Showing posts with label Registry Agreement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Registry Agreement. Show all posts

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 What may have been negotiated or appropriate in 2005, is no longer applicable 12 years later.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

2017-05-28

News Review: The WHOIS Way To Lose Domain Names | NR 2017-05-28

News Review | ©2016 DomainMondo.com
Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-05-28):

Features •  1) The WHOIS Way To Lose Domain Names, 2) a. New gTLDs Lose Over 2 Million Domain Name Registrations In Just 6 Weeks, b. Neustar Loses Again, c. Tucows' OpenSRS Drops Nine Uniregistry new gTLDs, d. MMX and Web.com for sale? e) #INTA17 disaster, pity the lawyers, 3) ICANN News: Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement Comments Close May 30, 4) ICYMI, 5) Investing, 6) Most Popular.

1) The WHOIS Way To Lose Your Domain Names--false or erroneous (including outdated) WHOIS info--check the WHOIS or contact your registrar(s) to make sure everything is correct and up-to-date. You may be surprised--I once discovered incorrect information on a transferred domain that I believe had been erroneously entered by staff at the prior registrar. Also note that any change in your registration info may invoke a 60-day lock by your registrar due to a poorly designed ICANN policy to prevent domain name theft (check with your registrar before making any change if you need to avoid the lock)--Contractual Compliance Update | GDD Summit Madrid | Presentation | ICANN.org:

2) Names, Domains & Trademarks
a. Deathwatch: ICANN's New gTLDs Still Losing Domain Name Registrations (source: ntldstats.com):
A decrease of more than 2 million new gTLD domain name registrations in just six weeks.
At this rate (a net loss of -2.1 million registrations every 6 weeks), ICANN's new gTLDs will have a total of -0- domain name registrations by Fall, 2018.

b. Neustar Loses Again, in Court: "On April 6, 2015, Neustar, Inc. (the “Company”) filed a Petition for Review asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to “hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside” the FCC Order issued on March 27, 2015, approving a recommendation by the North American Numbering Council for a competitor to serve as the next Local Number Portability Administrator (“LNPA”) ... The Court of Appeals issued its decision on May 26, 2017. The Court of Appeals denied the Company’s Petition for Review. The Company is reviewing the decision and continuing to consider its options."--Form 8-K, May 26, 2017. The loss of the LNPA a/k/a NPAC contracts will likely have a huge negative impact on Neustar's financials. Neustar is a technology company and domain name registry services provider (.biz, .co, .us ...). As I reported May 7, 2017:
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 SeekingAlpha.com. • 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 ..."
c. Tucows' (NASDAQ: TCX) OpenSRS responds to Uniregistry new gTLDs' price increases:
"Uniregistry has announced a number of TLD price increases, taking effect on September 8th, 2017. Our main concern with this type of increase is that it has the potential to undermine consumer trust in the new gTLD program. Here’s everything you need to know, and what action we suggest you take ... 2. We will no longer support the TLDs with exponential price increase - The decision to discontinue support for these select TLDs was made to protect you [resellers] and your customers [domain name registrants] from unknowingly overpaying in a price range well beyond $100 per year. No longer supported as of September 8th, 2017"--
source: OpenSRS.com
Read more at: Uniregistry price increases | OpenSRS.com (emphasis added).

d) State of the Domain Name Industry:
  • New gTLDs registry operator Minds + Machines Group Limited: "following a number of informal approaches from external parties, the Board has appointed US investment banking firm, Headwaters MB, to review the various strategic options open to the Company to maximise value for shareholders."

e) #INTA17 disaster, pity the lawyers:
Even the trademark lawyers are tired and bored of ICANN's new gTLDs (lone tweet below):

3) ICANN news:

Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement | ICANN.org: Comments close 30 May 2017 23:59 UTC. ICANN finally answered my questions (sort of). I plan on filing a comment and attaching ICANN's answers. Stay tuned!

Pre-ICANN59 Policy Update Webinar | ICANN.org: The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will host a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN59 Policy Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa. RSVP by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. More at the link above.

ICANN Hires First Consumer Safeguards Director | ICANN.org: Bryan Schilling will be joining as the ICANN's first Consumer Safeguards Director, and will address illegal, infringing, and abusive activity impacting the DNS, reporting directly to Jamie Hedlund, SVP Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards.

Special Meeting of the ICANN Board | ICANN.org18 May 2017:

4) ICYMI Internet Domain News 
But also note: Net Neutrality Ideals Are Already Dead | Bloomberg.com: "Netflix and other rich companies pay internet service providers to connect directly into the providers' broadband plumbing. These "paid peering" fees are perfectly legal even under the stricter regulations the FCC is seeking to unravel."
  • NSA Surveillance: U.S. Fourth Circuit decision allows Wikimedia's lawsuit against National Security Agency’s (NSA) mass interception of Americans’ international digital communications, to proceed.--TheHill.com.
  • Internet Privacy: House Republican unveils internet privacy bill | TheHill.com: "Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced legislation on Friday that would force broadband providers and internet companies trying to collect and sell consumer’s digital data to first get their expressed consent."

5) Investing:
1. "A lot of other people are trying to be brilliant and we are just trying to stay rational. And it’s a big advantage.”– Charlie Munger
2. “People tend to act too frequently in the stock market because stocks are so liquid. There are no called strikes, so ignore people yelling at you ‘Swing you bum!’” – Warren Buffett
8. “When you go out in the world, look for the job that you would take if you didn’t need a job … You really want to think about what will make you feel good when you get older about your life, and you, at least generally, want to keep going in that direction.” – Warren Buffett

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

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER

2016-12-29

Caveat Emptor Domain Name Registrants re: ICANN Base New gTLD RA

There is now no question that ICANN, post-IANA transition, is a domain name industry-captured organization and does not operate in the global public interest, but completely disregards the interests of domain name registrants. Ted Cruz may have been right, the IANA transition may have been a terrible mistake, premature at best. Maybe Trump can do something.
Caveat Emptor new gTLD domain name registrants: ICANN intends to eliminate price increase transparency for new gTLD domain names in its ICANN base new gTLD Registry Agreement (RA):
"Comments on the proposed amendments. A number of comments relate to the proposed amendments to Sections 2.9 and 2.10. The proposed amendment removes the requirement that a Registry Operator notify ICANN (in addition to its contracted ICANN accredited registrar partners) of increases in the price charged by a Registry Operator to register a domain name in the TLD. ICANN and the Working Group agreed to this modification for several reasons. First, it should be noted that a Registry Operator is not required to provide ICANN with the registration pricing initially charged to ICANN accredited registrars to register names in a TLD. Second, the price charged by Registry Operators is viewed as the “wholesale” price for registering a domain name in a TLD and is not necessarily the price ultimately charged to registrants by ICANN accredited registrars. As such, Registry Operator’s pricing is only one data point that leads to the price charged to registrants, and the disclosure and analysis of this data may be misleading to registrants. Third, it is not necessary for ICANN to be notified of price increases in order to ensure Registry Operator’s compliance with the substantive requirements of Section 2.10 as ICANN’s compliance department is entitled to request this information as part of its normal compliance process. Fourth, ICANN is concerned that collecting, retaining and analyzing this information could be seen as ICANN playing a role in the pricing policies and decision-making of Registry Operators, which historically ICANN has not done."--Updated ICANN Staff Report on Proposed Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry Agreement (pdf) at page 9 (emphasis added).
What's wrong with removing price increase transparency? Healthy competition in a free market is destroyed when price transparency is removed:
A 'free market' in healthcare is doomed | LATimes.com: Unleashing the power of choice and competition is the best way to lower healthcare costs and improve quality,” declares House Speaker Paul Ryan in his conservative manifesto “A Better Way.” The problem with that, however, is that the healthcare industry — hospitals, drug companies, insurers — have worked tirelessly to prevent the medical marketplace from functioning with sufficient transparency and efficiency to allow consumers to benefit from classic supply-and-demand economics. Instead, the opaque and frequently unfathomable healthcare market promotes runaway corporate greed that often can be countered only by shaming businesses into behaving fairly and responsibly.
And that Fourth reason for not even collecting and publishing pricing information:
Fourth, ICANN is concerned that [merely] collecting, retaining and analyzing this information could be seen as ICANN playing a role in the pricing policies and decision-making of Registry Operators, which historically ICANN has not done."
"ICANN is concerned"? Really? How so? Sounds like ICANN can not handle the responsibility of being a responsible steward acting in the global public interest--pricing information should be transparent to everyone in a free competitive market--but ICANN shirks its responsibilities to the global internet community, which includes domain name registrants!

ICANN obviously never really wanted "competition" in the domain name marketplace, instead ICANN prefers crony capitalism and monopolistic franchises exploiting domain name registrants, enabling opaque pricing that encourages the 'runaway greed' of ICANN's "partners," the gTLD domain name registry operators. Likewise the ICANN fee waivers enabled by the amendments will encourage gTLD registry operators' dependency upon ICANN for favoritism, and will ultimately lead to corruption between ICANN management/staff and the gTLD registry operators.

ICANN Publishes Updated Staff Report on Proposed Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry Agreement | ICANN.org: 
Los Angeles – 22 December 2016 – "ICANN today published a revised Staff Report of Public Comment Proceeding regarding Proposed Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry Agreement. Read the Reissued Report [PDF, 544 KB]. The reissued report supplements the staff report published on 17 August 2016 and includes additional explanatory text in Section I and a revised Section IV to reflect an analysis of the public comments by ICANN and the Working Group. More Information: Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry Agreement." Updated as of 22 December 2016:
"This Staff Report (see Reissued Report below) supplements the Staff Report published on 17 August 2016 to include additional explanatory text in Section I and a revised Section IV to reflect discussions between ICANN and the Working Group in response to the public comments. On 17 August 2016, ICANN published a summary report outlining comments received and committed to later publish an updated Report of Public Comment Proceeding to include analysis of the public comments, once considered with the Working Group as provided for in the Registry Agreement. For convenience, Sections I, II, and III have been reproduced from the 17 August 2016 Staff Report below for reference. As a result of the analysis, a few minor adjustments were made to the originally posted amendment. The updated version is reflected in the clean and redlined documents below:
Background:

Clean version of amended base New gTLD Registry Agreement as of December 2016:



Redlines from previous version of the amended base New gTLD Registry Agreement as of December 2016:



Updated Next Steps according to ICANN: "According to Section 7.7(c) of the Registry Agreement, the Proposed Revisions shall be submitted for Registry Operator Approval (as defined in Section 7.6) and approval by the ICANN Board of Directors. If such approvals are obtained, the Proposed Revisions shall be deemed an Approved Amendment (as defined in Section 7.6) by the Applicable Registry Operators and ICANN, and shall be effected and deemed an amendment to this Agreement upon sixty (60) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator."


feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER
*******

2016-08-19

ICANN Staff Report on Comments Re: Amendments to Base New gTLD RA

"ICANN has always been and will continue to be subject to antitrust laws" --Larry Strickling, NTIA, July 14, 2016, ICANN, NTIA, IANA Transition, Fundamental Problems, the Macro View | DomainMondo.com
At this rate, some plaintiff antitrust law firms are going to get rich off arrogant ICANN and its new gTLD "partners," after September 30, 2016. And I'm sure Jones Day will gladly defend ICANN, to its last dollar!--from Comment submitted by John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo
Embedded below is the ICANN Staff Report on public comments received on the Proposed Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry Agreement. 22 comments were received, including the comment by the Editor of Domain Mondo (pdf). See also on Domain Mondo: 

As set forth in the report, next steps are:
ICANN and the [Registry Operators] Working Group will consider and analyze the public comments. Once that analysis is concluded, ICANN and the Working Group will submit the proposed final version of the amendments for Registry Operator approval (according to the process defined in Section 7.6) and approval by the ICANN Board of Directors. If these approvals are obtained, the amendment will become effective upon 60 days’ notice from ICANN to the Registry Operators.
ICANN Staff Report (pdf) on Public Comments re: Proposed Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry Agreement (embed below, highlighting added):


feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER

2016-08-15

Afilias Challenges New gTLD WEB Auction Results in Letter to ICANN

UPDATE: 9 September 2016: 2nd Letter from Scott Hemphill (Afilias) to Akram Atallah (ICANN) (pdf) [published by ICANN 20 September 2016] Hemphill is VP & General Counsel of Afilias.

UPDATE: It is now confirmed that Afilias was the 2nd highest bidder for new gTLD .WEB, not Google, as an earlier report had indicated. Therefore Afilias is arguing below that it is entitled to .WEB for a price in the range of $57.5 - $71.9 million dollars (US) based on the bidding sheet.

Registry operator Afilias, losing bidder for new gTLD .WEB, has now objected to Nu Dot Co LLC winning new gTLD .WEB in a "last resort" auction utilizing funding provided by Verisign, see New gTLD dot WEB 'Last Resort' ICANN Auction: and the Winner Is? | DomainMondo.com.

In a letter dated August 8, 2016, but not  published by ICANN until Friday, August 12, 2016, Afilias Vice President and General Counsel M. Scott Hemphill sets forth the position of Afilias, and requests ICANN undertake an investigation and disqualify Nu Dot Co and refrain from proceeding to enter into a registry agreement for .WEB:

Afilias letter to ICANN (pdf) embed below:


See also on Domain Mondo:


feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER

2016-08-13

Comment to ICANN on Proposed Amendment to .COM Registry Agreement

UPDATE: .COM Registry Agreement Amendment approved by the ICANN Board of Directors
September 15 2016, extending Verisign's .COM Registry Agreement through November 30, 2024.
"Resolved (2016.09.15.09), the proposed amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/com/com-amend-1-pdf-30jun16-en.pdf> [PDF, 100 KB] is approved, subject to the RZMA being executed, and the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the Amendment."
Staff Report of Public Comment on Proposed Amendment to .COM Registry Agreement (pdf) 
__________ 

Date: August 12, 2016
To: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a California corporation (hereinafter “ICANN”)
Re: Response to your request for comments re:  ProposedAmendment to .COM Registry Agreement
1. I have no objection to the proposed .COM Registry Agreement  extension as it simply provides the same additional six year contract term that Verisign would be entitled to in 2018 under its contractual right of presumptive renewal. Accordingly, I adopt and support a portion of the comments already submitted by Philip Corwin on behalf of the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) on August 11, 2016, posted on your “Comments Forum” page at https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-com-amendment-30jun16/pdfaJOiVQsMmt.pdf, specifically:

2. I would note that based upon the comments already submitted to ICANN on this issue, there is a lot of misinformation, concern, and uncertainty, surrounding the .COM registry agreement, pricing of .COM domain names now and in the future, and Amendment32 of the Cooperative Agreement (pdf) between Verisign and NTIA which caps the price of .COM domain names at $7.85 through November 30, 2018 (subject to relief provisions). See, e.g., .Com price doubling? Here's what all that talk is about - DomainNameWire.com.

3. Had NTIA made clear what would happen to the CooperativeAgreement, particularly the price limitation on .COM domain names after November 30, 2018, in view of the IANA Stewardship Transition scheduled to occur upon lapse of the IANA functions contract on September 30, 2016, much of the fear, angst, frustration, hostility, and mistrust, as expressed in the many comments already submitted, could have been avoided.

4. Likewise, had ICANN and Verisign made clear what would happen to the pricing of .COM domain names after November 30, 2018, should NTIA not extend the Cooperative Agreement including Amendment 32, many of the concerns already expressed in the comments could have been alleviated.

5. My understanding is this simple extension of the .COM registry agreement for six years (through November 30, 2024), is meant to accommodate the new Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) approvedby the ICANN Board of Directors on August 9, 2016.

6. .COM is the most important TLD ( Top-Level Domain) in the world. Accordingto Verisign, the .COM “domain name base” consists of 127, 763,819 domain names as of August 12, 2016. As one of the “original” gTLDs, it has a long history which predates the existence of ICANN. The domain name registrants of .COM include “every Fortune 500 company and the world’s fastest-growing companies.” With a record of “100 percent reliability for more than 15 years” it is fitting and appropriate that Verisign continue to serve as both Root Zone Maintainer and .COM registry operator. There is no provision in current ICANN policy nor the current .COM registry agreement, nor any other gTLD registry agreement ,that provides for “a competitive public tender” barring a material, continuing, breach by the registry operator (see Annex to this comment, below).

7. I follow closely the public disclosures required of Verisign Inc. by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the rules of the NASDAQ stock exchange. I also note that Verisign is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).  As a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of 8.9 billion dollars (US), it has the resources and incentives to continue providing reliable services to the global internet community as Root Zone Maintainer and .COM Registry Operator.

8. Finally, I note in passing the inappropriate comments submitted by INTA and the IPC. First, INTA, the International Trademark Association, has a conflict of interest in submitting any comment to ICANN since ICANN is a member of INTA, the worldwide lobbying organization for trademark attorneys and other trademark interests, and ICANN staff have “coached” INTA members on how to “lobby” ICANN on policy-making, see Why Did ICANN Become a Member of Trademark Lobbyist Group INTA?  Second, as both INTA and IPC know, all Rights Protection Mechanisms are currently under review as noted by Philip Corwin in the comment submitted by the ICA (see above), and the ICANN Board has made it clear it is not appropriate to extend new gTLD RPMs to legacy gTLDs such as .COM, see DomainMondo.com:ICANN Renews .CAT, .PRO, .TRAVEL, RAs with URS Included: "Accordingly, the Board's approval of the Renewal Registry Agreement is not a move to make the URS mandatory for any legacy TLDs, and it would be inappropriate to do so."--ICANN Board of Directors.  In fact, cybersquattingcomplaints against .COM domains are dropping and there is no reason to extend any of the new gTLD RPMs to .COM. Instead, INTA and IPC could better spend their time educating their own members and participants on not filing meritless UDRP cases or otherwise engaging in abuse of the UDRP and other legal processes—see this comment by attorney John Berryhill.

Respectfully submitted,
John Poole
Domain name registrant, and Editor of Domain Mondo

Annex:
Current .comRegistry Agreement - ICANN excerpts:
.com Registry Agreement
(1 December 2012)
REGISTRY AGREEMENT
This REGISTRY AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into as of 1 December 2012 by and between Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("ICANN"), and VeriSign, Inc. a Delaware corporation.
ARTICLE I INTRODUCTION
Section 1.1 Effective Date. The Effective Date for purposes of this Agreement shall be December 1, 2012.
....
Section 4.1 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall expire on November 30, 2018. The Expiration Date shall be November 30, 2018, as extended by any renewal terms.
Section 4.2 Renewal. This Agreement shall be renewed upon the expiration of the term set forth in Section 4.1 above and each later term, unless the following has occurred : (i) following notice of breach to Registry Operator in accordance with Section 6.1 and failure to cure such breach within the time period prescribed in Section 6.1, an arbitrator or court has determined that Registry Operator has been in fundamental and material breach of Registry Operator's obligations set forth in Sections 3.1(a), (b), (d) or (e); Section 5.2 or Section 7.3 and (ii) following the final decision of such arbitrator or court, Registry Operator has failed to comply within ten days with the decision of the arbitrator or court, or within such other time period as may be prescribed by the arbitrator or court. 
….

"Section 7.3 Pricing for Domain Name Registrations and Registry Services ... (c) Price for Registry Services. The price for all Registry Services subject to this Section 7.3 shall be the amount, not to exceed the Maximum Price, that Registry Operator charges for each annual increment of a new and renewal domain name registration and for each transfer of a domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. (d) Maximum Price. The Maximum Price for Registry Services subject to this Section 7.3 shall be as follows: (i) from the Effective Date through 30 November 2018, US $7.85; (ii) Registry Operator shall be entitled to increase the Maximum Price during the term of the Agreement due to the imposition of any new Consensus Policy or documented extraordinary expense resulting from an attack or threat of attack on the Security or Stability of the DNS, not to exceed the smaller of the preceding year's Maximum Price or the highest price charged during the preceding year, multiplied by 1.07."

Read all comments submitted here. Comments Close Date 12 Aug 2016 23:59 UTC.

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER

2015-10-02

ICANN Renews .CAT, .PRO, .TRAVEL, RAs with URS Included

UPDATE 6 Feb 2016: ICANN Board DENIES Reconsideration Requests 15-19 (the ICANN Business Constituency & the ICANN Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG)) and 15-20 (The Internet Commerce Association), and ICANN Board adopts the BGC's Recommendation on Reconsideration Requests 15-19 and 15-20 (pdf).[--end of UPDATE--]

On September 28, 2015, the ICANN Board approved renewal of the .TRAVEL, .CAT, and .PRO Registry Agreements with Specification 7, Rights Protection Mechanisms, included, which means the Uniform Rapid Suspension system (“URS”) adopted by ICANN for new gTLDs is now applicable to all three of these "legacy" gTLDs (generic top-level domains). This issue had caused some controversy as it was applying new gTLDs' policy to legacy gTLDs without going through a Policy Development Process (PDP). The ICANN Board's analysis and reasoning in approving the inclusion of the URS for these three legacy gTLDs stated that this does not set a precedent for other legacy gTLDs (e.g., .COM, .NET, .ORG):
"[This] is not a move to make the URS mandatory for any legacy TLDs, and it would be inappropriate to do so. In the case of .TRAVEL, [.CAT and .PRO] inclusion of the URS was developed as part of the proposal in bilateral negotiations between the Registry Operator and ICANN." (excerpt from ICANN Board Resolution, emphasis added)
The full analysis and reasoning of the Board:

"The Board carefully considered the public comments received for Renewal Registry Agreement, along with the summary and analysis of those comments. The Board also considered the terms agreed to by the Registry Operator as part of the bilateral negotiations with ICANN. While the Board acknowledges the concerns expressed by some community members regarding the inclusion of the URS in the Renewal Registry Agreement, the Board notes that the inclusion of the URS in the Renewal Registry Agreement is based on the bilateral negotiations between ICANN and the Registry Operator, where Registry Operator expressed their interest to renew their registry agreement based on the new gTLD Registry Agreement.

"The Board notes that the URS was recommended by the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) as a mandatory rights protection mechanism (RPM) for all new gTLDs. The GNSO was asked to provide its view on whether certain proposed rights protection mechanisms (which included the URS) were consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the introduction of New gTLDs and were the appropriate and effective option for achieving the GNSO's stated principles and objectives. The STI considered this matter and concluded that "Use of the URS should be a required RPM for all New gTLDs." That is, the GNSO stated that the URS was not inconsistent with any of its existing policy recommendations.

"Although the URS was developed and refined through the process described here, including public review and discussion in the GNSO, it has not been adopted as a consensus policy and ICANN has no ability to make it mandatory for any TLDs other than new gTLD applicants who applied during the 2012 New gTLD round.

"Accordingly, the Board's approval of the Renewal Registry Agreement is not a move to make the URS mandatory for any legacy TLDs, and it would be inappropriate to do so. In the case of .TRAVEL [.CAT and .PRO], inclusion of the URS was developed as part of the proposal in bilateral negotiations between the Registry Operator and ICANN.

"Additionally, the Board considered the comments regarding transitioning legacy gTLDs to the new form of the registry agreement. The Board notes that existing registry agreement calls for presumptive renewal of the agreement at its expiration so long as certain requirements are met. The renewal agreement is subject to the negotiation of renewal terms reasonably acceptable to ICANN and the Registry Operator. The renewal terms approved by the Board are the result of the bilateral negotiations called for in the current registry agreement, and transitioning to the new form of the registry agreement would not violate established GNSO policy. As described below, the new form of the registry agreement provides some operational advantages, in addition to benefits to registrants and the Internet community including public interest commitments, requiring the use of registrars under the 2013 RAA, and the ability for ICANN to designate an emergency interim registry operator in the event that emergency thresholds for critical registry services is reached." (emphasis added)

John Poole, Editor of Domain Mondo, was among those who submitted comments opposing inclusion of the URS into the Registry Agreements of these legacy gTLDs--See Most Comments OPPOSE ICANN Extending URS Policy to dotTRAVEL and Comments Overwhelmingly Oppose URS for CAT and PRO gTLDs.

Domain Mondo and its Editor thank the ICANN Board of Directors for their careful review and consideration of all public comments, and specifically thank the Board for stating its approval of the three Renewal Registry Agreements is "not a move to make the URS mandatory for any legacy TLDs, and it would be inappropriate to do so," and further stating: it [URS] "has not been adopted as a consensus policy and ICANN has no ability to make it mandatory for any TLDs other than new gTLD applicants who applied during the 2012 New gTLD round."




DISCLAIMER

2015-07-23

What Does That July 29th Deadline Mean For .brand TLD Applicants?

photo of Akram Atallah, ICANN Global Domains Division President
Akram Atallah, ICANN Global Domains Division President
(source: ICANNphotos - License CC BY-SA 2.0)
Why is this man smiling?

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Google's handling of new top level domains: "Q: Will a .BRAND TLD be given any more or less weight than a .com? A: No. Those TLDs will be treated the same as other gTLDs. They will require the same geotargeting settings and configuration, and they won’t have more weight or influence in the way we crawl, index, or rank URLs."
"The idea that a brand needs its own TLD must be the biggest con ever perpetrated by domain consultants." -- Ken Schafer
What does that July 29th deadline mean for .brand TLD applicants? In short, it means the deadline to execute a Registry Agreement with ICANN for almost two hundred "brand" names, with more money than good sense, having already wasted a lot of money applying for their very own spanking new "brand" gTLD that probably will "fail to work as expected on the internet," or "break stuff," and has no, nada, SEO advantage when it comes to Google search. Where can one go to get a refund? Well, you can probably forget about getting any refund from that "domain name consultant" or registry services rep a/k/a "trusted advisor" a/k/a snake oil salesman who talked your lamebrained CTO or CIO or other staff member(s) into "applying" for that mostly useless, worthless top-level domain, that hardly any major "brand" company uses as its principal domain name, even today. It was all just another "predatory shakedown scheme" hatched by the Global Domains Division of ICANN together with those ICANN "stakeholders" who stood to profit from your stupidity and gullibility. Note that Mark Zuckerberg, Chairman and CEO of Facebook (along with many others in Silicon Valley) refused to be "suckered"--there is no dot FACEBOOK--and Mark is probably laughing at all of you reluctant .brand TLD applicants facing the July 29th deadline to sign a Registry Agreement with ICANN, which will obligate your company to pay thousands and thousands of dollars per year indefinitely into the future, instead of just doing what Zuckerberg and most "brand" registrants do, which is pay about $10 per year for the best top-level domain (TLD) god ever created--the global "gold standard in domain names"--a dot COM domain name.

But heck, you've got plenty of money to throw away, go ahead, sign the Registry Agreement, and tell Akram that Domain Mondo says hello!


2015-07-07

ICANN Staff Report OVERDUE on Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Registry

UPDATE: Report issued "As a next step, ICANN intends to consider the renewal proposals taking into account the comments."

screenshot showing ICANN Staff "Report Overdue" - .TRAVEL Registry Renewal
ICANN Staff "Report Overdue" - .TRAVEL Registry Renewal - source: ICANN website

ICANN "Staff Report Due 5 Jul 2015 23:59 UTC"
Report Overdue

source: Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement - ICANN

In the meantime, the same URS issue is also present in .CAT and .PRO (links below)--Comments close July 7, 2015 23:59 UTC (time convert) on both .CAT and .PRO --

See also on Domain Mondo: 

2015-06-03

New gTLD Domain Names, Defects, ICANN Liability, FTC Complaints

"..."Universal acceptance" (UA) has become an urgent top priority for new gTLD adherents as well as those concerned about the performance of new domains for consumers and businesses. Simply put, many new gTLD addresses don't resolve in web browsers or work with email systems. This is exactly the type of technical issue that is supposed to be ICANN's core competence, so why is it only now being grappled with given the many years of planning in the run-up to new gTLDs becoming available? This is hardly a new issue. According to the CTO for Afilias, the challenge was first identified by ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) in 2003, with multiple recommendations made to address it. Yet, he observes,"That was over a decade ago! "..."--Philip S. Corwin - ICANN.WTF?...
As Phil Corwin pointed out above, ICANN knew that new gTLD domain names would have universal acceptance "defects"--i.e., "failing to work as expected on the Internet" and/or "break stuff" or even compromise the stability and security of the Internet--that must be why ICANN included an exculpatory (escape of liability) clause a/k/a weasel clause, in its Registry Agreements with new gTLD domain name registry operators:
Registry Agreement between ICANN and new gTLD Registry operators: "....1.2 Technical Feasibility of String. While ICANN has encouraged and will continue to encourage universal acceptance of all top-level domain strings across the Internet, certain top-level domain strings may encounter difficulty in acceptance by ISPs and webhosters and/or validation by web applications. Registry Operator shall be responsible for ensuring to its satisfaction the technical feasibility of the TLD string prior to entering into this Agreement...." (emphasis added)
But what about the gullible "suckers" (not a reference to dotSUCKS and no pun intended) who "buy" or register these new gTLD domain names, and then discover their new gTLD domain names "failing to work as expected on the Internet" or "break stuff"? Where was ICANN when it came to protecting consumers--domain name registrants, users, businesses-- and the public interest? Or was ICANN just out to make money for itself to expand its offices and pay lavish amounts to ICANN officers, staff, directors, and/or "line the pockets" of its multitudes of contractors and self-serving, self-interested stakeholders?

How big a problem is universal acceptance with new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains)? Look at the schedule for the ICANN 53 meeting later this month: a full one-day Universal Acceptance workshop plus another separate Universal Acceptance session the next day. No prior ICANN meeting has devoted so much time to the Universal Acceptance problem. Better late than never!

The victims or "injured parties" here include domain name registrants who have been deceived by all the hype from ICANN or its new gTLD registry operators or new gTLD domain name registrars, without benefit of any corresponding prominent warnings or disclosures about the universal acceptance problems with new gTLD domain names.
Domain Name Registrants' Rights: "... 3.You shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or though [sic] any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence...." (emphasis added)
Could this be yet another ICANN matter for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate?
What We Do | Federal Trade Commission: "The FTC protects consumers by stopping unfair, deceptive or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. We conduct investigations, sue companies and people that violate the law, develop rules to ensure a vibrant marketplace, and educate consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. We collect complaints about hundreds of issues from data security and deceptive advertising to ... and make them available to law enforcement agencies worldwide for follow-up. Our experienced and motivated staff uses 21st century tools to anticipate – and respond to – changes in the marketplace." (emphasis added)
For more information or to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission go to https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/Information or www.ftc.gov/complaint and watch the video below, or call Toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).


If you cannot view the FTC video above, view the video here.

Domain Mondo archive