Before you can shape government policy, you have to know your audience
When we first started to focus on policy development at Go Daddy, the company was quite small and there was no corporate history to review to determine what approach the company had taken in the past.
November 30, 2012 at 04:15 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When we first started to focus on policy development at Go Daddy, the company was quite small and there was no corporate history to review to determine what approach the company had taken in the past. Instead, the management team left it to me to determine what needed to be done. They were all busy growing the business and making products. As a person who likes to be in charge and make things up from scratch, this was ideal. I would get to write the playbook, step by step.
What I learned, by trial and error, was that I needed to know who could make a difference in the Internet policy world, and who I needed to know to get things done. It didn't take long to understand that who you need to know depends on the space in which you exist.
For example, intellectual property is a big issue on the Internet. The laws relevant to protecting trademarks and copyrights on the Internet are mostly contained in federal statues, like the Lanham Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). Jurisdiction over intellectual property statutes usually falls to the judiciary committees of the House and Senate, although there are, of course, exceptions. In the case of IP protection on the Internet, therefore, I found out I needed to engage with members of the judiciary committees of both the House and Senate in order to make new or different policy.
In the Internet context, and again, knowing your context is important, it turned out most key policy was initially shaped by the federal government. Statutes like the Communications Decency Act (CDA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM), and the Fraudulent Online Identities Sanctions Act (FOISA) became as familiar to us as a set of acronym-laden abbreviations could. Again, each statute was enacted by the federal government.
But, there is also the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which is not a law at all, but rather a contractual agreement that binds domain name registrars and registrants to handle domain name disputes in certain top level domains a certain way. The federal government had nothing to do with that policy, but yet, it governs every domain name registration in the .com, .net. and .org name spaces, among others.
And, there are also a variety of computer crimes and privacy statutes enacted by various states and foreign countries, some very recently, with which we became familiar at Go Daddy.
So, at least in our case, we had law and policy from a variety of sources impacting our business, including many states, the federal government, foreign governments and contracting parties. To shape policy, and make new or different laws, it was important to understand the regulators and processes that gave rise to each.
To begin to determine your policy audience, you should know the answers to at least the following questions:
- Does your business operate mostly under local or state rules? Or, is it controlled principally by federal statutes?
- Are there non-statutory legal requirements with which your business must comply? This would be more than the standard business contracts with which we all have to live, of course. Non-statutory legal requirements could take the form of contractually binding dispute resolution procedures, collective bargaining agreements, industry standards like accounting pronouncements, or other similarly binding and potentially liability-producing mandates.
- Do you have operations outside the U.S., where foreign rules may vary widely from those applicable in the U.S.?
While it seems thoughtful and conscientious to monitor policy development, and engage policy makers, at every level, all but the most well-funded policy-focused organizations have to determine where they will place their limited resources. Most organizations do not have the luxury of being everywhere and working on every issue. So you have to know your audience.
Who can and should you engage on policy issues? Who can make the biggest difference, positive or negative, in the ongoing operations of your company? Who is responsible for establishing the set of rules or laws that will have the most detrimental impact if your company fails to comply? And what policy makers are paying attention to your company's space? Those people and/or groups comprise your audience. You must figure out who they are and then, absolutely, get to know them.
When we first started to focus on policy development at Go Daddy, the company was quite small and there was no corporate history to review to determine what approach the company had taken in the past. Instead, the management team left it to me to determine what needed to be done. They were all busy growing the business and making products. As a person who likes to be in charge and make things up from scratch, this was ideal. I would get to write the playbook, step by step.
What I learned, by trial and error, was that I needed to know who could make a difference in the Internet policy world, and who I needed to know to get things done. It didn't take long to understand that who you need to know depends on the space in which you exist.
For example, intellectual property is a big issue on the Internet. The laws relevant to protecting trademarks and copyrights on the Internet are mostly contained in federal statues, like the Lanham Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). Jurisdiction over intellectual property statutes usually falls to the judiciary committees of the House and Senate, although there are, of course, exceptions. In the case of IP protection on the Internet, therefore, I found out I needed to engage with members of the judiciary committees of both the House and Senate in order to make new or different policy.
In the Internet context, and again, knowing your context is important, it turned out most key policy was initially shaped by the federal government. Statutes like the Communications Decency Act (CDA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM), and the Fraudulent Online Identities Sanctions Act (FOISA) became as familiar to us as a set of acronym-laden abbreviations could. Again, each statute was enacted by the federal government.
But, there is also the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which is not a law at all, but rather a contractual agreement that binds domain name registrars and registrants to handle domain name disputes in certain top level domains a certain way. The federal government had nothing to do with that policy, but yet, it governs every domain name registration in the .com, .net. and .org name spaces, among others.
And, there are also a variety of computer crimes and privacy statutes enacted by various states and foreign countries, some very recently, with which we became familiar at Go Daddy.
So, at least in our case, we had law and policy from a variety of sources impacting our business, including many states, the federal government, foreign governments and contracting parties. To shape policy, and make new or different laws, it was important to understand the regulators and processes that gave rise to each.
To begin to determine your policy audience, you should know the answers to at least the following questions:
- Does your business operate mostly under local or state rules? Or, is it controlled principally by federal statutes?
- Are there non-statutory legal requirements with which your business must comply? This would be more than the standard business contracts with which we all have to live, of course. Non-statutory legal requirements could take the form of contractually binding dispute resolution procedures, collective bargaining agreements, industry standards like accounting pronouncements, or other similarly binding and potentially liability-producing mandates.
- Do you have operations outside the U.S., where foreign rules may vary widely from those applicable in the U.S.?
While it seems thoughtful and conscientious to monitor policy development, and engage policy makers, at every level, all but the most well-funded policy-focused organizations have to determine where they will place their limited resources. Most organizations do not have the luxury of being everywhere and working on every issue. So you have to know your audience.
Who can and should you engage on policy issues? Who can make the biggest difference, positive or negative, in the ongoing operations of your company? Who is responsible for establishing the set of rules or laws that will have the most detrimental impact if your company fails to comply? And what policy makers are paying attention to your company's space? Those people and/or groups comprise your audience. You must figure out who they are and then, absolutely, get to know them.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250