house. Massive vulnerability will be created, resulting in a lack of control. Repurposing of information will be an issue, the quality of user consent will be crippled, and jurisdiction creep will become a serious issue. How will security policies/laws change from country to country? These are just a few of various concerns raised by Mr. Christensen.

When asked who would own our personal information in this IoT era, Mr. Bodney said this would depend on the agreement. Very much like today, “If you want to participate, you are consenting.” It is unknown, however, how the law will treat this issue when data is collected without consent and in the gray areas of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The commercial and private use of drones, for example, has raised far more questions than have been answered.

Ms. Royal questioned whether you could own private personal data when each country defines “private personal data” differently. In the U.S., federal rights to privacy are for customers of certain industries (education, health, financial). Other countries, however, ascribe privacy rights on the basis of being an individual, rather than being a consumer. While most agree that health data and financial information are sensitive, nations differ as to the scope. Israel, for example defines personality as sensitive information. Australia includes membership in a professional organization as sensitive, whereas here in the U.S., you can buy a list containing that information. Some countries define arrests as sensitive (not just convictions), whereas the U.S. considers that public information.

So what can be done to protect personal data? Ms. Royal informed the audience that there are companies that specialize in keeping information private. She suggested that consumers read through privacy policies, find “off” switches, and disconnect devices when not in use, install security updates, opt out of Wi-Fi connectivity on devices if it isn’t important to them, and accept the fact that devices collect data or stop using them altogether.

The biggest threat, Mr. Christensen explained, remains organized crime. “Organized crime is still the biggest problem area.” These are the groups that try to get into bank accounts — hacktivists and malicious insiders.

The audience wanted to know if there would be a group to lobby for the protection of privacy as the IoT movement takes off, and if so, what group they should be keeping an eye on. Ms. Royal said there has been a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights push more than once, but unfortunately, it has never fully materialized.

In response to the question whether we can expect Congress to provide legal protection to children, Mr. Bodney stated that because the pace of technology is so rapid, Congress has a tough time keeping up. By the time Congress gets around to adopting these new laws and policies, said Mr. Bodney, technology will have surpassed any legislation. Regardless, young people have a different sense of privacy than older generations, he added. “They grew up in this environment and are far more comfortable in it.” Ms. Royal added that younger generations are often referred to as “digital natives” and older generations are considered “digital immigrants.”

Mr. Christensen believes manufacturers should cater to the consumers that value privacy. He mentioned consumers must be aware, however, of the risks they take every time they get a hold of new devices. For example, as soon as customers open a new Intel device, the first thing they see when they open the box is a note that informs customers that by turning on the device, they are agreeing to Intel’s terms and conditions, including their privacy policy.

If you value your privacy, Ms. Royal suggests looking for companies that feel the same way. “Maybe one day there will be a list of companies that value privacy.”

As the seminar came to a close, I asked each panel member the same question I had asked earlier. Will the Internet of Things result in a utopian future, or a dystopian future? Each panel member responded with an optimistic, “Utopian,” although some were more “cautiously optimistic” than others.

I urge that not only lawyers, but everyone, pay attention to our personal privacy and what is being done with our personal data.

 

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of TheDigitalCounselor.com, any other poster/blogger of this blog or any entity affiliated with blog posters.

35 Senators Ask Tough Questions Re: Internet Transition

Today, 35 U.S. Senators lead by Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), seeking clarification regarding the recent announcement that NTIA intends to relinquish responsibility of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global multistakeholder community. Read my previous post “US to Relinquish Control of the Internet” for more background on this issue.

The letter express the group’s “[strong] support [of] the existing bottom-up, multistakeholder approach to Internet governance.” The letter highlights bipartisan support of S. Con. Res 50 in 2012 that reinforces “the U.S. government’s opposition to ceding control of the Internet to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an arm of the United Nations, or to any other governmental body.”

The group cautions: “We must not allow the IANA functions to fall under the control of repressive governments, America’s enemies, or unaccountable bureaucrats.”  To read the full text of the letter click here.

As you read it I encourage you to think about a few things: 

Are these the right questions?

These are fair questions and likely on the minds of those invested in the outcome of this transition. ICANN & NTIA have pledged transparency throughout this process, therefore, I look forward to their candid responses. None of the questions are out of line or beyond the scope of Congressional oversight.

What other questions should we ask?

The answers to these questions will spark additional questions. However, in my opinion, there are a few other questions the Senators could have posed.

  • What happens if the deadline is not met? Is the US prepared to renew the contract? Is the US prepared for the international backlash if the deadline is not met?
  • Does the structure of an organization like ICANN, that has an entire constituency of comprised of government representatives (GAC),  meet the nongovernmental multistakeholder model? To what extent and how are governments going to be kept out of oversight after the initial launch?
  • Whose interests does NTIA seek to serve or protect by initiating this transition?

What other questions do you have?

How hard do you want Congress to push on this issue?

Transparency will help alleviate fears and misconceptions. I think the answers to these questions and those likely to follow with help shape the dialogue as this process continues. Gaining the confidence of the American people and other inter nation critics will serve to make this a smoother process for NTIA and ICANN. I encourage Congress to pursue the answers to these questions and then decisions can be made about how to proceed.

This issue has a long way to go before we can develop a definitive perspective on the positive or negative effect this will have on the future of the Internet.  I will continue to monitor the developments but I encourage you think about what concerns you most and leave your thoughts in the comments.

 

The below are highlights of the questions asked:

  • Please provide us with the Administration’s legal views and analysis on whether the United States Government can transition the IANA functions to another entity without an Act of Congress. 
  • Please explain why it is in our national interest to transition the IANA functions to the “global multistakeholder community.” 
  • Why does the Administration believe now is the appropriate time to begin the transition, and what was the specific circumstance or development that led the Administration to decide to begin the transition now?
  • What steps will NTIA take to ensure the process to develop a transition plan for the IANA functions is open and transparent?
  • Will NTIA actively participate in the global multistakeholder process to develop a transition plan for the IANA functions, or will the Administration leave the process entirely in the hands of ICANN?
  • What specific options are available to NTIA to prevent [a government or inter-governmental solution] from happening?
  • How can the Administration guarantee the multistakeholder organization that succeeds NTIA will not subsequently transfer the IANA functions to a government or intergovernmental organization in the future, or that such successor organization will not eventually fall under the undue influence of other governments?
  • How did NTIA determine that ICANN is the appropriate entity to lead the transition process, and how will NTIA ensure that ICANN does not inappropriately control or influence the process for its own self-interest? 
  • Does NTIA believe ICANN currently is sufficiently transparent and accountable in its activities, or should ICANN adopt additional transparency and accountability requirements as part of the IANA transition? 
  • Is it realistic to expect that an acceptable transition plan can be developed before the IANA functions contract expires on September 30, 2015?  Is there another example of a similar global stakeholder transition plan being developed and approved in just 18 months? 
  • How will NTIA ultimately decide whether a proposed transition plan for IANA, developed by global stakeholders, is acceptable?  What factors will NTIA use to determine if such a proposal supports and enhances the multistakeholder model; maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System; meets the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and maintains the openness of the Internet? 
  • Will NTIA also take into account American values and interests in evaluating a proposed transition plan?  How? 

US to Relinquish Control of the Internet?

On Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced it is giving up control of a system that directs Internet traffic and Web addresses. As a result, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the nonprofit organization charged with managing the Internet, is tasked to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). This announcement came as a surprise to many but a coalition of nations has been calling for the US to relinquish control of the Internet for at least the last nine months. Politically this takes the US out of the line of fire but practically what does this do for the culture of the Internet?

Why is this important to you? Because it may change the Internet as you know it….

What exactly was the US Doing?

NTIA is the Executive Branch agency that advises the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. NTIA’s programs and policymaking focus largely on expanding broadband Internet access and adoption in America. NTIA controls the DNS which essentially converts the web addresses (URLs) we type in to the search bar into the correct IP address to retrieve the website you requested. Whether you are accessing a Web site or sending e-mail, your computer uses DNS to look up the domain name you’re trying to access. This system is essential to the functionality and security of the Internet.

If not the US, then who?
This contract to control DNS has allowed the U.S. government to exert what some claim is too much influence over the Internet. technology that plays such a pivotal role in society and the economy. So if not the US, then who with the world feel comfortable wielding that power and influence?

There’s a meeting, ICANN 49, March 23 in Singapore and the future of the Internet is at the top of the agenda.

According to Lawrence Strickling, assistant secretary at the Commerce Department, “[The department] will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA’s role with a government-led or intergovernmental solution.” Does that leave ICANN or a similar organization to maintain the DNS?

Why should you care?
Because this could mean a very different Internet…

While companies like Verizon applaud the moveITIF and other organizations have argued before that U.S. government oversight has played an essential role in maintaining the security, stability, and openness of the Internet and in ensuring that ICANN satisfies its responsibilities in effectively managing the Internet’s DNS. Without the U.S. government’s presence some lawmakers and members of the tech industry have expressed concern that relinquishing control of IANA will open up the Internet to threats from other governments that seek to censor it.  This could mean a very different Internet.

Are their concerns justified? No one really knows right now but what we can surmise is that the Internet is in for some changes in the years to follow the change of control. Many countries have dealt with privacy and censorship in ways different from that of the US. How will ICANN deal with these conflicting views democratically and ensure Internet users from all economies and sovereign nations will be represented and heard? Will the standards of openness and free flow of information embraced today remain the baseline? Does the “global multistakeholder community” NTIA is referring to exist? What is the legal jurisdiction for both ICANN and this new multistakeholder body?

There are no answers to these questions because so little is known about whats to come. I look forward to the information and ideas that flow from the ICANN meeting next week.  The questions need to be among those at the top of the list.

Do Not Track Me… But Cater to Me

We have all become accustomed to having our technology cater to most of our needs in very personal way. However, we all desire to retain a certain amount of privacy.  For example, our cellphones track our every move and click while occasionally make calls – and yet we would be lost without the maps and ability to request anything from “Siri.” Our cable boxes may bring our favorite shows and movies but they also report back to providers all of your family’s television viewing habits.  We all appreciate the convenience that customization provides however that means a loss of privacy….

Why Are We Worried?
The latest buzz word is the The Internet of Things (IoT). What is that? “The Internet of Things” refers to the concept that the Internet is no longer just a global network for people to communicate with one another using computers, but it is also a platform for devices to communicate electronically with the world around them. The result is a global “network of physical objects that contain embedded technology to communicate or interact with people, things, and the external environment. It includes everything from traffic sensors to refrigerators, thermostats, medical devices, and wristwatches that can track or sense the environment and use the data they collect to provide a benefit, or transmit the data to a central repository for analysis, or both.”

This network of objects enables providers of goods and services to use your personal behavior to profile and evaluate your activities and habits.  The Internet of Things will result in increased data collection, amplifying the importance of simplifying choices and giving control to individuals with real-time notices. Transparency will facilitate consumer understanding of the collection, use and sharing of personal data. However, there is a real danger of data being used in unexpected ways. The Internet of Things has created a potential perfect storm of four major information policy concerns: online safety, privacy, security, and intellectual property issues. The goal is to determine what “reasonable” expectations regarding data usage should be, and then manage consumer expectations accordingly. Measures ensuring the network’s resilience to attacks, data authentication, access control and client privacy need to be established.  An ideal framework would consider the underlying technology and involve collaboration on an international scale.

The need to balance reasonable activity on the Internet and use of The Internet of Things with responsible privacy protections is exponentially increasing. This balance is extremely important because the last thing we want is to stifle innovation by over legislating this area.

Laws to Watch
At least 14 states have proposed legislation on the 2014 docket that is intended to increase privacy protection for consumers and limit both government and private sector surveillance via the Internet of Things. At the federal level, several bills are already making their way through Congress.

State
AB370, an amendment to the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (“CalOPPA”). CalOPPA requires owners of commercial websites and online service providers (“operators”) to conspicuously post a privacy policy. The privacy policy must disclose to consumers, among other things, the categories of personally identifiable information (PII), such as name, hone address, email address, social security number,  the operator collects and with whom the operator shares such information. Operators affected by CalOPPA include website operators and, as interpreted by the California Office of Attorney General, operators of software and mobile apps that transmit and collect PII online.

Federal 
The Black Box Privacy Protection Act is a bill in front of Congress that prohibits the sale of automobiles equipped with event data recorders-unless the consumer can control the recording of information. Additionally, the data collected would belong to the vehicle owner.

The We are Watching You Act is a bill in front of Congress that requires the operator of a video service (such as a DVR or Xbox) to display the message “We are watching you” as part of the programming provided to the consumer prior to the device is collecting visual or auditory information from the viewing area. This is not likely to pass but its a sign of legislation to come.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has this phenomenon on its radar, it hosted an all-day workshop entitled, “Internet of Things: Privacy and Security in a Connected World in November. The FTC has also released a number of reports and guidelines that direct business on how to protect consumer privacy.

International 
With Internet Governance on the forefront of international discussion, international “Internet of Things” legislation is not the priority and likely to be left up to each country to decipher. International collaboration on issues like this early is one out come I hope comes from these Internet Governance talks…. but we’re a long way out from that happening.

The examples listed are a narrow sampling of privacy legislation designed to protect users from unwanted intrusions. Most notably, states have passed a number of laws protecting privacy rights in recent years.

Conclusion
The Internet of Things will bring tremendous new benefits to consumers but we must balance the need for consumer privacy. State, federal and international regulators must work to restrict government and private-sector collection and control of the data IoT will create. In the meantime, make sure you are aware of the information you provide through your IoT. Explore privacy settings and read privacy policies if you are concerned about sharing too much data with providers. Know what your priorities are as it relates to customization and privacy. If you value convenience and do not mind a prying eye or two, if it means a personalized user experience, share your data freely. However, if you value preserving your privacy be proactive about doing so until lawmakers can find the appropriate balance. Do not shun technology just educate yourself.

Five things you should know as the new gTLDs launch

What is a gTLD? gTLD stands for generic top-level domain and is an Internet extension such as “.COM,” “.NET” or “.ORG.” Right now there are a little over two dozen gTLDs, but soon, there could be hundreds. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for the coordination of the global Internet’s systems of unique identifiers and, in particular, ensuring its stable and secure operation. According to ICANN the new gTLD program was developed to increase competition and choice in the domain name space. As the new gTLDs launch and threaten to change the Internet as we know it there are a lot of things you should know but here are five to start. For additional background information about new gTLDs, please visit some of my previous posts “What do you know about the new top level domains?” & “Will You Be Confused When The New Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Launch?”

1. Be careful of services “guaranteeing” to get a domain name for you

Cyrus Namazi, Vice President of DNS Industry Engagement for ICANN, published a blog post today titled “Pre-Reserve a Domain Name, or Not? ICANN Answers the QuestionNamazi warns against services that “guarantee” they’ll get the domain name for you:
 
 
As responsible Registrars are advising, successful pre-registration of a domain cannot be guaranteed. ICANN seconds that advice, cautioning that registrants should be wary of anyone who claims to be able to guarantee a domain registration on a new gTLD. There are several situations that can impact the availability of a domain name and some domain names may never be available for purchase.”
 
 
Namazi points out that competition between registrars for a single domain, domains claimed in sunrise, reserved domains, premium domains, and name collision domains make it impossible to guarantee. He also notes that some TLDs may not even end up being delegated.

 

2. The first non-Latin character new gTLDs were delegated 

What does delegated mean? This means that the gTLDs or strings have successfully completed the new gTLD Program and has officially been selected as a new gTLD that will go live for use. This will be the first time non-Latin characters can be used in a TLD and not just in the second level domain. Click here for more information from ICANN. 

One is شبكة, the Arabic word for “web” or “network”, while another is 游戏, which means “game” in Chinese.The other two – онлайн and сайт – are both Russian words, meaning “online” and “website” respectively

3. First nine LATIN new gTLDs​ were delegated

The first nine new gTLDs delegated last week were:

  • .CAMERA
  • .CLOTHING
  • .EQUIPMENT
  • .GURU
  • .HOLDINGS
  • .LIGHTING
  • .SINGLES
  • .VENTURES
  • .VOYAGE

The “sunrise period” for registration of the first seven gTLDs is “.BIKE,” “.CLOTHING,” “.GURU,” “.HOLDINGS,” “.PLUMBING,” “.SINGLES,” “.VENTURES.” will begin November 26 and general availability to anyone will begin January 29, 2014.  Keep any eye out for new gTLDs as they are delegated. Consider whether you or your company wants to purchase a domain. And monitor the official launch of these new gTLDs starting in January. Monitor how your brand and ineffectual property are being used on this new gTLDs. To keep up with delegated strings click here.

4. The launch of new gTLDs multiplies the size of the Internet and presents increased security and intellectual property infringement risks.

  • Pay attention to the gTLD in the address bar. New gTLDs give malicious actors more platforms to attack the unsuspecting. Pay attention to the address you are trying to get to and make sure all parts of the address are correct.  Also if you search for a website make sure the site that comes up is the legitimate website.
  • Companies must monitor the use of their intellectual property on new gTLDs. Companies should currently have a plan in place to protect their IP investments through motoring, preemptive registrations, the Trademark Clearinghouse and other rights protection mechanisms provided by ICANN. Be proactive!

5. Launch of new gTLDs presents a number of opportunities to market your brand or yourself. This will present business and consumers with a new and unique user experience and online footprint. There will be a lot more room for customization online and opportunities for marketers to be creative with how to reach consumers. I am excited to see the innovative means of reaching the public that are birthed from the new gTLD launch.Please ask any questions you have about new gTLDs, protecting yourself, rights mechanisms, IP protection, security concerns etc. Start the discussion!

Security Risks & the Healthcare Roll Out

Anticipation of the healthcare roll-out tomorrow, October 1, 2013, has sparked heated debate and concern over costs, employer rescission of benefits, and questions about the Health Insurance Marketplace. One question, raised by the FTC and other stakeholders, remains to be fully addressed: What security measures will be put in place to protect Marketplace consumers from identity theft?

The new Health Insurance Marketplace allows you to fill out an application and see all the health plans available in your area. While all insurance plans are offered by private companies, the Marketplace is run by either your state or the federal government. As designed, consumers create an account online or over the phone with a “navigator.”  Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the government is training additional customer service professionals to help consumers “navigate” the Health Insurance Marketplace. To create an account, participants must provide their personal data such as household size, income, passport, address, and potentially a social security number for every member of the household that needs coverage. 

What measures are being taken to dispose of information gathered by customer service professionals? What safeguards are in place to prevent identity theft? Scammers are already calling consumers and pretending to be navigators to gather their personal information.  How will consumers know the difference?

​How to protect yourself in the interim:

  • Do not give personal information to cold calls or emails from navigators or others representing themselves as part of the Marketplace.
  • ​If you call-in or seek help in person, ask navigators what the internal policy is on handling your personal information. 
  • Share the least amount of information necessary when shopping for health plans.

For more information about the healthcare roll out visit healthcare.gov

Update October 1, 2013: The government has released the following on avoiding consumer fraud http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/consumer-alerts/alerts/marketplace.asp

New gTLD Timelines

ICANN
New gTLD timeline

ICANN has released two new timelines for when we can expect the launch of the first new gTLDs (the part of the URL behind the “.” such as “.com” or “.mobi”).

The launch of these new gTLDs will have a lasting and significant effect on the way we use and operate the Internet. This fact is why new gTLDs have yet to launch. The industry is a buzz with the pros and cons of every aspect of this change. The confusion of consumers, protecting intellectual property, domain name approvals, potential monopolies, privacy, and other business concerns are on the forefront.  No interest group wants things to remain the same but with competing interests and priorities carving out new policy has been slower than anticipated.

I encourage consumers to remain aware of this development. This will develop the way we consume online information.   I will continue to write about the developments. Also visit some of my previous posts such as Will You Be Confused When the New gTLDs Launch?  Visit ICANN’s site on new gTLDs for developments.

What are you concerned about? Are you interested in hearing more about the effect this will have on businesses and families?