News Review | Greed is Good? ICANN Auctions & The Big 'Money Grab'

Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2018-12-23 with analysis and opinion: Features •  1) Greed is Good? ICANN Auctions & The Big 'Money Grab,' 2) Other ICANN news: a. EPDP Meetings, b. New gTLD .AMAZON,  c..WEB IRP, d. New gTLDs Next Round; 3) Names, Domains & Trademarks:  VeriSign $VRSN in NASDAQ 100, 4) ICYMI, 5) Most Read.

1) Greed is Good? ICANN New gTLD Auctions & The Big 'Money Grab' 

"... 2. Auctions (both "private" and "ICANN last resort") have corrupted ICANN and the processes for developing new gTLDs--"it's all about the money"--and increase costs that new gTLD registry operators can only recoup by charging registrants far more money for new gTLD domain name registrations and renewals than necessary had ICANN followed RFC1591 and the advice of the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division cited above. In effect, consumers (domain name registrants) are bearing, directly and indirectly, the entire costs of ICANN's ill-conceived, horribly implemented, and corrupt program for new gTLDs .... 5. In lieu of the contracted parties' proposed "money grab" above and all other third parties' already proposed, or yet to come, "money grabs," ICANN should instead end this entire repulsive and tawdry "money grab" stampede, and announce it will set aside ALL of the auction proceeds for the benefit of domain name registrants who have, indirectly, provided these funds ..." (emphasis added)

Editor's note: excerpts above from my comment to ICANN's Initial Report of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group, my comment is embed in full below:

See all the comments to ICANN's Big "Money Grab" here.

2) ICANN News

a. GDPR & ICANN WHOIS: Next meeting of the EPDP working group is Jan 3, 2019. For information on last week's meetings (info, transcripts, recordings, etc.) see last week's News Review. All comments to the EPDP Initial Report (pdf) can be reviewed here.

Editor's note: for more on the EPDP Initial Report comment process (including an "easy to read" copy of the comment I submitted), go to last week's News Review.

Related:

• Purpose O and ICANN org questions (Dec 22, 2018).

• Technical Study Group on Access to Non-Public Registration Data Charter (pdf) and blog post.

b. New gTLD .AMAZON: 

18 Dec 2018 Letter (pdf) (content below) from ICANN Board Chair Cherine Chalaby to HE Jacqueline Mendoza:

Background: 7 Dec 2018 Letter from HE Jacqualine Mendoza to ICANN Board (pdf);

See also: (1) .AMAZON new gTLD application (pdf): "Geographic Names 21(a). Is the application for a geographic name? No." (2) 18 Dec 2018 Letter from ICANN CEO Göran Marby to GAC Chair Manal Ismail (pdf).

c. New gTLD .WEB IRP: 

ICANN’s Opposition To  Afilias Domains No. 3 Ltd.’S Request For Emergency Panelist And Interim Measures Of Protection (pdf) embed below:

Remaining items on the .WEB IRP schedule:

7 January 2019 Afilias Reply on Its Request for Interim Measures of Protection
9 January 2019 I CANN Sur-Reply (if any)
14 January 2019 Video Hearing on Afilias Interim Request
28 January 2019 Emergency Panelist Decision on Interim Request

More info here.

d. New gTLDs Next Round: 18 Dec 2018 Letter from ICANN Board Chair Cherine Chalaby to Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (pdf) re: new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDPWG Supplemental Initial Report:

"We believe that any new recommendations should guard against bad faith applications to the extent possible. These concerns mostly center on the issues of auctions of last resort and on private auctions. We take special note of the possible practice of participating in private auctions for the sole purpose of being paid to drop out. We also take note of the abuse that becomes possible in alterations to the change request mechanisms. The Board has concerns about whether, and in what ways, the availability of private auctions incentivizes applications for purposes other than actually using the string; and we are interested in how these incentives for abuse might be minimized."

.
3) Names, Domains & Trademarks:  Verisign $VRSN

.COM Registry Operator VeriSign (NASDAQ:VRSN) is one of the six companies joining the NASDAQ-100 index coincident with its annual re-ranking, effective prior to market open on December 24, 2018. Source: Bloomberg First Word.

NASDAQ-100 Index

UPDATE: Dec 27, 2018: $VRSN UP 4% Since Added to the NASDAQ-100

Editor's note: The NASDAQ-100 Index is composed of the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market®, and was launched in January 1985.  

4) ICYMI Internet Domain News 

The EFF Gift Guide: What’s Creeping Us Out | EFF.org: 

• Facebook’s Portal
• Smart Home Hubs From Google, Amazon and Others
• Verizon Phones with AppFlash Spyware
• The Elf on the Shelf & the Mensch on a Bench

Editor's note: consider making a donation to EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) before 2018 ends.

5) Most Read Posts this past week on DomainMondo.com: 

1. News Review | GDPR & WHOIS EPDP Initial Report Comments Due Dec 21

2. Tech Review | Semiconductor Chip Wars: China vs U.S. (video)

3. Technology & Innovation: What's Next in Consumer Startups?

-- John Poole, Editor • Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

News Review: ICANN's Extortionate .BRAND Scam Failing

Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-07-09), with analysis and opinion:  Features •  1) ICANN's Extortionate .BRAND Scam Failing,  2)ICANN Collaborates with Moscow-Based PIR Center, 3) How Phony Are New gTLDs' Stats? 4) Most Read Posts This Past Week on Domain Mondo.

1) ICANN's Extortionate .BRAND Scam Failing

"ICANN is just a scam and the entire industry is based on monopolistic fraud with DC payoffs."--Mike Mann, domain name registrant, March 30, 2017.

ICANN's new gTLDs program, an "ill-conceived clusterf*ck" driven by greed, incompetence, cronyism, and conflicts of interest, grossly over-expanded the internet's generic top-level domains (gTLDs) from just 22 to over 1200 beginning in 2014. One of the key parts of the new ICANN program opening in 2012 was the ability of corporations to apply to control their very own "piece of the internet" (gTLD) by applying to use their own trademark(s) or brand name(s), e.g., .BARCLAYS, .BMW, .BNPPARIBAS (that's not a misspell), etc., as a new gTLD, something completely counter to the historic principles of the internet (see RFC 1591) as well as ICANN's (and the U.S. government's) position in the recent Weinstein case that TLDs are not property but global public resources. In addition, the .BRAND program has been criticized as contributing to the decline of the free and open internet by encouraging silos of TLDs controlled by profit-making enterprises who also control internet access and have no hesitancy in limiting access to only certain domains if not restrained by governments. Trademarks and corporations exist (and are limited) by virtue of sovereign laws. Some have said ICANN's unbounded desire to serve as the lap dog of a few big corporations in its capacity as the world's supranational policy-making authority and "coordinator" of the global internet DNS, led to the creation of .BRAND gTLDs. Finally, lawyers tell me there are also huge risks in making a trademark a generic top-level domain--ever hear of genericide? Which is why I guess some trademark lawyer wanted to change the word "generic" to "global" in GNSO at ICANN59.

Notwithstanding the above, ICANN proceeded to open the new gTLDs program in 2012 to this new sub-category of generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and by ICANN's standards, it was a big success--a total of 664 brands (34% of all applications) were conned into submitting applications to ICANN--although most applications were, and still are, purely "defensive." Read the U.S. Senate testimony (pdf) of Dawn Grove, corporate counsel for the parent of the manufacturer of  PING golf equipment. ICANN knows no shame.  

One complete list (updated as of 25 Jan 2017) of all the "dot BRAND" applications and their status is here. A review of that list indicates that the main beneficiaries (besides ICANN) of ICANN's dot BRAND program are principally just three companies which provide the bulk of the .BRAND back-end registry services): Afilias (whose Executive Chairman Jonathan Robinson became GNSO Council Chair in 2012, and whose CTO Ram Mohan has been on the ICANN Board since 2008); Verisign (which is also registry operator of .COM and .NET); and Neustar (note that ARI Registry Services is now owned by Neustar). ICANN Board member Becky Burr (2016-2019), a Washington, D.C., "revolving door lawyer" (Burr used to work for the U.S. Department of Commerce (NTIA) and FTC), has been employed by Neustar since 2012. In addition, the current GNSO Council Vice Chair Donna Austin, a former ICANN employee, works for Neustar.

Of course there are others--ICANN thrives on greed and conflicts of interest--including a menagerie of brand consultants, strategists (e.g., here and here), as well as an assortment of hucksters, lawyers, charlatans, and snake oil salesmen who thought they would get filthy rich off all the big "dumb" rich trademark holders who were told they must pay to defensively register their trademark as an ICANN .BRAND TLD or risk losing their "brand name" and trademark on the internet to other claimants. ICANN charged an initial $185,000 "shakedown" fee per brand name upfront, plus periodic fees thereafter for the "privilege" of operating the .BRAND TLD. Of course, that may be just a drop in the bucket compared to the fees charged by the consultants, lawyers, back end registry service providers, and others, including the aforesaid charlatans.

Despite the best efforts of ICANN, its "partners" Afilias, Verisign, Neustar, et al, and the menagerie of other hucksters, the dot BRAND program is failing with well-known global brand McDonald's recently throwing in the towel on their .MCD (pdf) and .MCDONALDS new gTLDs:

McDonald's back end registry services had been provided by Neustar. McDonald's had also been a client of Fairwinds Partners.  I guess greed and conflicts of interest have their limits.

2)  ICANN Collaborates with Moscow-Based PIR Center to Present a Collection of Articles on Cyberspace | ICANN.org. See also: PIRcenter.org: Global Internet Governance and Cyber Security: As Viewed by Russian Experts.

3) How Phony Are The Stats on New gTLDs' Domain Name Registrations? Nobody really knows. ICANN is too inept to collect and publish the true data. Update July 13, 2017: 

Above data courtesy ntldstats.com July 13, 2017: if the "millions" of new gTLD domain names 'owned' by registry operators were NOT shown above (see second tweet below), how much worse would the actual situation be? ICANN doesn't want to know and doesn't want YOU to know.

Top 5 #GTLD's now account for 50% of all Regs. 500 split/suck other 50%. The weak, getting weaker. #Domains https://t.co/8SrF9wBtW0

— Rick Schwartz (@DomainKing) July 3, 2017

Actually, 28% of all regs shared by 480 new #GTLD's. Look behind the numbers & you'll see regisrtries own MILLIONS! #Fake #Pityful #Domains

— Rick Schwartz (@DomainKing) July 3, 2017

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

1. News Review: ICANN59 Report; .NET Greed: ICANN + Verisign $VRSN

2. a16z VC Marc Andreessen On Tech Valuations and More (podcast)

3. Mobile Economy: Anindya Ghose Says Life Getting Even Faster With Tech 

4.  G20 Summit, July 7-8: A Push For More Restrictions on Internet Freedom?

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

News Review: ICANN59 Report; .NET Greed: ICANN + Verisign $VRSN

Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-07-02)with opinion and analysis:

Features •  1) ICANN59 Report, 2) .NET Greed: ICANN + VeriSign $VRSN; 3) A Bad Omen for the CCT-RT (Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review), 4) ICANN's Junket Culture, 5) ICANN60, Abu Dhabi, Oct 28-Nov 3, 6)Other ICANN News: a. ICANN Public Comment periods closing in July, b. Holding ICANN Accountable (IRS Form 990),  c. GNSO Projects List, d. KSK rollover, e. Thick Whois for .COM and .NET, f. Cost of domain registration hampering Africa's internet,  7) Most Read.

1) ICANN59 Policy Forum ended June 29 in Johannesburg, South Africa:

• ICANN59 Interview with Verisign's Chuck Gomes:

Video above published by ICANN on June 27, 2017: Verisign's Chuck Gomes, Chair of the PDP (Policy Development Process) Working Group on the Next-Gen Registration Data Services (RDS) to replace WHOIS. Chuck explains what some of the Working Group's struggles are and how the ICANN59 Cross-Community Session helped explain the complexity of this topic. (Note: Chuck is retiring from Verisign but will continue as Chair of the Working Group).

•  CENTR.org (Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries) Report on ICANN59 (pdf) excerpt (emphasis added):

• GAC Communiqué (pdf) excerpt:

•  Other ICANN59-related matters:

• ICANN FY18 Operating Plan and Budget | ICANN.org 24 Jun 2017: adopted-opplan-budget-fy18-24jun17-en.pdf (1.37 MB).

• ICANN Five-Year Operating Plan | ICANN.org 24 Jun 2017 adopted-opplan-2016-2020-24jun17-en.pdf (568 KB).

• Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability--CCWG-Accountability--Co-Chairs statement (pdf): "... on the Jurisdiction sub-group’s recent discussions regarding the possibility of changing the location of ICANN’s headquarters or creating a blanket immunity for ICANN. In this session it was confirmed that it was unlikely there would be consensus in the CCWG for any recommendation that involved changing ICANN’s headquarters’ location or jurisdiction of incorporation or creating a blanket immunity for ICANN. As such, the sub-group’s work shall focus on recommending accountability improvements that are issue-driven remedies which build upon ICANN’s status as a non-for-profit organization headquartered in California ..." (emphasis added).

2) .NET Greed: ICANN + VeriSign $VRSN

As is its usual practice and custom, the ICANN Board met in a closed meeting to approve the renewal of the .NET registry agreement with Verisign--reporting days later the dastardly deal--Adopted Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board June 24, 2017 | ICANN.org: "... Resolved (2017.06.24.22), the proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement is approved and the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the Agreement ..." [including $0.75 fee to ICANN (vs. $0.25 for most other gTLDs) & 10% annual increases (10% compounded annually) in fees to Verisign]--see my comment and objections and the other comments and objections here. ICANN's Unmistakeable Message to Registrants: 

If you don't like ICANN's monopolistic crony capitalism, the "presumptive right of renewal" and sweetheart deal the ICANN organization gave away to Verisign re: .NET (doubling Verisign's fees every 7 years into perpetuity), as well as imposing ICANN fees that are 3x other gTLDs), too bad! Dump ALL your .NET domain names! 

The .NET tragedy is symptomatic of all that is so wrong with ICANN--corrupt, inept, or dysfunctional. And the deal ICANN gave away to the new gTLDs registry operators is even worse! (for registrants). Consumer (registrant) protection is almost completely disregarded in the entire ICANN ecosystem, something the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division noted in 2008. ICANN operates almost completely counter to the ideals and values promulgated in RFC 1591 by Jon Postel in 1994.

3) A Bad Omen for ICANN's CCT-RT (Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review re: ICANN's new gTLDs program): 

"I am resigning as a member of the Review Team effectively immediately.  Do not associate my name with the Review Team's report."--Stanley M. Besen, Senior Consultant, Charles River Associates, June 25, 2017.

4) ICANN's Junket Culture:

ICANN wasted over $100,000 on one party at ICANN55

Each ICANN Meeting (three a year), costs ICANN, on average, US$4 million (pdf), including about US$1 million in airfares, hotels, and $$ per diem for hundreds of select stakeholders / attendees a/k/a "ICANN insiders" who have largely been "captured" by the ICANN organization itself to represent and defend ICANN as its self-designated "ICANN community," as opposed to the broader "global internet community" a/k/a "global multistakeholder community." Unlike ICANN's "contracted parties" (registrars and registry operators), and ICANN's periodic self-serving statements notwithstanding (in ICANN talk is cheap), domain name registrants have little representation and voice within the "ICANN community." There is no "Registrants Stakeholder Group" in ICANN. By intentional design of ICANN structures, domain name registrants (except corporations and trademark holders) are mostly excluded and marginalized by ICANN which claims to be operating in the "global public interest."

5) ICANN60, Abu Dhabi, Oct 28-Nov 3

The next ICANN meeting,  ICANN60 (ICANN's Annual General Meeting), will be held in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 28 October-3 November 2017.  "After a lengthy debate, the ccNSO decided to participate in the Abu Dhabi meeting, despite strong concerns about participants' personal safety."--CENTR report, p. 3.  See also United Arab Emirates | travel.state.gov (Safety and Security tab).

6) Other ICANN news

a. ICANN Public Comment periods closing in July:  Issue  | Close Date (subject to change)

• Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law: Process and Next Steps 7 Jul 2017 23:59 UTC
• Proposed Implementation of GNSO Consensus Policy Recommendations for the Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs 10 Jul 2017 23:59 UTC
• Issues Report - ccNSO PDP Retirement and Review Mechanism 10 Jul 2017 23:59 UTC
• Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone Version 2 (RZ-LGR-2) 24 Jul 2017 23:59 UTC
• Draft Framework for the Registry Operator to Respond toSecurity Threats 31 Jul 2017 23:59 UTC

b. Holding ICANN Accountable re: ICANN FY16 form 990 (pdf): now 35 days without substantive response from ICANN CFO Xavier Calvez.

c. GNSO Projects List - 28 June 2017 | Generic Names Supporting Organization:
projects-list-28jun17-en.pdf Date: 28 June 2017

d. Letter From ICANN CEO Goran Marby to Internet and Telecomm Regulators | ICANN.org--Upcoming changes to root zone DNS Security Extensions marby-to-internet-telecomm-regulators-16jun17-en.pdf  [191 KB]--An estimated 750 million people could be affected by the KSK rollover worldwide on October 11, 2017.

e. Thick WHOIS Transition Update | ICANN.org June 30, 2017:  "... the ICANN organization approved Verisign's request for a 120-day extension of the 1 August 2017 date in the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy by which Verisign is required to deploy an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mechanism and an alternative bulk transfer mechanism for .COM and .NET for registrars to migrate registration data for existing domain names. With this extension, the new date for Verisign's compliance with the requirement is 29 November 2017."  See also: Letter from Verisign's Patrick Kane to Akram Atallah | ICANN.org June 20, 2017--issue: Thick Whois for .COM and .NET--kane-to-atallah-20jun17-en.pdf (3.7 MB) requesting "an extension of the August 1, 2017 date of no less than 120 days." 

f. Cost of domain registration hampering Africa's internet ecosystem | ITWebAfrica.com.

7) This past week's most read posts (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) on DomainMondo.com: 

1. News Review: ICANN59 Policy Forum, June 26-29, Johannesburg

2. Global Phishing Survey, New gTLD Domain Names, Malicious Registrations

3. EVIL GOOGLE: European Commission €2.42B (US$2.73B) Antitrust Fine

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN 54: New gTLDs Still Beg For Money, Claim Severe 'Implications'

UPDATE 27 Oct 27 2015: On Sunday, Internet Hall of Famer Paul Vixie unloaded on ICANN and its new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains), calling the new gTLDs "all commercial failures" and ICANN a corrupt, industry-captured corporation that does not serve the public interest--as reported by ZDNet (emphasis added)--

• "I think it [ICANN's new gTLDs] is a money grab. My own view is that ICANN functions as a regulator, and that as a regulator it has been captured by the industry that they are regulating. I think that there was no end-user demand whatsoever for more so-called DNS extensions, [or] global generic top-level domains (gTLDs).”
• The demand for the new domains came from "the people who have the budget to send a lot of people to every ICANN meeting, and participate in every debate", that is, the domain name registrars who simply want more names to sell, so they can make more money. But these new domains don't seem to be working. "They're gradually rolling out, and they are all commercial failures."
• "I'm sure that there will be another 2,000 of them sold, because $185,000 to pay the application fee for each one [is] chump change to the companies who want to make money doing this."
• Creating the new domains goes against ICANN's purpose--"ICANN is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public charity [under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law], and their [ICANN's] job is to serve the public, not to serve the companies... I think that until they can come up with an actual public benefit reason they should be creating more of these, they've got no cause to act;" "there should be no price at which you can buy .microsoft, but there is, and that's a mistake. That indicates corruption, as far as I'm concerned."

_______

ICANN 54: The same tired refrain was heard yet again at another ICANN meeting, from the failing new gTLDs lobbyists, if only slightly more desperate this time--

"Good afternoon, Christa Taylor from dot TBA in Canada. I just have a couple comments for consideration for the Board and community. I understand the use of auction funds is open for comments and I would ask that they be used to strategically and financially benefit the new gtld ecosphere. Registration revenues have not reached the tipping point and implications could be severe if they're [the ICANN auction proceeds] utilized in some other manner..." (emphasis added) (ICANN 54 Public Forum, October 22, 2015)

Translated: Many new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains) are failing, and we (the new gTLDs lobby) want ICANN (and the global internet community) to financially support us and 'save us' from the consequences of our failing to do proper 'due diligence' before applying for unwanted, unneeded new gTLD(s), for which nobody, including ICANN, guaranteed 'success,' and now we want YOU to give us YOUR money.

Have these people (new gTLDs lobbyists) no shame?

Actually, Ms. Taylor apparently was not listening--it was announced at the beginning of the Forum that this was not the time nor place to make comments about issues for which there are, or would be, ongoing ICANN processes open for public comments--see: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper Open for Public Comments until 8 Nov 2015 23:59 UTC.

Unsurprisingly, Ms. Taylor's 'comment' was appropriately 'dealt' with (i.e., brushed off):

Wolfgang Kleinwachter: ... Cherine will take the first part of your question.

[ICANN Board Member] Cherine Chalaby: Regarding the -- what to do with the auction money, I think this is -- we are committed that this is going to be a community decision, and the Board is not going to direct where this money is going to be. So you got to give your input. I think the GNSO is going to you know, undertake the work there and make a recommendation on this issue. And they use the community input as a whole in that. So that's an important thing. Thank you very much.

We have heard this same refrain from the new gTLDs lobby, over and over again, at other ICANN Public Forums--see: ICANN is NOT a new gTLDs Marketing Agency: ICANN 53 Review, Part 3 (June 29, 2015).

Anyone wanting more background on this should read:

• Housing Bubble Like New gTLDs Mania? The Big Short Trailer (video)
• New gTLD Domains, the Walking Dead and Dying, ICANN FY15 Results
• ICANN, Domain Registry Operators, Monopoly, Antitrust, FTC Statement
• Show Me The Money! ICANN Infighting Over New gTLD Auction Proceeds

Or just listen to a new gTLDs registry operator, Frank Schilling (Uniregistry):

"I do think that Donuts’ approach of having a large portfolio [hundreds] of [new gTLDs] names is the right model. There is not enough cash flow to sustain a business otherwise. We at Uniregistry are just big enough but I expect that some registries will soon be people operating out of their bedrooms. Many of the new names just don’t work."--Frank Schilling (June, 2015)(emphasis added)

Caveat Emptor!

See also on Domain Mondo: 

• Verisign, ICANN, Internet Root Zone, Risk Factors to the Root Domain 26 Oct 2015
• Why Did ICANN Become a Member of Trademark Lobbyist Group INTA? 15 Oct 2015

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

A Lust for Power: Is PIMCO Like Some CCWG-Accountability Members?

Video above: Bill Gross Sues PIMCO Over Forced Exit - Bill Gross has sued PIMCO (pimco.com) and its parent Allianz SE (allianz.com - ETR: ALV) for “hundreds of millions of dollars,” claiming he was wrongfully pushed out as the bond giant’s chief investment officer by a “cabal” of executives seeking a bigger slice of the bonus pool, in other words "greed." Bloomberg's Mary Childs reports on "Bloomberg Markets." Published on Oct 8, 2015

“Driven by a lust for power, greed, and a desire to improve their own financial position and reputation at the expense of investors ..." --Bill Gross Lawsuit Claims

Greed? In the financial industry? "I'm shocked."

Of course, the financial industry is not unique in this regard--it is now clearly evident, that there are a few members of the CCWG-Accountability (Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability) who have been, from the beginning, working on their own lustful power grab, or "greed," for control over ICANN, and apparently intend to impair or destroy ICANN's (and its Board of Directors') fiduciary duties to the global multistakeholder community and the global public interest. See: Domain Mondo: China (CAICT) Objects to ICANN CCWG Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal. For them, "Accountability" is a mere euphemism for "Power"--NOT enhancing ICANN accountability BUT enhancing their own Power--they intend to be "in control" of their proposed Single Member which would rule over the post-IANA transition ICANN and its Board of Directors. Remember, it is the "ICANN stakeholders" who currently select, directly or indirectly, 15 of the 16 voting members of the ICANN Board of Directors! But even that's not enough power (Carl Icahn would be flabbergasted by their chutzpah!)--they want to be able to overrule the ICANN Board even when to do so violates ICANN's (and the Board's) fiduciary duties to the global multistakeholder community and the global public interest:

"Sole Member given reserved power under Bylaws to override Board decision directly, regardless of Board fiduciary duties." - Legal counsel for CCWG-Accountability (pdf) opinion on CCWG 2nd draft Report (emphasis added)

But not all CCWG members are in agreement--and certainly ICANN community members do not all agree with the "power grab"--

"... Let¹s not suggest that the community is in full agreement on the 2nd draft CCWG proposal, it is not. Let¹s not suggest that the board is (nothing but) working against us, it is not. We have agreement on the most important ingredients of the proposal: specific powers for the community that can be enforced. We do not have agreement on the mechanism to implement these..."-- Roelof Meijer (CCWG mail list, October 8, 2015)(emphasis added)

Even one of the original supporters of the CCWG's 2nd Draft Report's Single Member Model now concedes:

"None of us know what will or won’t be approved by the [ICANN] stakeholder groups because at the moment there’s nothing for them to approve. At the moment no one in their right mind would approve our second draft proposal because of the feedback that it has."-- Jordan Carter, ICANN CCWG member, Oct 6, 2015 meeting transcript, emphasis added)

Apparently, from reading the CCWG mail list, we have some members of the CCWG who are not "in their right mind" since they have taken the hardline position to proceed with the Single Member Model (SMM or CMSM) in defiance of the feedback from the Public Comments, including that from the ICANN Board of Directors.  We may find out in Dublin, at the ICANN 54 meeting, if those who 'lust for power' will be successful in impairing or destroying ICANN's fiduciary duties to the global multistakeholder community and the global public interest. Some of these hardliners appear willing to destroy ICANN and the IANA transition in the process. Let's be clear what these CCWG-Accountability hardliners really want:

Complete power over ICANN to be in the hands of a few powerful ICANN "stakeholders," to the complete exclusion of the global internet community--

“... Having been a member or observer of many of these entities [ICANN stakeholder groups] I have found that they are often disorganized, ruled by a few strong personalities in a sea of apathy, and given to making up rules on the fly when needed. They do not even necessarily follow the rules they have agreed to in the charters, though some do, not all of them.  And for the most part, though they are supposed to [be] transparent, most aren't. So what I fear is that they are accountable to none except the few strong personalities..." -- Avri Doria, CCWG mail list, (emphasis added)

"... I agree that we have not (in this [CCWG] group) explored the accountability of stakeholder entities to their members, or the accountability of stakeholder entities (singly and collectively) to the larger community, or for that matter, the accountability of stakeholder entities to their non-member (and non-participating) stakeholders. If this is truly a deep concern, then it could be seen as a fundamental flaw in our entire plan, which is based on the existing stakeholder entities -- no matter how you design it (members, designators, delegates, etc.)…”-- Greg Shatan, CCWG mail list (emphasis added)

This "power grab" has nothing to do with ICANN Board accountability nor "enforceability"--that is a straw man argument completely refuted in a memo (pdf) from the Jones Day law firm distributed on the CCWG mail list October 8, 2015.

Caveat Emptor!

See also on Domain Mondo:

• IANA Transition: ICANN Board Also Rules Out CCWG Designator Model Oct 6, 2015
• Why the ICANN Board Does NOT Support the Single Member Model Oct 2, 2015
• IANA Transition, ICANN Accountability, "Has Always Been About POWER" Oct 1, 2015
• ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model Sep 27, 2015
• China (CAICT) Objects to ICANN CCWG Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal Sep 24, 2015
• Only 19 of 90 Comments Support ICANN Accountability [CCWG 2nd draft] Proposal Overall Sep 22, 2015
• ICANN CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Comments on the Public Comments Sep 15, 2015

 Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

Housing Bubble Like New gTLDs Mania? The Big Short Trailer (video)

"The Big Short Trailer (2015) - When four outsiders saw what the big banks, media and government refused to, the global collapse of the economy, they had an idea: The Big Short. Their bold investment leads them into the dark underbelly of modern banking where they must question everyone and everything. Based on the true story and best-selling book by Michael Lewis (The Blind Side, Moneyball), and directed by Adam Mckay (Anchorman, Step Brothers) The Big Short stars Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt. In US theaters this Christmas.

This looks like a great movie, and also reminds Domain Mondo of the same mindset or mania of those within ICANN, its directors, officers, staff and stakeholder groups, and applicants, for new gTLDs, flooding the market with hundreds of mostly unwanted, unneeded new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains), only to discover that the expected consumer demand and predicted financial success missing--e.g., remember ICANN's estimate that there would be 33 million new gTLD registrations in FY15 (July2014-June2015)--reality: less than 5 million! And then we have all the new gTLD hucksters and suckers who have ended up with new gTLD domain names they couldn't sell or, in some cases, even give away--a good example is the otherwise successful investor Frank Schilling--

"Marketing for .SEXY and .TATTOO begin March 8th [2014].  At $19.99, anything good .SEXY will be gone in a year." --Frank Schilling  27 Feb 2014 (emphasis added)

How many "good" .sexy domains do you think are available? "I think there are probably 200,000 big generics and creative hax. When those are gone, others will be taking FirstLast.sexy."--Frank Schilling 27 Feb 2014 (emphasis added)

Reality check: more than a year later, as of September 29, 2015, total registrations for new gTLD .sexy total only 21,290 (source: namestat.org) and reportedly Frank paid for thousands of those .SEXY domain name registrations himself through his North Sound Names, otherwise the registrations total would be even worse!

"...  I think new gTLD operators like Uniregistry were too close to their product in 2014. We have been living and breathing new gTLDs since 2011, so the official launch in 2014 was the end of a 3 year relay for us, and we were surprised that the consuming public and other registrars were not standing there eagerly to take the baton and run forward with the same zeal that it took us to get that baton to them."--Frank Schilling (January, 2015)(emphasis added)

Key phrase: "We were surprised."

"I do think that Donuts’ approach of having a large portfolio of names is the right model. There is not enough cash flow to sustain a business otherwise. We at Uniregistry are just big enough but I expect that some registries will soon be people operating out of their bedrooms. Many of the new names just don’t work."--Frank Schilling (June, 2015)(emphasis added)

Sound like the kind of domain name extension or TLD (top-level domain) you want to build your business on?--"Oh, the registry operator of our domain name operates out of his bedroom"--what were they (ICANN on down) thinking? Was it really just about greed? 

See also on Domain Mondo: New gTLD Domains, the Walking Dead and Dying, ICANN FY15 Results July 2, 2015

Caveat Emptor!


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN, Parasites, Consultants, Directors, Feeding at the Public Trough

ICANN, Parasites, Consultants, Directors, Feeding at the Public Trough--and ICANN transparency and accountability--referenced below: ICANN FY13 Form 990--

Checking in with George Kirikos:

You can see why the parasites attend #ICANN meetings, when $130 million is being spent on "consultants" (e.g. new gTLDs evals, etc.)
— George Kirikos (@GeorgeKirikos) October 31, 2014

#ICANN spent over $130 MILLION on "professional services" in 2013+2014 http://t.co/PHR6zH2dpb (page 7) Little of that was shown in Form 990.
— George Kirikos (@GeorgeKirikos) October 31, 2014

#ICANN Board Members feasting at the public trough, $2 million in compensation/expenses http://t.co/gYMr64Pu3y #oink #greed #accountability
— George Kirikos (@GeorgeKirikos) October 31, 2014

Follow @DomainMondo

Why ICANN's New gTLD Domains Are A #FAIL, Reason #1

There are 2 main reasons why most of ICANN's new gTLDs (generic top-level domains) are a #FAIL and the first reason goes to the core threshold question that ICANN, its Board of Directors, and all stakeholder groups, should always ask, but particularly whenever proposing, considering or implementing a change, or an expanded or new program:

THE QUESTION: Does this increase or decrease costs for domain name registrants?

The answer will invariably always guide one to the right decision. If the answer is that the proposal increases costs, then that should usually end the discussion and any further consideration. Unfortunately, ICANN (and I use the term "ICANN" here in the collective sense of its Board of Directors, Officers, staff, and stakeholders) either failed to ask THE QUESTION or failed to give proper weight to the answer. There is no question that the new gTLDs increase costs for domain name registrants--the registration and renewal fees for new gTLD domain names are higher* on average (sometimes much higher), businesses and trademark holders are bearing increased costs in defensive registrations, trademark enforcement, and related costs, and none of these increased costs are outweighed by any benefits that new gTLDs bring to the marketplace. That is why University of Pennsylvania Wharton School marketing professor Peter Fader, co-director of the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative, said:

"I really can’t see a legitimate upside where new benefits [of the new gTLDS] outweigh costs, and everyone I mention this to feels the same way. People just shake their heads. It’s all about the money. They [ICANN] are creating these extensions because they can." (source: Knowledge@Wharton).

It is also the reason that the former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said: "The public at large, consumers and businesses, would be better served by no expansion or less expansion [of new gTLD domains]."

If one looks behind the veil at ICANN, it is easy to understand why ICANN failed to either ask the threshold question, or heed its answer: greed and conflicts of interest at the highest levels of ICANN (Board of Directors, Officers, staff, "high stakes" stakeholders with vested interests)--see this and this and this and this and this. And of course, let's not forget that no one within ICANN, particularly within the Board of Directors or influential key stakeholder groups, represents the interests of domain name registrants--there is no "domain name registrants' interest group" within ICANN--for a very good reason: ICANN has been "largely captured by the domain name industry" (registry operators and registrars and their service providers), and they view domain name registrants as captive consumers to be exploited for financial gain. To grant domain name registrants equal power to the domain name industry, or "oversight authority" to governments (which traditionally guard the "public interest" and prevent exploitation of consumers), would be a threat to the domain name industry's power within ICANN. Remember it was the U.S. Department of Commerce, not ICANN, that insisted on limiting what Verisign could charge for .COM registration and renewal fees through November, 2018, in the last contract (2012). And that is why ICANN today is adamant that neither governments nor domain name registrants have equal footing nor oversight of ICANN's operations which could threaten the power of their favored stakeholders--registries and registrars and their service providers. After all, it's the high-stakes vested interest stakeholders--the registries and registrars--which ICANN officers refer to as their "customers."

*Note: No one at ICANN ever polled the global internet community or domain name registrants, at the time new gTLDs were under consideration, with the question: "Do you want the costs of domain name registration and renewal fees to double, triple, or even be unlimited/unregulated, and other costs to increase dramatically, in return for increasing the number of gTLDs from 22 to more than 1300?"

Tomorrow: Reason #2 new gTLD domains are a #FAIL--the market can be cruel, sometimes very cruel--some high-stakes players are about to find out just how cruel the market can really be.

See also: ICANN, New gTLD Domain Names, Universal Acceptance Another #FAIL


Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo