PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Nov 16, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the United States and other responsible governments send clear signals to the marketplace that the current structure of oversight and management of the Internet's domain name and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and (2) the authoritative root zone server should remain physically located in the United States and the Secretary of Commerce should maintain oversight of ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) so that ICANN can continue to manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's domain and addressing system, remain responsive to Internet stakeholders worldwide, and otherwise fulfill its core technical mission.
People & committees
Rep. Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 423 - 0 (Roll no. 594). (text: CR H10332-10333)
House roll call 594 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 423 - 0 (Roll no. 594).(text: CR H10332-10333)
House roll call 594 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10357)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 268.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10332-10336)
Mr. Upton moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Con.Res.268 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Con.Res.268 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Con.Res.268 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Con.Res.268 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.