Showing posts with label GDD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GDD. Show all posts

2017-10-08

News Review | RySG Requests $$$ and "Detailed Accounting" From ICANN

News Review | ©2016 DomainMondo.com
Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-10-08) with analysis and opinion: Features •  1) RySG Requests $$$ and "Detailed Accounting" From ICANN,  2) Other ICANN news: .AMAZON Diplomacy, 3)Names, Domains & Trademarks: Donuts' "struggling" new gTLDs, 4) ICYMI: Project Loon in Puerto Rico, 5) Most Read Posts.

1) RySG Requests $$$ and "Detailed Accounting" From ICANN
The RySG (gTLDs Registries Stakeholder Group) has requested $$$ (again), and a "detailed accounting" from ICANN--the latest in the festering spat between the failing new gTLDs' registry operators and the ICANN organization, specifically its "Global Domains Division" set up by ICANN ex-CEO Fadi Chehade and primarily staffed by incompetent cronies of Chehade, including its President, Akram Atallah, who, collectively, required 5½ months to summon up the courage to tell the RySG "No" in its reply dated August 29, 2017, to a previous RySG letter--see News Review | New gTLDs Hucksters Lose Again: ICANN Says No $$$ | DomainMondo.com.

In the latest correspondence from Paul Diaz, RySG Chair, the RySG requests to ICANN have multiplied and now include (emphasis and link added):
"An obvious request relates to an apparent double charging and a refund of the additional $5,000 ICANN collected from each registry operator to set-up the TMCH ... ICANN is very much in a position to refund registry operators for this overcharge, and we request that ICANN do so."
"We think that ICANN should launch a broad awareness campaign for the new gTLDs" [Editor's note: this request that ICANN become, in effect, a PR and marketing agency for new gTLD registry operators, seems incompatible with ICANN's Articles, and federal and state laws, and could cause ICANN to lose its 501(c)(3) status under the Internal Revenue Code:"The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."].
"This letter requests a fee reduction of the exact type contemplated in Section 6.7 of the Registry Agreement" [Editor's note: 6.7 is a new section negotiated in secret between RySG and Atallah's "Global Domains Division"--see News Review: ICANN Secretly Colludes With New gTLD Registry Operators | DomainMondo.com--which became effective July 31, 2017, over objections of the ICANN community and others--see "Note" in paragraph "c." below].
 "... ICANN to provide the RySG with a detailed accounting of expenses to date ... If the ICANN organization anticipates further spending our application fees in this or other manners, we request, first, a reasonable forecast for their likely use, and second, deeper involvement in the associated budgeting process. The RySG does not necessarily presume the cogency of such expenditures ..."
"I will be in touch shortly to schedule an in-person discussion in Abu Dhabi. In the near term, we anticipate your more immediate reply regarding the TMCH fees request and an accounting of costs to date and potential future costs." 
The full embed of the latest letter is further below. The history of the correspondence in this matter (as published by ICANN), is as follows:

a. RySG asks for $$$ from ICANN
14 Mar 2017 Letter from Paul Diaz (RySG Chair) to Akram Atallah, Xavier Calvez, and Cyrus Namazi  [published by ICANN 16 March 2017]: "... the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) proposes that a portion of the 2012 excess application fees be used right away to offset registry fixed fees owed to ICANN ... we propose that registry operators of all delegated new gTLDs receive a 75% credit for their $6,250/quarter Fixed Registry Fee. Upon approval, this $4,687.50/quarter offset would last for four consecutive quarters, and would be eligible for renewal based on ICANN approval ... We ...  also propose that ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs ... This proposal does not preclude ICANN from considering at a later date some form of refund to all applicants ..."

b. ICANN Says "No"
29 Aug 2017 Letter from Akram Atallah to Paul Diaz [published by ICANN 30 August 2017]: "... We do not yet know how much of the New gTLD Program remaining funds will be required to address future unanticipated expenses, and by when. As such, at this time, ICANN is not in a position to commit to the dispensation of any potential remaining funds from the New gTLD Program applications fees. Thank you for your thoughtful proposal and for your understanding." 

c. RySG asks ICANN for $$$ again and to provide a "detailed accounting" etc.  
03 Oct 2017 Letter from Paul Diaz (RySG Chair) to Akram Atallah (President of ICANN's "Global Domains Division") [published by ICANN 06 October 2017] embed below (highlighting and note added)--Note: Diaz (p.2) fails to note that Section 6.7 of the Registry Agreement was an amendment added effective July 31, 2017, negotiated in secret by and between Akram Atallah's "Global Domains Division" and the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), and approved by the ICANN Board over the objections and concerns expressed by members of the ICANN community and others during the public comment period (see comments here). Full embed:

Editor's note: The new gTLDs do not suffer from a "lack of awareness" problem. That's just a false narrative being pushed by the new gTLDs lobby to explain the lack of consumer (registrant) demand for what is essentially, an unwanted and defective product. As I've stated before:
"ICANN foolishly and incompetently expanded gTLDs (generic top-level domains) from just 22 (.com, .net, .org ... .gov, .mil, .edu, .int) to over 1200 starting in 2014, and now the new gTLDs hucksters (registry operators et al) are finding out that hundreds of new gTLDs are "unwanted and unneeded" and they are going broke, and want ICANN to "bail them out." ICANN has slowly begun to realize its own "pipe dream" about new gTLDs was delusional, and is now "looking out for #1" (#1 is the ICANN organization and its budget that pays the obscenely extravagant salary and benefits packages to ICANN management and much of the staff)."
Of course, all of this is nothing new--just read Why new top-level web domains are doomed to fail | Media Network | TheGuardian.com 12 Feb 2013;  or FTC Warns That Rapid Expansion of Internet Domain Name System Could Leave Consumers More Vulnerable to Online Fraud | Federal Trade Commission Dec 16, 2011; or Expanding Internet Domains | The New York Times Dec 25, 2011: "There is no pressing need to create hundreds of new suffixes next year. It would be far better for ICANN to start with a pilot program to work out problems before expanding the system."

 Bottom Line: With its new gTLDs expansion, ICANN made a "mess of the DNS," and now its most influential "stakeholder group"--the RySG (which represents all of the generic top-level domains' (gTLDs) registry operators)--has essentially been "captured" by the new gTLDs registry operators (no need for a theDNA.org), and will continue its relentless push that ICANN essentially cave-in to all its demands.

2) Other ICANN news
a. .AMAZON Diplomacy--new gTLD .AMAZON and What It Means For ICANN--Council on Foreign Relations: "... Brazil and its allies are not without tools outside of ICANN to act on its views, including sovereign authority over commerce in their markets. This is a sensitive situation that requires diplomacy, the exercise of mutual respect, and creative mechanisms for ensuring all sides feel fairly treated."--Daniel Sepulveda, former U.S. Ambassador, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and Coordinator for Communications and Information Policy from 2013 to 2017.

b. ICANN60 Meeting schedule will be posted on Monday, 9 October 2017. Pre-ICANN60 Policy Open House | ICANN.org: Thursday, 19 October 2017, 10:00 and 19:00 UTC (via Adobe Connect and dial-in), register via this form by 17 October 2017. The "Pre-ICANN60 Policy Report" and "Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing: ICANN60 Edition" will be published by 12 October 2017. More info here.

c. ICANN's SSR2 Team already off-track? 03 October 2017 Letter from Patrik Fältström, Chair | ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, to ICANN Board (pdf) [published by ICANN 04 October 2017] re the Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review (SSR2). See also Letter from ICANN Board to SSR2 Team concerning scope of proposed work plan for SSR2’s Subteam 2.

d. WHOIS & GDPR: 02 October 2017 Letter from IPC to ICANN's Theresa Swinehart and Akram Atallah re GDPR Ad-Hoc Working Group [published by ICANN 04 October 2017] Letter signed by Greg Shatan, President | Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), excerpt below. .
IPC Letter (pdf) re: ICANN's GDPR Ad-Hoc Working Group
Editor's note: ICANN stated at its October 4 webinar that "at the request of the Business Constituency" a cross-community session will be scheduled for ICANN60 in Abu Dhabi, on Thursday, November 2, 10:30am to "work with the community" on GDPR issues.

ICANN Legal Memorandum (final version) re: Final responses to EU data protection (GDPR) questions re gTLD Registration Directory data (WHOIS)
GDPR legal memorandum to ICANN
Full memo--https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/wsgr-icann-memorandum-25sep17-en.pdf (pdf).

e. ICANN Webinar on the KSK Rollover Delay and Next Steps--ICANN.org: "The webinar [October 11, 2017, 1500–1600 UTC] will be conducted by Matt Larson, Vice President of Research in ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer. Larson will be joined in the webinar by Duane Wessels, Distinguished Engineer at Verisign, Inc. Wessels has compiled data about the readiness of resolvers for the upcoming root KSK roll." Webinar Details & How to Attend are here.

3) Names, Domains & Trademarks

 4) ICYMI Internet Domain News 
  • Project Loon in Puerto Rico (via WIRED.com): Alphabet (a/k/a Google $GOOGL $GOOG) gets approval from FCC to fly 30 Project Loon balloons over Puerto Rico for 6 months, after Irma and Maria left 90% of the island without voice or internet connectivity.

 5) Top 4 most read posts (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) this past week on DomainMondo.com: 

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2017-06-04

Holding ICANN Accountable, A Personal Sojourn Into ICANN Dysfunction

News Review | ©2016 DomainMondo.com
Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-06-04). This week features the DomainMondo.com Editor's personal sojourn in ICANN accountability. Next week the regular format of Domain Mondo's News Review will return.

Holding ICANN Accountable (facts, analysis, and opinion):
If there is one thing ICANN resists and hates more than advice from governments (ANY government) and even more than transparency, it must be accountability. I believe this flaw is so ingrained in ICANN's corporate culture that nothing short of "firing everybody and starting over" will ever cure ICANN of this organizational defect and trait. I remember the resistance and attempts of ICANN management and ICANN corporate to stop, control, and subvert the initial demands (spring-summer, 2014) of the "ICANN community" to add an "accountability component" to the IANA transition, something that neither the Obama administration (NTIA) nor ICANN corporate had anticipated at the time of the NTIA's IANA transition announcement in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2014.

In the dysfunctional rush to complete the IANA transition (a jointly-sponsored project of the U.S. government and ICANN, a California corporation), and thereby avoid the "Snowden fallout" of a "foreign takeover" of the internet by a non-U.S. agency or corporation, the IANA transition's "accountability component" was severed in two--Work Stream 1 (WS1) and Work Stream 2 (WS2)--which is why we now have a tired, semi-dysfunctional WS2 working a year behind schedule, trying to grapple with fundamental, threshold questions like jurisdiction which should have been decided in WS1 before spending $32 million dollars (including $15 million in external legal fees) to "customize" ICANN in accordance with California and U.S. laws.

Which brings me to my recent personal sojourn into "ICANN accountability." I should have known better from my prior experience which you can read about here, but in anticipation of the important comment periods closing in May, 2017, on 1).NET Registry Renewal, 2) Improving SO/AC Accountability, 3) New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP, and 4) Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review for New gTLDs, I rolled up my questions  and submitted them to ICANN's President & CEO, ICANN Chairman (& Board), and the Global Domains Division (GDD) President, in advance (April 26) of the ICANN FY17 Q3 Quarterly Stakeholder call on April 27. 2017.

On April 27, upon logging onto the Adobe Connect for the Stakeholder call, I inquired as to whether my questions for the call had been received, at which time I was advised by ICANN Staff member Mia Crampton (via Adobe private chat) "We'd like to get back to you offline so we can be as thorough as possible to your many questions."  

On May 11, not having received a response to any of my questions, I sent an email to ICANN staff Mia Crampton, Karla Hakansson (GDD staff who I had also been in contact with), and engagement @icann.org, inquiring about the status of any response to my questions, and concluding, "The comment periods close this month on the CCT RT draft report (May 19), SO/AC accountability (May 26), and .NET registry agreement (May 30). It would be useful to have the ICANN answers to my questions well before the aforesaid closing dates. Is that asking too much? Please advise."

 On May 16, still having received no response, I sent an email to the ICANN Ombudsman and Complaints @icann.org:
After promising on April 27, 2017, to answer my questions (see below), ICANN has now gone "silent" and will not even give me the courtesy of a reply to my email of May 11 below. Why is ICANN so afraid of accountability and transparency, and afraid to answer my questions? Do I need to file formal complaints against Goran Marby, Akram Atallah, Steve Crocker and the entire ICANN Board of Directors? Can any of you do anything to get ICANN and its referenced officers and directors to answer my questions? The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated.
On May 17, I heard from the ICANN Ombudsman:
I would like to acknowledge reception of your complaint and advise that I have made inquiries with ICANN. I see you have also included ICANN Complaints Department in your email. I will be discussing your complaint with the complaints officer to ensure there is no duplication in your request. I will be back in touch very shortly.
and from Complaints @icann.org:
I would also like to acknowledge receipt of your message and confirm that Herb and I are both inquiring within ICANN. We will coordinate with each other and be back in touch soon.
and then again from the Ombudsman:
I have validated confirmation from ICANN there is a team working on replies to your questions and they expect to be able to respond fully sometime next week. Should you not receive a reply by the end of next week please contact me and I will further inquire into the delay.
On May 26, 2017 (Friday of Memorial Day weekend here in the U.S.), I received ICANN's responses (both signed by Cyrus Namazi, VP Domain Name Services & Industry Engagement, Global Domains Division), to my questions (pp. 1-4), in two separate emails:
1) via Ms. Hakansson of ICANN's GDD, answers re: .NET (p. 4 of my questions);
2) via engagement @icann.org re: answers to my other questions (pp. 1-3 of my questions)

 Before receiving ICANN's answers on May 26, due to ICANN's comments close deadlines, I had already submitted my comments re:
Early on May 30, I submitted my comment on the .NET Registry Renewal (pdf), only to receive an email hours later from ICANN that:
"Posting of your message titled "Comment re: Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement" has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list." Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at ..." (emphasis added)
I have heard critics say ICANN is run like a "private members-only club" but this was the first time I had encountered ICANN rejecting a comment submitted on a public comment issue, because "non-members are not allowed."

However, nothing surprises me anymore about the depth of ICANN dysfunction, and therefore I responded to the "list administrator" (attaching a copy of the "rejection email" above):
"How do I become a "member" in order to post a comment since I already have SOI on file and have been a participant in an ICANN CCWG and am on several ICANN mailing lists as an observer?"
I also sent an email to the ICANN Ombudsman and Complaints @icann.org (with a copy of the above):
"Public comment rejected by ICANN? I need this addressed ASAP! Public comments close today."
Long story short (you can read more here), my comment had been rejected by GDD staff Ms. Hakansson (purportedly as "spam"), and after I re-submitted the comment (exactly the same way I originally submitted it), it was published.

On May 28, 2017, I sent the following to Controller @icann.org with cc to ICANN Ombudsman:
"Re: ICANN FY16 Form 990 Announcement | ICANN.org: "The Form 990 contains information and disclosures as required by the IRS on financial statements, funding sources, compensation practices, and much more. It is a useful source of information, which we invite the ICANN community to review and offer comments or questions as desired (controller @icann.org). ICANN filed its Form 990 [PDF, 5.54 MB] for the fiscal year ending 30 June 2016 with the Internal Revenue Service on 12 May 2017 in compliance with the extended due date of 15 May 2017."
"I am a gTLD domain name registrant and therefore am an "ICANN stakeholder" as well as being editor of DomainMondo.com. I have reviewed your recently filed ICANN Form 990 (FY16), in this post: News Review: A Red Flag in ICANN Financial Disclosures? | NR 2017-05-21
"I request your answers, explanations, and provide the information requested therein, as well as ICANN's rationale(s) for not disclosing all remuneration, income, and other compensation paid to ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker directly, or indirectly via his corporation Shinkuro, Inc., or via any other entity, device, or scheme, for the period of the FORM990 (FY16) and for the period he has been an ICANN Board member (2008 to present).

"For your assistance I have highlighted the questions raised in the post below. I also ask whether any ICANN officer or director is or has been doing business with ICANN via their personal "corporation" or other entity, device, or scheme, for the period of the Form 990 (FY16) and for the period from 2008 to present similar to Mr. Crocker, or otherwise, and again the explanations and rationales for "hiding" and not disclosing that information to the IRS and the global multistakeholder community, in accordance with your obligations under the Internal Revenue Code, laws of the United States of America and State of California, and ICANN bylaws and articles of incorporation.
"Further, in view of past experience with ICANN directors, officers, and staff failing to provide timely, responsive answers, evading accountability, and otherwise being non-transparent, your failure to reply within 10 days hereof will be deemed a refusal to answer."

On June 1, I received the following response Xavier Calvez, ICANN CFO, to the foregoing:
"Dear Sir,
As the signatory of the ICANN Form 990, I have been provided with your question on this document. I hereby acknowledge receipt of your email and question, and thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this document and inquiring about it. Your question and its upcoming response further enhance the transparency on this document. I will submit your email and question for publication on the “Correspondence” page of our website. Our response will also be published on this page, and you will be notified of such publication as soon as it will have occurred. Thank you."

On June 2, 2017, I sent the following to ICANN staff Mia Crampton and engagement @ICANN.org, cc to ICANN Ombudsman and Complaints @ICANN.org:
"I have reviewed the document signed by Cyrus Namazi and sent May 26, 2017 in response to the first three pages of my questions submitted on April 26, 2017, in advance of the ICANN Quarterly Stakeholder Call on April 27, 2017, and directed to the ICANN President & CEO, ICANN Chairman (& Board), and GDD President. While Mr. Namazi failed to address many of my questions, I am nevertheless most interested (and persistent) in having ICANN's response to the question below which is on p.3 of my questions which Mr. Namazi failed to address, and I have again set out below:
"In December, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division told ICANN:
“ICANN is obligated to manage gTLDs in the interests of registrants and to protect the public interest in competition. ICANN appears to have assumed that the introduction of new gTLDs necessarily will enhance competition and promote choice and innovation, without offering any evidence to support that assumption .... The Division makes two specific recommendations. First, ICANN’s general approach to new gTLDs should be revised to give greater consideration to consumer [registrant] interests. ICANN should more carefully weigh potential consumer harms against potential consumer benefits before adding new gTLDs and renewing new gTLD registry agreements. Second, the RFP process and proposed registry agreement should include provisions that would enable ICANN to constrain new registry operators from exercising market power. In particular, ICANN should establish competitive mechanisms for authorizing new gTLDs and renewals of gTLD registry agreements whereby prospective gTLD operators would compete for gTLDs by proposing registry terms – including maximum fee schedules – that would provide consumer [registrant] benefits.”—U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, December 3, 2008 (pdf) (read the entire letter!) via a U.S. Department of Commerce (NTIA) letter (pdf) in December, 2008.
"Why did ICANN reject (and to this day continues to reject) the wise, experienced, expert advice of the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, which is among the world’s foremost authorities on “consumer choice and competition” issues?
I note that the correspondence I referenced above appears in ICANN's records at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/baker-to-dengate-thrush-18dec08-en.pdf. I have searched and have not found any response from ICANN to the December 2008 correspondence from NTIA and DOJ referenced above. I find a response in April 2009 from ICANN Sr. V.P. Kurt Pritz to NTIA but that letter specifically states it is responding to correspondence from NTIA of August 1, 2008, NOT the correspondence I referenced above. I know Mr. Namazi was not employed by ICANN until 2013, but my questions were not directed to him. They were specifically directed to the ICANN President & CEO Goran Marby, ICANN Chairman Steve Crocker (& Board), and Global Domains Division President Akram Atallah. Mr. Atallah worked alongside Kurt Pritz, both before and after Mr. Pritz resigned due to an undisclosed "conflict of interest" in late 2012. In addition, the current ICANN Chairman has been on the ICANN Board from late 2008 to present. Since the the new gTLDs program is currently being reviewed and initial planning is underway for the "next round(s)," it would be helpful to understand whether ICANN, its community, its management and staff, and its Board of Directors, ever responded, discussed, or otherwise seriously considered the specific recommendations from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division dealing with new gTLDs, "consumer choice and competition," and consumer (registrants) protection, as set forth specifically in DOJ's letter of December 3, 2008, and if not, why not? If there are documentary records specifically applicable in answering this, it would be helpful if you could provide direct links to those documents since the ICANN website is a "mess" and has many broken links.
"Note that I deferred having an answer given to these questions during the stakeholder call on April 27, 2017, in response to Mia Crampton's request at that time in Adobe private chat: "We'd like to get back to you offline so we can be as thorough as possible to your many questions."
"I look forward to your response."
No response from anyone at ICANN as of the time of this post. Stay tuned.

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

Most popular post (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) this past week on DomainMondo.com: 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2017-05-31

My .NET Comment Was REJECTED (at first) By ICANN, Was Yours?

Public comments on the Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement close 30 May 2017 at 23:59 UTC, which is 7:59pm EDT (US).

Because I had a busy Tuesday morning out of the office, I stayed up late last night to finish my comment (8 pages long--embedded below) and submitted it very early Tuesday morning (EDT - US) before going to bed. Right after submitting the comment, I received the ICANN email:
Hours later I received the following email from ICANN:
I discovered that email when I returned to my office Tuesday afternoon, and immediately responded:
I also forwarded a copy of the foregoing to the ICANN Ombudsman and ICANN Complaints Office with the following email:
I then received an email from ICANN Complaints Office:
And then I heard from an ICANN GDD (Global Domains Division) staff member:
And then I received the following from another ICANN staff member (Carlos Reyes):
And after submitting my comment again (exactly the same way I had originally sent it), I received the following:
Here's my comment (pdf), also embedded in full below. All comments "accepted" by ICANN may be viewed here. In the course of the chaotic back-and-forth I asked the ICANN Ombudsman and Complaints Officer "how many comments are being censored (rejected) by ICANN?" and never heard back. If your comment was rejected by ICANN, please let me know via Twitter @DomainMondo or via the email address at the bottom of the DomainMondo.com web page.


My Comment Conclusion (pp. 7-8):
IV. Conclusion
1) RPMs specifically designed, and applicable to new gTLDs, are not appropriate for legacy gTLDs .COM, .NET, and .ORG, and I commend ICANN for resisting pressure from trademark and other special interests who may urge otherwise.

2) Verisign is a capable and qualified registry operator to continue operating the .NET generic top-level domain.

3) However, I have three objections to the proposed renewal of the .NET registry agreement, the first two are substantive and deal with pricing, and the third is an “ICANN process” objection:
1. The Section 7.2 ICANN fee of $0.75 per .NET domain name is discriminatory and unconscionable to .NET domain name registrants, and ICANN should reduce it to $0.25 (similar to other gTLDs). What may have been negotiated or appropriate in 2005, is no longer applicable 12 years later. ICANN should be ashamed for being so greedy and unfair to .NET registrants who are the ones bearing this cost.

2. The Section 7.3(a) provision for 10% compounded annual increases in .NET registration, renewal and transfer fees is unconscionable, particularly considering .NET has approximately 15 million domain name registrations, and the publicly reported profitability of Verisign, and its low cost of operations. It may be easy for ICANN staff to “roll over” and continue using the same boilerplate from previous renewals, but it has no justification based on reality—industry operating costs, market conditions, economic factors, and other relevant financial factors. This “formula” would lead to a doubling of registration fees every 7.2 years (Rule of 72). ICANN legal and GDD staff and management need a refresher course on good public stewardship and how to represent the global internet community in the global public interest.

Compare the ccTLD pricing for ccTLD .US ($6.50) with only about 2.5 million domain name registrations.

Approval of this proposed renewal with the $0.75 ICANN fee and 10% compounded annual increases in registration/renewal/transfer fees intact, will most likely cause renewed calls for government(s) to oversee ICANN, or replace ICANN with a new or existing intergovernmental multi-party or multistakeholder organization which can protect consumers (registrants), and the global public interest.

3. ICANN’s process for gTLD registry renewals is dysfunctional. Before beginning renewal “discussions” or negotiations with any registry operator, ICANN should first solicit comments from registrants, registrars, and other interested parties about the performance of the operator and suggestions for changes in the registry agreement. Only after that initial comment period has concluded should ICANN begin discussions with the registry operator. This is a simple change that will result in ICANN staff being much better informed and prepared to represent registrants, registrars, and the global internet community in renewal discussions with the registry operator.
-- John Poole, editor, DomainMondo.com

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2017-05-14

ICANN New gTLDs' Domain Name Registrations Implode | NR 2017-05-14

News Review | ©2016 DomainMondo.com
Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-05-14):

 Features •  1)  ICANN New gTLDs' Domain Name Registrations Implode, 2) .NET Registry Agreement, 3) Other ICANN news, 4) Names, Domains & Trademarks: INTA meeting May 20-24, 5) ICYMI, 6) Q1 2017 Earnings Season, 7) Most Popular.

1)  ICANN New gTLDs' Domain Name Registrations Implode:
UPDATE May 18, 2017: New gTLDs' Implosion Unabated--almost 2 million decrease in new gTLDs' domain name registrations April 13 - May 17, 2017
ICANN new gTLDs' Domain Name Registrations Implode (2017 graphic)
Review the data (via nTLDstats.com) showing the implosion began in mid-April (see Jan 2017 - present date chart above) and read this week's tweets of the week, all from @DomainKing:

[Editor's note: comments close 19 May 2017 23:59 UTC, on the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team [CCT-RT] Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs. I intend to submit a comment, however I am waiting to receive answers from ICANN to the questions I submitted (pdf)(embed below) on April 26, 2017, in advance of the quarterly ICANN stakeholder call on April 27.  At that time I was assured by ICANN staff that my questions would be answered offline "so we can be as thorough as possible to your many questions"]:

I'm still working on a title for my forthcoming comment to CCT-RT, possibilities:
  • ICANN's New gTLDs: A New Generation of Ransomware for Domain Name Registrants?
  • The Sordid History of ICANN & Its New gTLDs from Beckstrom-Thrush-Pritz (pdf) to Atallah & Chehade;
  • ICANN & Its New gTLDs: A Legal Racket or Consumer (registrant) Scam?
  • New gTLDs: A Dream Come True for Cybercriminals, Cybersquatters, Spammers, & ICANN?
  • ICANN's New gTLDs Program: Greed + Incompetence = Choice & Innovation?
If you have a suggestion, feel free to send it to me via Twitter @DomainMondo.

2) .NET Registry Agreement: Page 4 of my questions above concerns the proposed renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement (comments close May 30). Inexplicably, this past Friday evening thru Saturday morning, the open comments page had deleted the .NET Registry Agreement entry, and the ICANN webpage on the "Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement" was returning a "404"--
ICANN.org 404 page

3) Other ICANN news
ICANN Logo and Full Name
•  Agenda | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board, 18 May 2017:
  • Consent Agenda: 1) Approval of Minutes; 2) Initiating the Second Review of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
  • Main Agenda: 1)Approval of the Global Amendment to the Base New gTLD Registry Agreement; 2) Release of Second-Level Country and Territory Names in New gTLDs; 3) AOB
  • Executive Session – Confidential

•   ICANN59 Community Webinar | ICANN.org: "ICANN will be holding an informational webinar on Tuesday, 16 May 2017, at 1600 UTC."

 •   The Fourth Middle East Domain Name System (DNS) Forum to Take Place in Cairo, Egypt | ICANN.org  22 and 23 May.

•   2016 Reconsideration Requests Status Update – 08 May 2017 | ICANN.org:08 May 2017:  reconsideration-requests-status-2016-08may17-en.pdf [138 KB]

4) Names, Domains & Trademarks
graphic ©2017 DomainMondo.com: "Names, Domains & Trademarks"

5) ICYMI Internet Domain News 
graphic ©2017 DomainMondo.com: "ICYMI Internet Domain News"

6) Q1 2017 Earnings Season
graphic ©2017 DomainMondo.com: "Q1 2017 Earnings Season | DomainMondo.com"
•  Q1 2017 results this coming week: Alibaba Group (NYSE: BABA), May 18 at 7:30 am EDT via DomainMondo.com.  This past week: Tucows $TCX and Rightside $NAME.

•  The Most Interesting Thing About the Buffett / Seides Bet | ritholtz.com: "Investing is extremely difficult, even for the best and brightest. Randomness plays a far greater role in our success or failure than we’re comfortable with. And most of the time it’s better to be lucky than good."

 7) Most popular posts (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) this past week on DomainMondo.com: 
  1. Q1 2017 Results LIVE Webcasts May 9: Rightside $NAME & Tucows $TCX
  2. News Review: Why New gTLDs Mistakes Don't Matter | NR 2017-05-07

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 
[All "Editor's note" comments are the opinions of the above]

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2017-05-07

News Review: Why New gTLDs Mistakes Don't Matter | NR 2017-05-07

News Review | ©2016 DomainMondo.com
Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-04-30):

 Features •  1) Why All Those New gTLDs Mistakes Really Don't Matter,  2) An Important Message to ICANN,  3) ICANN News: Gaming the System the ICANN Way--Only Schmucks Pay Their Own Way to ICANN Meetings, and Something Really Is Broken in ICANN, 4) Names, Domains & Trademarks: Domain Investors Beware, 5) ICYMI News, 6) Q1 2017: Tucows & Rightside, 7) Most Popular.

1) Collisions, Unpredictable Predatory Pricing, Universal Acceptance #FAILS, & Other Fiascos--Why All Those New gTLDs Mistakes Don't Matter--Quote of the week from Oh, Those Wild and Crazy New TLDs | circleid.com:
Those Wild and Crazy New gTLDs ©2017 DomainMondo.com (graphic)
"... Running a registry is apparently harder than it looks, but fortunately, so few people care about new TLDs that mistakes don't matter."-- John Levine (emphasis added) 
See also M3AAWG Appoints Dr. John Levine Liaison to ICANN | ICANN.org and Letter from Göran Marby to Jerry Upton | ICANN.org re: M3AAWG's Liaison to ICANN.

 2)  An Important Message to ICANN, new gTLD registry operators, promoters, hucksters, shills & the "ICANN community" re: new gTLDs--Wishful thinking will not change how domain names are used | OnlineDomain.com.

3) ICANN news
a)  Gaming the System the ICANN Way--Apparently, only schmucks pay their own way to ICANN meetings--"The ccNSO Council therefore seeks an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots by 14 slots, bringing the total number of ccNSO traveling slots to 26."--ccNSO April 28, 2017 (pdf). Here's a look (pdf) at the crowd riding the ICANN gravy train at its last meeting in Copenhagen.

 b) Something Really Is Broken in ICANN (and some ICANN stakeholders know it): two excerpts from an ICANN58 session (pdf) March 14, 2017:
[Editor's Note: GDD is ICANN's Global Domains Division, headed by the former ICANN CEO's crony, Akram Atallah, with staffing that includes other cronies of the former CEO and Atallah. Becky Burr is an ICANN Board Member and is also employed by Neustar, Inc., a TLDs registry operator and registry services provider which has contracts with ICANN. For more background information see News Review: ICANN Secretly Colludes With New gTLD Registry Operators 2016-07-17.]

 c) New gTLDs, ICANN's Boondoggle: Buy Rightside: A Fast Growing Digital Toll Road[?] | SeekingAlpha.com 04 May 2017 Comment #3: "... Google and Amazon now realize that new gTLDs are a "loser business" and both have pulled back on their original plans for new gTLDs ... Even worse, ICANN is planning on opening up applications for another round of new gTLDs within the next 2 years. More competition for Rightside coming. How many new gTLDs will there eventually be? 10,000? 20,000? No one knows. Business for the new gTLDs registry operators is already so bad that one announced recently price increases of up to 3000% for its new gTLDs, in a last ditch attempt to survive, see: http://bit.ly/2qEKaNI ... More government regulation is coming. China has already taken the lead and closely regulates all TLDs within its sovereign internet behind the "Great Firewall." Other countries such as Russia are now adopting the "Chinese Model." Here in the U.S., the Department of Justice Antitrust Division is reportedly investigating ICANN and its new gTLDs program--even Verisign has received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice: http://bit.ly/2q3XG0r ..." (emphasis added)

d) Total IANA Transition Costs Jul 2014 - Mar 2017 $32.6 million (almost half to law firms):

e)  Correspondence | ICANN.org: 26 April 2017:Letter from Chris Disspain to All Concerned [Published 28 April 2017] Chair | ICANN Board Governance Committee Update on the Review of the New gTLD Community Priority Evaluation Process--
"... The review is currently underway. We recognize that ensuring we fulfill all of our obligations means taking more time, but we believe that this is the right approach. The review will complete as soon as practicable and once it is done, the BGC, and Board where appropriate, will promptly consider the relevant pending Reconsideration Requests. Meanwhile, the BGC’s consideration of the following Reconsideration Requests is on hold: 14-30 (.LLC), 14-32 (.INC), 14-33 (.LLP), 16-3 (.GAY), 16-5 (.MUSIC), 16-8 (.CPA), 16-11 (.HOTEL), and 16-12 (.MERCK) ..." 

 f)  ICANN59 Preliminary Block Schedule (pdf) ICANN59 June 26-29, Johannesburg, South Africa

g) Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: ICANN Management Organization Chart | ICANN.org 01 May 2017.


4) Names, Domains & Trademarks
Names, Domains & Trademarks ©2017 DomainMondo.com (graphic)
  • Domain Investors Beware: "... As later investors acquire portfolios from early investors there will undoubtedly be a percentage of domain names composed of words, letters, and phrases that will have become challengeable by [trademark] mark owners with subsequently acquired statutory rights in those terms ..."--IPLegalCorner.com
  • Domain Names Are Fading From User View| circleid.com : "The days of domain names as the center of internet policy and internet governance are ending. Domain name speculation will slowly become a quaint shadow of its former self ... The fading of domain names brings benefits ...  it will obviate the need for most of the functions of ICANN." [Editor's note: Yes that would definitely be a benefit!]

5) ICYMI Internet Domain News
  • Microsoft: Advancing a Digital Geneva Convention (pdf) to protect cyberspace in times of peace ... The world needs new international rules to protect the public from nationstate threats in cyberspace. In short, the world needs a Digital Geneva Convention ... 
  • China's internet regulator, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), issued new rules, effective June 1, requiring online news services to be managed by Chinese Communist party-sanctioned editorial staff, and extending restrictions on what news can be produced and distributed by online platforms. The rules apply to all political, economic, military, or diplomatic reports or opinion articles on blogs, websites, forums, search engines, instant messaging apps and all other platforms that select or edit news and information according to Reuters.com. 
  • Digital Watch Newsletter 20 April 2017 (pdf): The Privacy Shield, created to allow US companies to transfer and process personal data of EU citizens without breaching EU rules, continues to attract concerns over the adequacy of the protection it offers. Such concerns have recently been raised by the EP and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).

6) Q1 2017 Earnings Season

 •  Q1 2017 Financial Results on Domain Mondo this past week Apple $AAPL, GoDaddy $GDDY, and Facebook $FB. This coming week on May 9th both Tucows $TCX and Rightside $NAME report Q1 2017 results.

•  GoDaddy Inc. Announces Proposed Follow-on Offering and Repurchase | godaddy.net 2017-05-03.

•  Domain name registry services and technology company Neustar Reports Results for First Quarter 2017 | Neustar.biz: "NPAC Services contributed $128.3 million in revenue. Net income for the first quarter of 2017 totaled $45.4 million, or $0.80 per share."
  • How much does Neustar's NPAC Services business contribute to Neustar's bottom line (net income)? 100%? See https://seekingalpha.com/article/3249845-neustar-poised-for-massive-nosedive.
  • When does that very profitable NPAC Services business end? Probably 2018.
  • "Neustar ended the quarter with cash and cash equivalents of $47.0 million and outstanding debt under its credit facilities and senior notes of $751.6 million ..."  
[Editor's note: by way of comparison, "Verisign ended the first quarter with cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $1.8 billion ..."  Also note Neustar NYSE:NSR will be acquired for $33.50 per share in cash by a group led by Golden Gate Capital in a transaction expected to close no later than Q3 2017.]

 7) Most popular posts (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) this past week on DomainMondo.com: 

 -- John Poole, Editor* of Domain Mondo 

 *Note: all references to Editor's Note herein are to the above.

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Domain Mondo archive