AFTRA Disses Domain Remake
Too many Internet suffixes will mean too much cost, opponents say
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/21/2011 12:01:00 AM
Is FCC Rule Worth the Paper It’s Not Printed On?
The Federal Communications Commission says broadcasters will benefit by moving their public inspection
files from filing cabinets in the back room to an online database overseen by the commission.
While there’s no arguing against the benefi ts of conserving paper and curtailing some paperwork, broadcasters could fill a sheaf with questions surrounding the implementation of the FCC’s Oct. 27 notice of proposed rulemaking.
The commission said it was seeking comment on proposals that would “reduce burdens on the broadcast industry.” While not ungrateful at the suggestion, many broadcasters are understandably pondering the prudence of drilling down into the types of programming they offer and putting all that information in a searchable database controlled by the agency that is also in charge of broadcast licenses.
Attorneys for Belo, Dispatch, Gannett, Hearst, Post-Newsweek, and Raycom Media tried to head off the rulemaking proposal, saying that drafting rules without first holding a notice of inquiry could “polarize this discussion and jeopardize the chances for a successful outcome with respect to these issues.”
The National Association of Broadcasters said it is concerned about possible “First Amendment issues that could be raised by any new reporting system based on FCC-specified program categories.” The association also suggested that rather than easing their reporting burdens, the new rules could add to them. —JE
While there’s no arguing against the benefi ts of conserving paper and curtailing some paperwork, broadcasters could fill a sheaf with questions surrounding the implementation of the FCC’s Oct. 27 notice of proposed rulemaking.
The commission said it was seeking comment on proposals that would “reduce burdens on the broadcast industry.” While not ungrateful at the suggestion, many broadcasters are understandably pondering the prudence of drilling down into the types of programming they offer and putting all that information in a searchable database controlled by the agency that is also in charge of broadcast licenses.
Attorneys for Belo, Dispatch, Gannett, Hearst, Post-Newsweek, and Raycom Media tried to head off the rulemaking proposal, saying that drafting rules without first holding a notice of inquiry could “polarize this discussion and jeopardize the chances for a successful outcome with respect to these issues.”
The National Association of Broadcasters said it is concerned about possible “First Amendment issues that could be raised by any new reporting system based on FCC-specified program categories.” The association also suggested that rather than easing their reporting burdens, the new rules could add to them. —JE
In June, ICANN approved allowing virtually any top-level Internet endings, pushing beyond the current list of 22 (such as .com, .org, .net) to a virtually unlimited number, including branded names like, say, .aftra or .nab.
As it now stands, applications for those new endings will be accepted starting Jan. 12, 2012.
In its letter, AFTRA, which represents more than 70,000 broadcast members, said that the change will be expensive and cause “irreparable harm to brand owners, small businesses and consumers.”
“To protect their intellectual property, businesses will need to purchase these Internet addresses at an extraordinarily high fee of $185,000 and then invest additional resources in surveillance and legal defense to ensure that cyber-squatters cannot harm a brand’s integrity, or pro! t from bad-faith domain registrations,” AFTRA representatives wrote. “In addition, consumers will be at high risk, as phishing and other forms of online fraud proliferate.”
AFTRA wants ICANN to hold off on opening up the domain land rush until the latter can demonstrate that expansion’s bene! ts will exceed the costs to the global Internet community.
Last week, advertising agency associations from around the world joined dozens of other business associations and individual companies—including Kellogg’s, Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble— to oppose the rollout, citing excessive costs to brands. The businesses pulled no punches, saying that not to do so would be failure to act in the public interest.
They have also formed the Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight (CRIDO) to “aggressively ! ght” the ICANN plan.
E-mail comments to jeggerton@nbmedia.com and follow him on Twitter: @eggerton
Talkback
No related content found.
Most Popular Pages
-
No Top Articles
VIEW ALL GALLERIES
