News Review: China Cyber Sovereignty vs ICANN Multistakeholderism

Domain Mondo's weekly review of internet domain news:

Features •  1. China Cyber Sovereignty vs ICANN Multistakeholderism; 2. ICANN Websites, More ICANN Incompetence; 3. Average Annual Cost of an ICANN Employee; 4. Class Action vs Neustar; 5. Google.com UDRP; 6. GoDaddy Q4 2016 Results; 7. InternetAssociation.org political fundraising; 8. Names, Domains, Trademarks; 9. The Internet's 'Seven Keys'; 10. DOA not a replacement DNS;  11. ICANN CEP & IRP update; 12. Internet Attack Mitigation; 13. ICANN mafia; 14. Verisign 10-K (.WEB); 15. One of ICANN's stupid ideas gets nixed; 16. 3 most popular posts this past week on Domain Mondo.

1. China Cyber Sovereignty vs ICANN Multistakeholderism: What's Next for ICANN in the Absence of U.S. Oversight? An Interview With Kal Raustiala* | Council on Foreign Relations - Net Politics | cfr.org, excerpts:

Q: One central criticism of the multistakeholder model is that it isn’t representative enough ..." How do you respond?

"There is no question there are inequities in participation ..."

Q: Do you think that China’s concept of cyber sovereignty is incompatible with the multistakeholder model? What are the implications?

"... For China, which isn’t a fan of private actor input in almost any decision making, the ICANN model is a problem."

*Kal Raustiala is a Professor of Law at UCLA, and Director of the UCLA Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations.

UPDATE March 5, 2017: News Review: China Will 'Vigorously' Promote the Reform of ICANN

 2.  ICANN Websites, More ICANN Incompetence:

ICANN NCPH Intersessional, 14-15 February 2017, Reykjavik, Iceland, Non-Contracted Parties House (NCPH)  meeting transcripts, documents, presentations, recordings--excerpt (NCSG Session with the ICANN CEO):

Question: "... So the easy one that surprisingly came up first and everybody but a few people asked, it’s been coming up today as well many times, why can nobody ever find anything on ICANN websites other than by Googling sometimes but no search function, there is no organization. It’s impossible to find anything. Why don’t you hire a librarian to sort it out?

ICANN President & CEO Göran Marby: "That’s a very good question. Actually it is a very good question ... The simple answer to that question is that you are right. We don’t have a library function. We don’t have a document management system at all and, even worse than that, we don’t have any system in place on how to store things, how to label things, how to categorize things, how to collect things, and how to sort them together ..."

3. Average Annual Cost of an ICANN Employee almost $160,000 based on "an average headcount of 339.5 which excludes 11.1 average headcount allocated to the IANA ..."--ICANN FY17 Q2 (ending Dec 2016) QUARTERLY REPORT: ICANN personnel costs--an average of $160,000 per employee per year--FY17 (Jul-Dec) $27million ÷ 339.5 x 2), source (pdf) (p. 56 below):

4.  A class action suit has been filed against registry services and technology provider Neustar, Inc. ("Neustar"), [NYSE: NSR | domain: Neustar.biz]--MarketWatch.com--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announced it had filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of shareholders of Neustar in connection with the proposed acquisition of Neustar by Golden Gate Capital and its affiliates (collectively, "Golden Gate") announced on December 14, 2016. The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Neustar, its Board of Directors, and Golden Gate, and is captioned Parshall v. Neustar, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00060-LPS (D. Del.). More information at MarketWatch link above.

5.  Google.com UDRP:

http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1710030.htm

6.  GoDaddy $GDDY Q4 2016 Results, LIVE Webcast (Replay)--Feb 15, 5:00pm ET | DomainMondo.com: "2016 Revenue Growth of 15% Driven by 7% Growth in Customers."

7. InternetAssociation.org, a trade group representing internet giants including Facebook and Google, is launching a new online political fundraising platform.--Internet Association Brings Political Fundraising Into The Digital Age With New Crowdsourcing Platform | InternetAssociation.org.

8. Fame Names, Domains & Trademarks--The Designer Formerly Known As…Intellectual Property Issues Arising From Personal Names As Fashion Brands | Ladas & Parry LLP | JDSupra.com--or how to lose your personal name.

9. The Problem with "The Seven Keys" | ICANN.org: "From time to time, articles are published about "the seven people who control the keys to the Internet.” These articles, while probably well-intentioned, are completely incorrect. Let’s be absolutely clear: there are no keys that cause the Internet to function (or not to function) ..." Read more at the link above.

10. Digital Object Architecture (DOA) not a replacement DNS--Letter to ICANN Board from Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency [ISPCP] | ICANN.org--holmes-to-icann-01feb17-en.pdf (pdf 256 KB)--

"... At the recent ITU World Telecommunications Standardisation Assembly (WTSA) held in Tunisia in November 2016 DOA dominated much of the discussion. It placed those countries that support the initiatives being pursued within the ITU (referred to above) in direct opposition to those who are currently fiercely opposed to that approach from both technical and political perspectives ... Although the subject of much discussion, both from a technical and political standpoint, there is clear evidence that in many cases there is a lack of understanding of what DOA really represents. Some people even speak of DOA as a replacement DNS, which it certainly is not ... The ISPCP bring this issue the attention of the ICANN Board with a request that the Board considers how best to work with its involved stakeholders and the technical community to raise awareness of DOA and ensure that the community has a true, factual understanding of the situation and its relationship to ICANN ..."

11.  ICANN CEP (Cooperative Engagement Process) and IRP (Independent Review Process) Status Update – 14 February 2017  – irp-cep-status-14feb17-en.pdf [426 KB] (embed below, highlighting added):

12. Internet Identifiers Attack Mitigation:  Identifier System Attack Mitigation Methodology (pdf, 876 KB)--"this effort addresses Recommendation #12 of the Security, Stability & Resiliency (SSR) Review"--excerpt: "ICANN is proposing a new Identifier System Attack Mitigation Methodology to: • Identify, prioritize, and periodically refresh a list of top Identifier System attacks; • Develop guidance on actual high-impact attacks and emerging high-risk vulnerabilities; • Describe corresponding attack mitigation practices that are commonly considered useful; and • Encourage broader adoption of those practices via contracts, agreements, incentives, etc. This document represents the first component of this methodology ...."

13. The ICANN mafia has taken my site hostage for 2 days now | levels.io and ICANN has taken my site hostage | Hacker News | news.ycombinator.com.

14. Verisign 10-K 

•  Geographic revenues disclosed by Verisign 10-K:

"Revenues for our Registry Services business are attributed to the country of domicile and the respective regions in which our registrars are located, however, this may differ from the regions where the registrars operate or where registrants are located. Revenue growth for each region may be impacted by registrars reincorporating, relocating, or from acquisitions or changes in affiliations of resellers. Revenue growth for each region may also be impacted by registrars domiciled in one region, registering domain names in another region. Although revenues continued to grow in the more mature markets of the U.S. and EMEA during 2016, China saw the highest growth rate due in part to the increased volume of new registrations during the second half of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016."

•  .WEB in Verisign 10-K:

Note 4. Deposits to Acquire Intangible Assets: "As of December 31, 2016 , the Company has paid $ 145.0 million for the future assignment to the Company of contractual rights to the . web gTLD, pending resolution of objections by other applicants, regulatory review, and approval from ICANN. Upon assignment of the contractual rights, the Company will record the total investment as an indefinite-lived intangible asset."

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:
On January 18, 2017, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice requesting certain material related to the Company becoming the registry operator for the .web gTLD. We are in the process of responding to the CID. It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential financial and non-financial outcomes in connection with this matter.

15. One of ICANN's many stupid ideas gets nixed at the public comments stage:

Names of ICANN "diseases"

Report of Public Comments | Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition | ICANN.org: "... several expressed concerns over the proposed use of Latin-like medical-based terminology [Datamalgia, Abusitis, Magnitudalgia, Perfluoism, Datafallaxopathy] to identify Internet health conditions. Since this feedback was so clear, ICANN is dropping the Latin terminology as the project goes forward." For background read: News Review: ICANN Busy Proving IANA Transition Was A Terrible Mistake: "8. ICANN is this a joke OR is ICANN the joke? ..." (01 Jan 2017).

16.  3 most popular posts (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) this past week on DomainMondo.com:

1. Alphabet Inc at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Conferences 2017
2. TechReview | What's Really Wrong With Twitter & Why Trump Lost in Court
3. News Review: Who Needs a Domain Name and Website Anymore?

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

GNSO Admits Domain Name Transfer Policy Flawed, Blames ICANN Staff

UPDATE December 2, 2016: The letter from James Bladel on behalf of the GNSO Council has now been published on the ICANN correspondence webpage (pdf), embed below:

UPDATE November 30, 2016: Philip Corwin has today advised Domain Mondo that the letter by James Bladel on behalf of the GNSO Council, embedded below, "is still under development and has not yet been sent."  Domain Mondo obtained the letter from ICANN via one of its public daily briefing emails with the text "GNSO Council to ICANN Board Thursday, November 24 2016 05:20 PM" and a direct link to the letter (pdf) with no other reference either on the ICANN website or GNSO website.

*Original posting:
In the world of ICANN, incompetence begets incompetence and compounds itself in perpetuity:

New transfer policy QA | OpenSRS.com: "At OpenSRS, we believe that the ICANN community who came up with this new policy did a disservice to [domain name] registrants. The policy requirements do not add any positive element to the experience of managing a domain name, and there has been no consideration how this policy would align with the number of other ICANN mandated policies which are already in place. Nonetheless, OpenSRS is, like all other ICANN accredited registrars, bound by the terms of the Transfer Policy .." (emphasis added). For more see News Review | What Is ICANN? | New ICANN Domain Name Transfer Policy. 

The new ICANN Domain Name Transfer Policy effective December 1, 2016 has been sharply criticized as indicated in the quote above, and now it has come to light that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) which developed this flawed policy (one of many flawed policies that the GNSO is renown for propagating without proper forethought or competence), has now had second thoughts about the way the policy was implemented by ICANN staff, and in a letter (embed further below) states:

"the GNSO Council respectfully requests the ICANN Board of Directors to instruct ICANN staff to (a) remove any privacy/proxy service compliance from the Transfer Policy and to transfer the issue to the PPSAI Implementation Review Team for evaluation and recommendation, and (b) to withhold any compliance enforcement of the Transfer Policy relating to the enabling or disabling of privacy/proxy services pending the outcome of the PPSAI IRT."

Truth is the whole Domain Name Transfer Policy is flawed as OpenSRS noted above. But the GNSO Council, as is typical, takes no responsibility for its incompetent policy-making, and instead blames ICANN staff for misinterpreting the policy in the implementation phase:

"Although the the IRTP Part C policy recommendations are silent on the issue, ICANN staff, based on initial guidance from the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team, interprets the Transfer Policy to require registrars to implement the CoR when any change is made to the public WHOIS data, even when that change does not result in a change to the underlying customer data. The RrSG has pointed out, however, that this approach is untenable as it guts the intent of the Transfer Policy (as the actual registrant may change without the process being triggered) and creates significant operational complications for routine changes carried out by P/P providers.1 While ICANN staff is sympathetic to these challenges, they are obliged to represent what they see as the direction provided by the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team (IRTP-C IRT)."

The ICANN community members who developed this flawed policy are listed here and include some current members of the GNSO Council, including Chair James Bladel (GoDaddy) and Philip Corwin (Internet Commerce Association). Who were the members of the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team (IRTP-C IRT)? Unknown, that information is either hidden or buried on the ICANN and GNSO websites (ICANN likes to hide information and keep things "secret" from public view), though the mailing list includes GNSO Chair James Bladel, author of the GNSO Council letter embedded below:

GNSO Council letter (highlighting added) embed below (pdf):

*posting revised in accordance with Update(s)

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

Incompetent ICANN Struggles With Its Domain Names Marketplace Index

ICANN Timeline: gTLD Marketplace Health Index 1.0 Work Plan [Draft]

Three years of close observation of ICANN leads one to the inescapable conclusion to never underestimate the incompetence of ICANN management and staff when it comes to domain names. Why ICANN would be creating hundreds of new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains) when it obviously has little or no real understanding of the domain name marketplace, is beyond comprehension. Search ICANN.org for its Marketplace Index--https://www.icann.org/search/#!/?searchText=Marketplace Index--and you may find the following:

• At-Large gTLD Marketplace Health Index Proposal: Call for Comments and Volunteers Workspace - At-Large Policy Development (wiki)
• gTLD Marketplace Health Index (wiki) (current)
• First call for comments: Close Date 22 Jan 2016; Comments; ICANN Staff Report on Comments
• ICANN gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta) July 2016: The "gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta)" includes anonymous, high-level data about gTLD registry operators, registrars and registrants, which ICANN collects for business purposes. There are many other potential sources of data to consider as ICANN and the community collaborate in developing additional metrics that can be used to quantify the health of the marketplace.--ICANN, see also this. 
• Second call for comments:  Close Date 9 Sep 2016; Comments; ICANN Staff Report on Comments;

September 6, 2016: Comment from John Poole, Editor of DomainMondo.com, and domain name registrant, Re: ICANN's gTLDMarketplace Health Index (Beta): Call for Comments

1. I repeat and incorporate by reference, as if fully set out herein, the entirety of mycomment found here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gtld-marketplace-health-17nov15/pdfQsziB8ArJy.pdf submitted on January 8, 2016, in response to your earlier gTLDMarketplace Health Index Proposal: Call for Comments. You have ignored not only my earlier comment referenced above, but most of the other comments submitted at that time, including comments by ICANN's own Business Constituency and IPC, all of which can be read here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gtld-marketplace-health-17nov15/. 

2. Your gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta) is severely flawed and should not be used. You have failed to define the "marketplace" properly, you have ignored "pricing" as a key component of determining "Marketplace Health" (you should be tracking, and publishing daily, wholesale and retail pricing, as well as corresponding registration numbers, for each and every TLD in the global DNS if you are indeed interested in "Marketplace Health"). You are measuring such metrics as "geographic diversity" which may be irrelevant or invalid for reasons I discussed in my earlier comment and which your "expert" ProfessorHemant Bhargava also cited. We live in a global economy. GoDaddy and other registrars do business worldwide via the internet. Wake up ICANN, it's the 21st Century! (Get out of your "hub" mentality and into a "global" mentality.) 

3. It appears ICANN management and staff are too incompetent, inept, or conflicted, to develop a useful, relevant and valid domain names "Marketplace Health Index." I would suggest taking note of all the comments submitted previously and this time, and outsourcing the entire project to CENTR https://www.centr.org/ and/or the Internet Society http://www.internetsociety.org/ or some other entity competent to do the job.
--Respectfully submitted, John Poole, Editor of DomainMondo.com, and domain name registrant

Read all the other comments submitted here, but note particularly, the comment (pdf) prepared by Andrew Simpson, Principal Data Scientist, Verisign, embedded in full below, which begins with the following "Summary":

"ICANN has decided to move forward with creating the Beta Marketplace Health Index but has not yet created a meaningful dialog that would permit a consensus to be reached among various stakeholders impacted by the index. Thus far, ICANN has requested public comment on their initial gTLD Marketplace Health Index Proposal. Following this initial round of comments, ICANN convened an advisory panel where they presented a revised draft to the panelists who each individually sent additional feedback to ICANN. ICANN did not disclose to the members of the advisory panel how the feedback that panelists provided would be addressed. Instead, ICANN’s staff seems to have relied solely on recommendations from its funded research, which was edited and reviewed by ICANN staff alone. The resulting Beta report therefore lacks clarity around goals – as noted in the community feedback -- and continues to arbitrarily define an industry marketplace that does not reflect end users’ experience nor the actual marketplace in which TLDs compete." (emphasis added)

Simpson goes on to note: 1) further refinement of goals is necessary (robust competition, thriving/fair marketplace); 2) Marketplace Scope needs to be expanded--"gTLDs and ccTLDs coexist in the eyes of end users"; 3) The process needs to be clearly defined;  and in regard to Marketplace Stability and Trust (emphasis added):

"The ambiguity of the current definition allows one to conclude that the metrics are measuring whether ICANN has created a stable set of vendors that it [ICANN] can trust. If the desired goal is to evaluate the perspective of any others in the marketplace, such as domain name users, then the metrics need to be changed to be far more comprehensive."

 So where is the Marketplace Index project going now? Best guess is here:

gTLD Marketplace Health Index 1.0 Work Plan [October 3, 2016 Draft]:

• (26 October) Advisory Panel Meeting 1–Overview of next steps, discussion of scope and definitions, high-level issues
• (Nov 3-9 exact date/time TBD): ICANN57 community session-project overview and request for feedback
• (Nov 3-9 exact date/time TBD): ICANN 57 Advisory Panel working meeting (Topics likely overall scope, metrics category definitions)
• (12/1 (exact date TBD)): Advisory Panel meeting-finalize discussion of scope and definitions
• (Week of 5, 12 Dec) Staff–develop discussion list of proposed v 1.0 metrics for discussion with Advisory Panel
• (Approx 16 Dec): AP call–overview of proposed v. 1.0 metrics
• (19 Dec-17 January Lag for holiday break, AP review and feedback
• (18-31 January) AP meetings, feedback period on "robust competition" metrics
• (1 Feb-14 Feb) AP meetings, feedback period on "marketplace stability" metrics
• (15-28 Feb) AP meetings, feedback period on "trust" metrics
• Face-to-Face meeting at ICANN58-March 2017
• (22-28 March) Finalize metrics list for 1.0
• (end March/early April) draft/publish RFP for data source, if required

Comment by Andrew Simpson, Principal Data Scientist, Verisign, submitted Sep 9, 2016:



feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

Inept ICANN, Glossary Terms and Acronyms Now Online?

Here's typically inept and incompetent ICANN in action -- you can read the ICANN blog post for yourself here: Updated ICANN Glossary Terms and Acronyms Now Online

My response, which I left as a comment at the blog post:

"the updated glossary terms and acronyms are up on our website" - Really? Where? Did you ever think of providing a "link" in your blog post? Does everything ICANN does have to be like this - obfuscated, hard to find, hidden, not disclosed? "Our website"--are you referring to icann.org? Your "glossary" does not appear on the home page. I looked under "Resources"--nothing there. Pray tell, if you are so "proud" of your glossary, WHERE did you "hide" it? Are you referring to this glossary: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/glossary OR this glossary: http://www.icann.org/en/about/learning/glossary OR something else?

UPDATE: After my comment was posted, the links were posted on the original blog entry at the first link above.

Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo