New gTLD Domain Extensions, ICANN Dysfunction, dot INSURANCE

As reported by Tom O'Toole at Bloomberg BNA, fTLD's successful application for new gTLD .INSURANCE is now designated by ICANN as "on hold" and correspondence from fTLD counsel to ICANN indicate the cause for the "hold" is Donuts (or one of its affiliates) which applied (through an affiliate), unsuccessfully, for .INSURANCE, but also (through another affiliate) applied for, and was awarded, .INSURE, which has launched. The correspondence (pdf) of fTLD's counsel to ICANN, none of which has been released by ICANN, provides a revealing look into the dysfunctional world of ICANN and its new gTLDs program--correspondence excerpts follow below (emphasis added)--

... Not only is fTLD deeply troubled by ICANN's handling of this matter, but we are confounded by ICANN's apparent willingness to extend the time period for Donuts to file a notice of request for Independent Review Process ("IRP") relating to the seven strings, including .INSURANCE, named in its July 18, 2014, request for CEP...

Setting aside the fact that any request by Donuts for a CEP relating to .INSURANCE is untimely and improper, any new purported time period for commencing an IRP also has expired, unless ICANN has afforded Donuts extra time... 

[W]e presume that ICANN has entered into an agreement with Donuts to extend the period for filing an IRP. If this is the case, ICANN is improperly and unduly delaying fTLD's progress towards delegation, at material detriment to fTLD...

During the several months in which fTLD’s application has been on hold as a result of various actions taken by Donuts, its affiliate, Pioneer Willow, LLC (“Pioneer”), which applied for a competing gTLD—.INSURE—has proceeded to enter into a registry agreement with ICANN and benefit immensely from the delays suffered by fTLD. On September 3, 2014, .INSURE entered into general availability without any competition from .INSURANCE. Each day that Donuts continues to delay fTLD’s application for .INSURANCE is another day that .INSURANCE loses registrants to .INSURE. ICANN must put an end to these anti-competitive actions and, at the very least, stop facilitating them by holding fTLD’s application hostage to Donuts’ improper and untimely attempts to engage in ICANN’s accountability mechanisms... 

Another concern, which should be brought to ICANN’s attention and that of the broader Internet community, is the apparent collaboration by certain portfolio applicants—companies associated with a large number of applications—in abusing ICANN’s internal processes in order to impede community based applicants from moving forward with their applications for the same strings. ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) has repeatedly expressed its concern that the ICANN processes and in particular the auction mechanism raise public policy concerns by routinely disadvantaging community applicants. In light of the high costs associated with Community Objections and the high standard community applicants must meet in order to prevail in Community Priority Evaluations, the GAC reiterated in four separate Communiqués its Advice that ICANN consider “preferential treatment for all applications which have demonstrable community support.” Despite the GAC’s consistent and repeated Advice on the subject, ICANN has failed to give due regard to the Advice and has not conducted any meaningful discussion or briefing with the GAC on the subject of community applicants. In light of ICANN’s apparent disregard of repeated GAC Advice ....

gTLD applicants, such as fTLD, have a right to know the timeframes for the accountability mechanisms directly affecting their applications. Moreover, all applicants interested in pursuing ICANN’s accountability mechanisms—or applicants concerned that competitors might do so—have a right to know if ICANN is unable to comply with the deadlines set forth in its Bylaws and the extent to which they can expect such accountability mechanisms to be delayed. Because ICANN is tasked through its Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation with operating in a transparent and accountable manner, fTLD urges ICANN to provide a copy of the information requested…

read more here (pdf)

Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo

ICANN Insiders On New gTLDs: Mistakes, Fiascos, Horrible Implementation

A Second Round of New gTLD domain name extensions coming, the Law of Bad Ideas Redux:

They have begun talking about another round of new gTLDs at ICANN, and the transcript (pdf) makes for interesting reading--even ICANN insiders admit the dysfunction and systemic failures within ICANN relating to the new gTLDs, here's an excerpt--

"We keep on adding things as - before I get to speak. On the 19 policy issues that were identified by the GNSO, it's not necessarily the fact that we forgot any or we got the policy wrong, it's those policy recommendations were written in such a generic unspecific way - and somewhat deliberately partly because we didn't want to spend another several years working on that PDP, the interpretation of them ended up being different than what we imagined.

"And, you know, yes from the point of view of that PDP it was implementation but clearly now we understand there were policy issues. And so, you know, Avri [Avri Doria – NCSG] in the chat said they [ICANN] did a horrible job of implementing it. Well, I guess horrible is a judgment call. But certainly they [ICANN] were given - staff was given a lot of latitude - staff and the community because we spent God knows how many years talking about it - but in retrospect clearly there were mistakes made.

"And if the policy had been more specific we might not have made those mistakes or at least they would have been deliberate mistakes. So it's not so much that we had the wrong ones or we did it wrong but we really are going to have to provide more guidance to the second round so we don't have some of the fiascos we had.

"The second point is, and Tijani alluded to that in terms of applicant support, but it's equally true in community applications. There was such a visceral fear of gaming [the system by new gTLD applicants] that all of these things, which could have made something easier for some - for applicants, the rules were made - the bar was set so high the rules were made so rigid that it almost guaranteed that no one would end up using that path."--Alan Greenberg - ALAC

source: ICANN Transcription
GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group
Monday 08 September 2014 at 14:00 UTC

It all just confirms what I said before: ICANN Process for New gTLDs Dysfunctional -- from the beginning

UPDATE: Greenberg Selected as Next ALAC Chair - Alan Greenberg (see above), a long-time member of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), has been selected as the next ALAC Chair. Greenberg replaces Olivier Crépin-Leblond, who has served as ALAC Chair since December 2010.

Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo

Separating IANA from ICANN, the path forward

From my comment* at the IGP blog post (link below):

France has now taken the lead to open discussion outside of the "ICANN venue" as to the future of internet governance. Fadi Chehade ironically complains about those who want to delay the IANA transition when, in all probability, it will be him and the ICANN board which will want to delay the transition once they realize the vast majority of the global community wants  to separate IANA from ICANN. ICANN is severely dysfunctional; whether ICANN can even be reformed or should just be replaced with a new policy making body (as France is proposing) may take a long time to resolve. In the meantime, the global multistakeholder community should not allow the issues of ICANN accountability and reform to delay the IANA transition. This is easily resolved by separating IANA from ICANN as soon as possible. It appears many nations and others in the global multistakeholder community are beginning to see this as the best and most prudent path forward. Once the IANA technical functions are separated from ICANN, that fact will actually assist the process of how to make ICANN, or its successor, accountable in the public interest to the global multistakeholder community, in its policy-making and administrative role.

For more on this issue, read Milton Mueller's posting at the Internet Governance Project blog (link below, excerpt follows):

Clarity emerging on IANA transition | IGP Blog: ".... structural separation of ICANN as policy maker from IANA as implementer would prevent concentration of unchecked power in ICANN’s hands and help keep IANA accountable – without having to solve all of ICANN’s other accountability problems at once. Once the two were separated, the ICANN community could take a longer-term, less rushed approach to reforming ICANN’s policy making processes. Issues such as the role of members in electing the board, ICANN’s legal status, new appeals mechanisms and the like could take years to develop and implement. It is unwise to tie the IANA transition to those changes. At a meeting with the Noncommercial Users Constituency in London, NTIA director Lawrence Strickling and State Department Ambassador Danny Sepulveda confirmed our sense that structural separation of IANA from ICANN is not ‘out of scope.’... The IANA transition Coordinating Committee, Strickling said, “can do what it wants” in that regard. Strickling himself expressed support for separation of policy and implementation...."

As for the particulars of IANA separation from ICANN, there are many proposals including the IGP proposal, and even Domain Mondo's, all of which are very similar in their approach and outcome.

*John Poole
Domain Mondo
June 29, 2014

Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo