Showing posts with label registries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label registries. Show all posts

2017-11-05

News Review | ICANN60: ICANN Board Crashes The Party in Abu Dhabi

News Review | ©2016 DomainMondo.com
Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-11-05) with analysis and opinion: Features •  1) ICANN60: ICANN Board Crashes The Party in Abu Dhabi, 2) Other ICANN news, 3) Names, Domains & Trademarks: ICANN, Registrars, Registries--Don't Be Censors! 4) ICYMI, 5) Most Read Posts.
1) ICANN60 Recap: ICANN Board Crashes The Party in Abu Dhabi
 a. ICANN Board Suspends SSR2 Review Team Work on October 28:

ICANN Meeting 60 - GNSO Working Session: (10/29/2017 02:55): Keith Drazek (RySG): "The scope of the SSR2-RT is pretty clearly detailed in the new, post-transition ICANN bylaws."... GNSO Chair James Bladel: "it's an open question whether the ICANN Board can pause the work of the SSR2-RT" ... Wolf Ulrich"nobody understands what the Board's problem with the SSR2-RT is" ... Michele Neylon"it would be helpful to get clarity" ... Chat (10/29/2017 03:00) --Keith Drazek (RySG): For additional context, prior to the IANA Transition, the Review Team members were appointed by the ICANN CEO and GAC Chair. Post-transition, the SOs and ACs are responsible for the appointment of RT members. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the SSR2-RT recommendations are binding  and the Board is obligated to accept them.  It appears there's some discomfort with these parameters. Susan Kawaguchi: Can we deny the request?  and move on?
ICANN GNSO Council Meeting, 1 Nov 2017(pdf): "Okay. Then let's move on to Agenda Item Number 5 ... Agenda Item Number 5 is a discussion on the SSR2 review team, which if you had told me a week ago that I would have been speaking more about SSR2 than GDPR, I would have probably laughed at you. But that's exactly how it went down this week."--GNSO Council Chair James Bladel.
Editor's note: Out of the gate, ICANN's Board of Directors, on the first day of ICANN60, Oct 28, took the unprecedented and questionable action of suspending the work of the Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review Team appointed by ICANN AC/SOs' Chairs as mandated by ICANN's bylaws Article 4. Section 4.6, and it became the lingering lead issue of ICANN60 throughout the entire meeting, including the last day, notwithstanding pending pressing issues of complying with EU's GDPR by next May, next steps in dealing with the contentious issue of new gTLD .AMAZON, ICANN's U.S. jurisdiction and the implications of OFAC brought up in the course of Accountability WS-2's work, and a myriad of other issues expected by stakeholders to be the focus of their work this past week at ICANN60.

On the last day, Friday, Nov 3, 2017, the beleaguered SSR2 Review Team, still in Abu Dhabi after almost everyone else had flown the coop, held its previously scheduled all-day face-to-face meeting with little more to do than "review feedback" from ICANN60 sessions, and then begin putting back the pieces the ICANN Board had left strewn about Abu Dhabi. For more read ICANN60, Abu Dhabi, ICANN Board Suspends SSR2 Work and Statement from SO/AC Chairs, Nov 2, 2017, on the suspension of the Security and Stability Review.

b. Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Communique (pdf): The GAC elected Manal Ismail (Egypt) as Chair to complete the two-year term of Thomas Schneider. The GAC elected as Vice Chairs: Guo Feng (China); Ghislain de Salins (France); Milagros Castañon (Peru); Chérif Diallo (Senegal); Pär Brumark (Niue). The GAC discussed follow-up on previous advice re: 1. Application for .amazon and related strings; 2. 2-Character Country Codes at the 2nd Level;  3. Red Cross and Red Crescent Protections. Several GAC members "expressed major concerns regarding the draft report from the sub-group on jurisdiction. These members consider that it falls short of the objectives envisaged for Work Stream 2, and that its recommendations only partly mitigate the risks associated with ICANN’s subjection to US jurisdiction, which makes the adoption of the report unacceptable" (emphasis added). GAC Consensus Advice to the Board: 1. Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) Protections; 2. Enabling inclusive, informed and meaningful participation in ICANN; 3. GDPR / WHOIS; 4. Applications for .amazon and related strings--a. The GAC advises the ICANN Board to: i. continue facilitating negotiations between the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization’s (ACTO) member states and the Amazon corporation with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable solution to allow for the use of .amazon as a top level domain name.

c. GDPR & WHOISData Protection/Privacy Issues | ICANN.org.

d. WS2-Accountability: see Co-Chairs Statement from CCWG-Accountability Meeting in Abu Dhabi | ICANN.org and ICANN Jurisdiction: CCWG-Accountability WS2, Friday Oct 27, Abu Dhabi.

e. Public Forum #2--Domain name registrant's complaint about new TLDs that "don't work" on the internet--Public Forum excerpts (as transcribed unedited, emphasis added)(pdf):

f. Public ICANN Board Meeting (Editor's note: see tweet below on why all ICANN Board Meetings should be public and accessible online):

g. Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT)

ICANN60 Interview With Jonathan Zuck and Drew Bagley: progress and next steps of the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review from CCT Chair Jonathan Zuck and CCT Independent Expert Drew Bagley of securedomain.org. In this interview produced by ICANN, Zuck and Bagley share information about the CCT Review, including next steps. More information at ICANN.org.

2) Other ICANN news
.AMAZONApproved Board Resolutions | Request for New or Additional Information from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) re: Advice on Amazon Applications | ICANN.org 29 Oct 2017: Whereas, the BAMC has recommended ... Resolved (2017.10.29.02), the Board asks the GAC if it has: (i) any information to provide to the Board as it relates to the "merits-based public policy reasons," regarding the GAC's advice that the Amazon applications should not proceed; or (ii) any other new or additional information to provide to the Board regarding the GAC's advice that the Amazon applications should not proceed. Resolved (2017.10.29.03), the Board asks the GAC that if it has any new or additional information (as requested above) to provide to the Board, it does so by the conclusion of the ICANN61 meeting scheduled to take place from 10-15 March 2018, in order to assist the Board's appropriate and prompt consideration.

Data Protection/Privacy Statement--Statement from ICANN Contractual Compliance | ICANN.org: "As discussed at ICANN60, the extent of the impact of the GDPR on WHOIS and other contractual requirements related to domain name registration data is uncertain. The ICANN Board, org and community are engaged in multiple efforts to assess the impact of the GDPR on registry and registrar obligations in ICANN agreements and policies, and we continue to work with the Hamilton law firm to understand this impact. At this point, we know that the GDPR will have an impact on open, publicly available WHOIS ... During this period of uncertainty, and under the conditions noted below, ICANN Contractual Compliance will defer taking action against any registry or registrar for noncompliance with contractual obligations related to the handling of registration data. To be eligible, a contracted party that intends to deviate from its existing obligations must share its model with ICANN Contractual Compliance and the Global Domains Division." (emphasis added)

Approved Board Resolutions | Refinement of string similarity review in IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process | ICANN.orgResolved (2017.10.29.05), the Board thanks the ccNSO, GAC and SSAC for collaborating to address the issue related to string similarity review and for developing the "Joint ccNSO SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP". Resolved (2017.10.29.06), the [ICANN] Board approves amending the Final Implementation Plan for IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process as suggested in the Joint ccNSO SSAC Response. The President and CEO, or his Designee(s), is directed to incorporate the amendment into the Implementation Plan previously adopted by the Board on 30 October 2009 (and amended on 5 November 2013) and implement the amendment as soon as practicable.

Approved Board Resolutions | Defer Compliance Enforcement of Thick WHOIS Consensus Policy for 180 Days | ICANN.org: "Resolved (2017.10.29.04), the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to defer compliance enforcement of the Thick Whois Consensus Policy for 180 days to allow additional time for the registrars and Verisign to reach agreement on amendments needed to applicable registry-registrar agreements to implement the Policy and for Registrars to undertake system modifications required to enable the thin to thick migration and additional modifications, if any, required for GDPR compliance."

Minutes – Board Risk Committee (BRC) Meeting | ICANN.org 2 Nov 2017: "... ICANN organization will consider moving to a different auditor next year when it moves to NIST framework. One significant change ICANN organization has made internally this year was to reorganize within the engineering and IT function and integrated cybersecurity (which used to be a stand-alone function) with DNS engineering and networking teams. It was noted that cloud based security testing is becoming a part of ICANN organization's normal rhythm as 40 percent of the services utilized at ICANN leverages some aspect of cloud."

Letter from ICANN General Counsel & Secretary John O. Jeffrey to Jetse Sprey | ICANN.org:
01 Nov 2017 Issue: Gemeente Amsterdam FRL Registry B.V. (new gTLDs .FRL, .AMSTERDAMjeffrey-to-sprey-01nov17-en.pdf [604 KB] "... your clients appear to have violated its obligations under the Registry Agreement ..."

3) Names, Domains & Trademarks
EFF to ICANN: Don't Pick Up the Censor's Pen | Electronic Frontier Foundation | EFF.org: "... And ICANN largely has itself to blame, by including in its 2013 revision to its agreement with registrars a provision requiring registrars to "receive reports of abuse involving Registered Names" and to "take reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond appropriately." This leaves ICANN open to an argument that goes, "No of course we are not asking you to become the content police, we are simply asking you to enforce your own contracts with registrars, when they refuse to carry out their obligations to be content police." ICANN appears to have voluntarily taken on further responsibility for addressing "abuse involving" domain names through its appointment this year of a Consumer Safeguards Director with a background in law enforcement. EFF attended and reported on the first webinar held by the new Director, in which he downplayed the significance of his role, stating that it does not carry any enforcement powers. Yet a draft report [PDF] of ICANN's Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team recommends that strict new enforcement and reporting obligations should be made compulsory for any new top-level domains that ICANN adopts in the future. ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) has explained [PDF] why many of these recommendations would be unnecessary and harmful ..."

See also: EFF to ICANN's Registrars: Don't Pick Up the Censor's Pen | EFF.org and 

EFF to ICANN's Registries: Don't Pick Up the Censor's Pen | EFF.org: "... Our whitepaper broke down these choices in detail, explaining how some of the weakest protection for free speech comes from those domain registries whose policies offer additional privileges to trademark or copyright holders, or to overseas speech regulators. Amongst the worst examples that we called out were Donuts and Radix, who have a side-deal with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), bestowing it with a "Trusted Notifier" status that allows it to recommend domains for the registrars to suspend, without review by a court. We also called out the Domain Name Association (DNA) for a Shadow Regulation-style proposal to construct a private copyright arbitration system for its member registries, which include the Public Interest Registry (PIR) responsible for .org domains, and to promote that system of private law as an industry standard. This proposal was developed behind closed doors, fueling our concerns about its capture by copyright holders. Although the DNA and PIR shelved these plans after EFF brought them to light, the DNA is still pushing a similar pharmaceutical industry-penned policy that would allow for the rapid suspension of domains used for online medicine sales, bypassing any legal process. To give a final example, the new gTLDs contain an excessive level of protection for trademark holders when compared with most of the original gTLDs and ccTLDs. ICANN has imposed the requirement that all new gTLD registries utilize a secret Trademark Clearinghouse database to give priority access to brand owners when first offering their new domains for sale ("Sunrise Protection"), and to warn off registrants who register domains that might give rise to a trademark claim. Some registries have gone even further to offer brand owners additional protections that the ICANN community had rejected as requirements for the new gTLD program. An example is Donuts' DPML-Plus program that prevents the public from registering new domains that are merely typographically similar to a trademarked brand ..."

Google no longer lets you change domains to search different countries | TheVerge.com: "Google said that it’ll now deliver search results relevant to your current location no matter which domain you visit. So if you’re in New York and visit google.ru, you’ll still get results relevant to New York City. Fortunately, it’ll still be possible to escape your country’s results. You’ll be able to change locations, you’ll just have to do it through the settings menu at the bottom of google.com ... The policy of always serving local results will now apply to desktop and mobile searches, as well as Google Maps and the iOS Google app."

4) ICYMI Internet Domain News 
US Federal Court Rejects Global Search Order | EFF.org"... a federal court in the US has weighed in on a thorny question: Does Google US have to obeyCanadian court order requiring Google to take down information around the world, ignoring contrary rules in other jurisdictions? According to the [U.S. District Court for the] Northern District of California, the answer is no. The case is Google v. Equustek ..."

Data Breaches: U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, will convene a hearing titled “Protecting Consumers in the Era of Major Data Breaches,” at approximately 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2017, to examine data breaches. The hearing will feature testimony from current CEO of Equifax and past Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer.--U.S. Senate Committee On Commerce, Science, & Transportation | commerce.senate.gov.

The DDoS Attack Against Dyn One Year Later | forbes.com"... we now find news of a botnet which is reportedly spreading on IoT devices again ..."

Nov 4-5, celebrate the life and work of Aaron Swartz at the Fifth Annual Aaron Swartz Day and Hackathon | blog.archive.org.  Aaron would have turned 31 on November 8.--eff.org

5) Top 3 Most Read Posts (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) this past week on DomainMondo.com: 
1. Securing Consumer Credit Data in the Age of Digital Commerce (video)

2. News Review | ICANN60, Abu Dhabi, ICANN Board Suspends SSR2 Work

3. Ad Agencies & Brands Vs Google $GOOG, Facebook $FB, Amazon $AMZN

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER

2016-05-21

INTA Annual Meeting 2016, Orlando, May 21-25

International Trademark Association INTA Annual Meeting 2016, Orlando 21-25 May:

Highlighted sessions:

Tuesday, May 24, 10:15-11:30: CT03 Making Money on .Generic Domain Names "Sure, the business model for .brands is self-evident, a safe secure ecosystem designed to protect consumers from confusion and a platform for innovative interactions between brands and their customers. But haven’t you wondered how new gTLD registries with .generic terms will make money?  It’s not like we were all clamoring for more domain names and it’s not as if .info and .biz really hit it out of the ballpark. Well, we have invited some of the best and brightest of the business folks running new .generic gTLD registries to come to the Annual Meeting and clue us in on how they plan to turn these registries into money makers."
Moderators: Paul McGrady, Winston & Strawn LLP (United States); Stacey King, Amazon Inc. (United States)
Speakers:
Benjamin Crawford, CentralNic Plc (United Kingdom)
Frank Schilling, Uniregistry (Cayman Islands)
Daniel Schindler, Donuts (United States)

Monday, May 23, 11:45 am–1:00 pm: IM20 Internet/E-Commerce Industry Breakout: Beyond Trademarks—The Latest Challenges for Trademark Lawyers in Dealing with ICANN, New gTLDs, and the New Internet Landscape "The new online landscape is one in which mobile is king, a proliferation of apps compete with thousands of new domain names for traffic, and where the central organization governing the Internet is undergoing a significant transition away from US government oversight. This brave new world need not be intimidating, however. Our expert panel of Internet lawyers will guide us through a number of topics, including: 
  • Opportunities and enforcement challenges presented by new gTLDs/ccTLDs.
  • Defensive domain registration strategies.
  • Involvement in ICANN for TM lawyers.
  • Role of governments in Internet governance and e-commerce.
  • Implications of an increasingly mobile-centric Internet." 
Moderator: Ellen B. Shankman, Ellen Shankman & Associates (Israel)
Speakers:
Andrew Abrams, Google (United States)
Sheri Falco, ICM Registry LLC (United States)
Stacey King, Amazon.com, Inc. (United States)
Michele Neylon, Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd (Ireland)
Nick Wood, Com Laude (United Kingdom)

Sunday 11:30 am–12:45 pm: China Trademark Association Panel "... updates on Chinese trademark office practices from Chinese government officials and association leaders."

Sunday, May 22, 2:30 pm–3:45 pm: Free Speech and Trademark Law:  A Survey of Recent and Relevant Cases from United States, Japan and Norway Concerning Speech, Expression and Trademark Protection  "... recent trademark decisions, future trends, and their most important and news-worthy decisions of the past year concerning free speech rights, property rights in trademarks, political and commercial speech." 

Monday, May 23, 10:15 am–11:30 am: CM03 Nontraditional Trademarks, Innovation, and Competition: Friends or Foes? "In addition to words, names, logos, and product packaging, governments around the world are increasingly allowing registration and protection of nontraditional trademarks (also known as trade dress) such as product configurations, colors, scents, sounds, tastes, textures and motions. As these signs can identify and distinguish goods and services, brands can benefit from registering and enforcing rights in such innovative types of trademarks. Yet protection of nontraditional trademarks may also significantly hinder competition and communication in the marketplace ..."



See also:



DISCLAIMER

2015-11-10

New gTLDs Growth Rate Declining, dot COM Registrations Increasing

Source of above: CENTR (Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries) 
Above data and charts from CENTR publication Domain Wire 2015, 3rd Quarter: 
"Despite the size of the .com zone, it is still growing on average at a higher rate than its peers."--CENTR's DomainWire Global TLD Stat Report 2015/3rd Quarter (pdf) (emphasis added).
"The active zone as of 11/04/2015 contains 120,416,517 .com domain names ..." 
"The active zone as of 11/09/2015 contains 121,126,545 .com domain names ..."
(source: Verisign.com)
710,028 net additions to .COM active zone in just 5 days!--source: Zone Files For Top-Level Domains (TLDs) - Verisign--and as of November 9, 2015, there are a total of 122,034,536 dot COM domain names in the "Domain Name Base"--"The domain name base is the active zone plus the number of domain names that are registered but not configured for use in the respective Top-Level Domain zone file plus the number of domain names that are in a client or server hold status." (source: Verisign.com).

At this rate, it will take only 9 weeks for the dot COM net adds to exceed the cumulative grand total registrations of all new gTLDs combined, as pathetically trumpeted by ICANN's Global Domains Division President:
(BTW, is Akram getting paid by ICANN or the new gTLDs' Lobbyists to be chief PR flack for the new gTLD registry operators?)

About CENTR: CENTR is the association of European country code top-level domain (ccTLD) registries, such as .de for Germany or .si for Slovenia. CENTR currently counts 52 full and 9 associate members – together, they are responsible for over 80% of all registered country code domain names worldwide. The objectives of CENTR are to promote and participate in the development of high standards and best practices among ccTLD registries. (source: centr.org)
Note: Domain Mondo's new CENTR page contains links and twitter feed of  CENTR: Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries

GLOSSARY OF TERMS used by CENTR:
ccTLD – a Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) is a top level domain used and reserved for a country or dependent territory. Examples include .uk for the United Kingdom or .de for Germany. Each country appoints a manager of its ccTLD and sets the rules for allocating domains. 
gTLD – a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) is a top level domain that is open to registrants worldwide in contrast to a Country Code Top Level Domain that are often restricted to registrants located in a particular country. The more popular gTLDs are .com, .org and .net 
ccTLD IDN – an IDN is a domain name that includes characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet (a-z). An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. A ccTLD IDN is an IDN at the top level – eg., the ccTLD IDN for the Russian Federation is .PФ which is the Cyrillic script version of .RF (Russian Federation). 
sTLD – a Sponsored Top Level Domain (sTLD) is another form of a gTLD overseen by ICANN. An example of a sTLD is .cat for the Catalonia region. 
Registrant – The individual or organisation that registers a specific domain name. They hold the right to use that domain name for a specified period of time (often one year however multi-year registrations are increasingly popular). 
Registry – An internet domain name registry receives domain name information into a centralised database and transmits the information in internet zone files on the internet so that domain names can be found by users around the world via the worldwide web and email. (source: centr.org)

Caveat Emptor!



DISCLAIMER

2015-10-24

Former GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson Interview from ICANN54 (video)

"

An ICANN interview of Jonathan Robinson at ICANN 54 in Dublin. Robinson is now former Chair of ICANN's GNSO Council--note: GNSO failed to elect a Chair to replace Robinson at ICANN 54, so the GNSO's Vice Chairs are presently doing the Chair's duties--
Transcript of video above:
I'm here at the ICANN 54 meeting in Dublin with Jonathan Robinson the Chair of the GNSO Council. Jonathan ... your time will come to an end in Dublin, what are you thoughts of the GNSO and the state its in at the moment? I think we're in a good state in many ways. I mean we we've done a lot of work to make sure that things operate smoothly and that we work in an effective way and that that goes through many different layers, that's in terms of the personal relationships with, between the councillors through to our understanding of each other's constituencies and stakeholder groups, knowledge of processes and procedures, effective working with staff, so feels to me that we're in pretty good shape and I feel proud to be handing over the chair of a critical organ in the ICANN infrastructure to a successor Chair, so I think we're in good shape. Over the past three years changes have taken place ... I think the overarching theme we tried to put in place at three years ago was to look at a process of continuous improvement and in doing so we looked at a number of different areas it was was in terms of the underlying processes what we with within the operating procedures of the way in which the council manages the policy, how we could do any of those things more efficiently and more effectively. For example when we now do the preparation of an issue report with a draft charter in there that the council is not obliged to accept that has the opportunity to accept if the council accepts that we end up with a more efficient start to the PDP process ...  we've concentrated on a number of different areas we concentrate on where we can improve those processes and we can get greater throughput. We've concentrated on how we might best rely on the staff that support the council and staff were able to take on significant amount of work provided we trust and had an effective working relationship with the staff . We need to have good interpersonal relationships between those Councillors because we're often dealing with quite contentious matters and so one of the things we've done is concentrate on making sure when we know and understand one another from both a constituency and stakeholder group level. We try to understand the way in which the different groups work, in which they come to decisions in which in which they empower the councillors to work, but also we spent some time out of council meetings getting to know one another in making sure we know and understand each other as individuals. What are your thoughts for the incoming Chair? I feel like I'm handing over something in good shape, but that doesn't mean there isn't lots of work to be done. And I think one of the one of the key areas that might help will be to start to think of the work of the Council as being managed and handled by not only the Chair alone, but the Vice Chairs and a competent policy staff. So I think the critical thing to do, because one of the key challenges is dealing with a high and increasing volume of work is to pull together with the Vice Chairs and support staff and see that as the team through which that increased throughput is generated. Thank you very much for your time and good luck for the future. Thank you very much.

GNSO - Generic Names Supporting Organizationhttp://gnso.icann.org/en/
GNSO Wiki: https://community.icann.org/category/gnso
On Twitter: @ICANN_GNSO

About the GNSO | Generic Names Supporting Organization"The Generic Names Supporting Organization fashions (and over time, recommends changes to) policies for generic Top-Level Domains (e.g., .com, .org, .biz). The GNSO strives to keep gTLDs operating in a fair, orderly fashion across one global Internet, while promoting innovation and competition. Sample GNSO issues: When you register a domain name, what services must the registrar provide? If you forget to renew your domain name, and it expires, can you get it back? What happens if someone registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to yours? Resources posted here will help you learn more about the GNSO and its policy development process."

The GNSO is comprised of Stakeholder Groups--"constituency" is a technical term referring to a group of Internet users united around a particular common interest or perspective, formally recognized by the GNSO Council.



DISCLAIMER

2015-10-20

ICANN 54, Dublin, Tuesday Livestreams, LIVE and Replay Videos

ICANN 54, Tuesday, October 20, 2015, on Livestream (see videos below):
IST is Irish Standard Time:
Morning:
08:30 to 09:30 IST Joint Meeting of the ICANN Board and the At-Large
09:45 to 10:45 IST Joint Meeting of the ICANN Board and the ccNSO
11:00 to 12:30 IST Joint Meeting of the ICANN Board and the Commercial Stakeholders
Afternoon:
14:15 to 15:15 IST Joint Meeting of the ICANN Board and the Registries
15:30 to 16:30 IST Joint Meeting of the ICANN Board & the Registrars
16:45 to 17:45 IST Joint Meeting of the ICANN Board & the NRO / ASO
18:15 to 19:15 IST Joint Meeting of the ICANN Board & the SSAC

Full ICANN 54 Schedule here (with links to sessions having remote participation online).
See also: ICANN 54, Dublin (Oct 18-22), schedule links, info, and twitter feeds here






DISCLAIMER

2015-04-27

Effective Dates for ICANN Additional WHOIS Information Policy, Advisory

Background: ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments requires it to “implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information....” To do that, registrars and registries provide public access to data on registered [domain] names. Domain name registrants are required to provide accurate WHOIS contact data, and maintain its accuracy throughout the term of the registration period. (source: ICANN)

The effective date of ICANN's Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and Whois advisory is 31 January 2016. ICANN has published an updated Whois advisory based on input from the community. The updated Whois advisory is intended to provide clarification for contracted parties regarding Registration Data Directory Service (RDDS) specifications of the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement. RDDS specifications are also known as Whois. Registries and Registrars have until 31 January 2016 to implement the AWIP and the Whois advisory. Contracted parties will receive formal notice within the next two weeks. If you have questions or concerns, submit them to customerservice@icann.org. (source: ICANN)

2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement: "... In responses to domain name object queries, the following fields are considered optional and should be treated as described in clarification 1: 
  • Updated Date (if the domain name has not been updated since it was created)
  • Registrant/Admin/Tech Organization 
  • Registrant/Admin/Tech State/Province 
  • Registrant/Admin/Tech Postal Code 
  • Registrant/Admin/Tech Phone Ext 
  • Registrant/Admin/Tech Fax 
  • Registrant/Admin/Tech Fax Ext 
  • Name Server"

See also:
http://whois.icann.org/en/about-whois
http://whois.icann.org/en/whats-horizonhttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#whois
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3912


2014-10-28

Independent ICANN Could Be Dangerous, Needs Continued Oversight, Says Former FTC Chairman

Daniel Burke, a special agent in the FDA’s cybercrime investigations unit, complains that ICANN “closes complaints, and they don’t say why, and the websites are still operating. It’s really quite frustrating.”....“This website killed my dad,” the man’s daughter wrote. Law-enforcement officials told ICANN that the website posed an immediate health risk. Less than 15 minutes later, ICANN responded in an email that the organization had “reviewed and closed your complaint.” (source infra)

A lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal over the failure of ICANN to properly supervise Domain Name Registries, Registrars, and Registrants, in connection with cybercrime, specifically, illegal drug sales, indicates a growing frustration with ICANN even among some current and former US government officials--

ICANN, Regulators Clash Over Illegal Internet Drug Sales - WSJ - WSJ: "... [ICANN] is under growing criticism that it doesn’t use its watchdog powers aggressively enough. Internal documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show that thousands of complaints about suspicious online pharmacies and other websites in 2012 weren’t reviewed for months because ICANN stopped maintaining one of its computer systems after an information-technology employee left... Axelle Lemaire, France’s secretary of state for digital affairs, says the “lack of transparency” at ICANN “is very worrying. When it comes to selling illegal drugs online, it’s the health of world-wide citizens at stake."... The friction comes at an awkward time for ICANN. In March, the Commerce Department said it would relinquish oversight of ICANN. The move was widely seen as a response to international concern about U.S. control over the Internet’s structure. The Obama administration has said it wants to hand control to an undefined, international, “multi-stakeholder” body. Top officials at ICANN say the organization deserves a chance to operate on its own. Former Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz says ICANN needs continued oversight, partly because of its small compliance staff. Just 22 of the agency’s 300 employees are devoted to policing websites. An independent ICANN could be “dangerous for stakeholders, and more importantly, consumers,” says Mr. Leibowitz..." (read more at the link above, emphasis added)

See also: Multi-Stakeholder Community Losing Faith In ICANN, Beginning of the End?
and
Cybercrime, Rogue Registrars: Is ICANN Unfit For Internet Governance? (expvc.com)
and
Most New gTLD Domain Names Are On Life-Support, Infecting Other gTLDs: "... the Obama administration wants to turn EVERYTHING over to ICANN to run with no oversight at all--ideas this bad can only come from Washington, D.C..."




2014-10-03

Reason #2 Why New gTLD Domains Are a #FAIL

Second part of the post from yesterday --

Reason #2 new gTLD domains are a #FAIL: Increasing Supply Does Not Increase Demand

New gTLDS are to Domains what Atlantic City is to Gambling--

What happened in Atlantic City, is already happening to the new gTLDs (new generic Top-Level Domains)--see Most New gTLD Domain Names Are On Life-Support, Infecting Other gTLDs. ICANN is flooding the domain name ecosystem with over 1300 new gTLDs (from just 22)--creating market chaos, confusion, and gross oversupply. New gTLD registries had to pay an initial fee of $185,000, plus other costs, and auction fees, which in many cases total in the millions of dollars ($US) invested before the first domain name is sold!

Here's what happened in Atlantic City--"... Everyone bought into the myth that gambling would bring in needed tax revenue, and that you could attract plenty of blackjack and slot machine players no matter how many casinos you built. But the demand was not infinite, and ultimately got divided among all these sites, hurting Atlantic City perhaps the most. How did city and state leaders react? By unveiling a plan to turn Atlantic City into Las Vegas. Somehow, their response to a glut of gambling was to add more gambling, only with lots of flash and nightclubs and fine dining. Revel, the linchpin of this strategy... racked up almost $1 billion in debt during the construction phase, straining the budget right from the beginning. Revel never made a dime, and flamed out just two years after its opening...." (source)

Sound familiar? Everyone at ICANN bought into the myth that more gTLDs would bring in more registrant fees, no matter how many new gTLDs were flooded into the domain name ecosystem.

Donald Trump on Atlantic City (Bloomberg video, August 11, 2014):

Donald Trump on what happened to Atlantic City--"Too much competition"-- tremendous competition eating away at itself --Trump talks to Bloomberg's Trish Regan

Atlantic City Politicians = ICANN
Atlantic City Casinos = new gTLDs' registry operators
Atlantic City Gamblers = new gTLDs' domain name registrants

Lessons learned:
  1. Demand is NOT infinite. 
  2. Increasing supply does NOT increase demand. 
  3. Too much competition is a BAD thing.



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

2014-09-17

ICANN Meetings, Domain Name Registries, and Dirty, Filthy Registrars

For those of you going to your first ICANN meeting next month (LA, October 12-16), I thought I'd give you a bit of foretaste of what it's like from a London ICANN 50 transcript (emphasis added)--

ccNSO Meeting in London - Audio & Transcripts | Country Code Names Supporting Organisation:
LONDON – ccNSO Members Meeting Day 2 transcript: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 – 09:00 to 15:30 ICANN – London, England:

BYRON HOLLAND: There’s Oscar. This is the first test of the panel to see if they can actually sit in the order of their pictures and self‐organize. Okay, good morning, officially, to Wednesday, day two of the ccNSO meeting. Our first panel of the day certainly promises to be a very interesting one, no doubt lively. For registries and registrars, can we standardize? Can one size fit all? I’m sure there are no strongly held opinions on that whatsoever. With that, I will hand it over to Crystal Peterson, who will be moderating this panel. Thank you.
CRYSTAL PETERSON: Thank you, Byron. Good morning, everyone. It’s very nice to see you on
this lovely Wednesday morning. My name is Crystal Peterson, as Byron mentioned. I’m the Director of Global Sales and Channel Marketing for the .co registry. I would like the rest of my panel members to introduce themselves, if they will, right before we get started here.
OSCAR ROBLES‐GARAY: Hi, good morning. I’m Oscar Robles, General Director of .mx, ccTLD for Mexico.
GIOVANNI SEPPIA: Good morning. It’s Giovanni Seppia, External Relations Manager of .eu.
HENRY CHAN: Hi, good morning. Henry Chan from .hk, Business Development Manager for the ccTLD for Hong Kong.
MICHELE NEYLON: Michele Neylon, Founder and CEO of Blacknight, a dirty, filthy registrar based in Ireland. I’m also the Chair of the Registrar Stakeholder Group within the ICANN GNSO and Chair of the .eu Registrar Advisory Board.
PETER LARSEN: My name is Peter Larsen. I’m also a registrar, a dirty registrar.
MICHELE NEYLON: Dirty, filthy registrar. Do it properly.
PETER LARSEN: Oh, sorry. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I’m also on Advisory Board for .eu. I’m Chair of the Danish Registrar Union and Board member of the Swedish and the Norwegian, by the way. I’m based in Copenhagen, Denmark.
TOBIAS SATTLER: Good morning. My name is Tobias Sattler. I’m from United Domains as a
Chief Information Officer. I’m not part of any other things like other registrars – just trying to be nice.
CRYSTAL PETERSON: Thank you, gentlemen.
MICHELE NEYLON: Are you still drunk from last night?
CRYSTAL PETERSON: We are here today to talk a little bit about how can we standardize amongst registries and registrars, taking into account the fact that, as ccTLDs, we may have local policies that need to be in play from our local governments in order to run... I’d love to pose a question to our registrar guests first of what are some of the things that you would love to see from the ccTLD community, from a potential technical standpoint, to help standardize – I see all kinds of smiles here – from a technical standpoint of how can we help you work with ccTLDs better? Go
MICHELE NEYLON: I’ll go first, because the two of them are still half asleep. At the moment, one of the main challenges from the registrar perspective is that practically every single ccTLD has its own technical implementation... I feel, at times, that my technical team have to sacrifice small animals in order to integrate with some ccTLDs – and gTLDs, by the way. The gs are using EPP, but they keep on adding weirdness to it. Just if everybody were just to keep it simpler, life would be so much nicer.
CRYSTAL PETERSON: You’re saying basically it’s being able to standardize around one type of
platform system, like [inaudible]
MICHELE NEYLON: Not so much platform. It’s more to do with the standards themselves. In the gTLD space, everybody’s using EPP. The problem is that some people have weird extensions. In the ccTLD space, you’ve got EPP, EPP’s bastard son, EPP’s bastard cousin. You’ve got e‐mail‐based systems. You’ve got systems based around Curl. You’ve got stuff using various APIs. You’ve got things which are web‐based systems with no APIs. You’ve got registries that understand the concept of a registrar. You’ve got registries who don’t understand what the hell a registrar is. You’ve got ones who think they understand what the registrar is but don’t really understand what a registrar is, so they go, “You’re a registrar.” “Well, no, actually, you’re not.” “Yes, you are.” “No, you’re not.” Oh God, help. It’s this kind of mish‐mash of in some cases crazy, in other cases, I know it’s legacy. I mean, as a guest in the ccNSO, I’m trying to be polite about it.
CRYSTAL PETERSON: Yes, it’s early in the morning. We’re polite for the first 30 minutes....

[It's all downhill after that--here are some excerpts below]

MICHELE NEYLON: At times, we find it quite frustrating dealing with ccTLD operators,
because for a lot of you – not all of you, admittedly. Looking across, I look at Oscar, who’s definitely on the more business‐y side I think – at least, he wears nice suits. For a lot of you, you don’t approach running your country code as a business. You approach it as something else. I’m not too sure exactly what, but it’s not being run with that kind of commercial view. It’s being run as something else. I do appreciate and I do understand that those of you who’ve dealt with
me in the past know I am sensitive to it....

[On the subject of registries who also operate registrars]--
MICHELE NEYLON: ... It just depends on how much blood we want to leave in the room after this one. Okay. I’ve always had very mixed feelings about registries playing the role of registrar. Now, in the gTLD world, we’re now seeing more and more new TLD operators that are vertically integrated. There’s some very valid reasons why vertical integration can make sense. I’m not totally opposed to it. What causes issues is when the vertically integrated entity or the registrar arm of the registry gives itself an unfair advantage. For example, if you have a nice set of policies that you apply to everybody except to yourself, well, then, as far as I’m concerned, that’s just plain wrong. That’s the kind of thing that causes headaches. Also, as well, generally speaking, most registries that try to act as registrars kind of suck at it, anyway. I don’t worry too much about it.... unfortunately, in the ccTLD space, you don’t have a lot in place, a lot of the time, to handle registrar failure. You don’t have proper escrow set up in many cases. You don’t have any of those kind of things...
MICHELE NEYLON: Just one other thing as well is registries should be registries. You shouldn’t try to start offering all sorts of crazy extra services... Stick to running what your registry. Don’t go throwing on extra stuff just because you think it’s a “good idea.” It probably isn’t....they [registries] probably would be better off investing their resources elsewhere. I’m kind of wary of that, when you’re looking at some of these things. From our side, on the registrar side, all of these things, it’s like, “Yes, crap, there’s no real demand for it.”  What there is demand for a lot of the time is a quick and easy ability to register a damn domain name, get a website, e‐mail, and other things up and running quickly and easily, without having to hand over a blood sample and a sliver of my kidney.....
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing to add.
MICHELE NEYLON: He’s very happy just to sit there and just agree with us. And be honest, Crystal, we didn’t coordinate this, okay? For the record, we didn’t have a pre‐meeting to coordinate what the registrars were going to say. We’ve been saying the same things for years. This is not news.
CRYSTAL PETERSON: Fair point, fair point. Yes?
GIOVANNI SEPPIA: Okay. First of all, I like to point you to the lights in the corner of the room, because anytime that Michele says a bad word, they turn into almost red – pink or red. I think they are some sort of emotional lights. Those close to [inaudible]. They are changing and I just noticed that anytime he says something really nasty, they were completely red. I think they are emotional lights. They help to --
MICHELE NEYLON: No. Giovanni –
GIOVANNI SEPPIA: Thank you, Michele. It’s my turn, thank you.
MICHELE NEYLON: No, Giovanni, nasty? Hold on, there. Critical.
GIOVANNI SEPPIA: Critical.
MICHELE NEYLON: Critical.
GIOVANNI SEPPIA: Constructively critical.
MICHELE NEYLON: Not always constructive.
GIOVANNI SEPPIA: Okay. That [inaudible]....

[Well, enough of the transcript, I think you get the idea--so go, and enjoy!]

2014-06-06

Is It ICANN's Job To Market New gTLD Domain Names?

Has ICANN been conflicted, co-opted, and corrupted by its new gTLD domain names program? Is ICANN now, in effect, a joint venture partner with new gTLD registries and registrars -- "Pay us (ICANN) $185,000 up front (plus renewal fees) and we (ICANN) will help YOU market your new gTLD domain names that WE have authorized YOU to register (sell) for a PROFIT?"

"conflict" - an incompatibility between two or more purposes, principles, or interests
"co-opt" - divert to or use in a role different from the usual or original one
"corrupt" - change or debase by making alterations

"Marketing" - "Marketing is the process of communicating the value of a product or service to customers, for the purpose of selling that product or service." (source: Wikipedia)

"New gTLDs" - New generic Top-Level Domain Names authorized by ICANN to be offered for registration [sold] by Registries and Registrars.

Recently a domainer blogger asked: Who is responsible for new gTLD marketing? The answers from members of the domain name industry (registrars, registries, affiliated companies) included:

"... ICANN, the registries... registrars..."

"... I think the “we” here is primarily Registries, Registrars, the DNA [Domain Name Association] and ICANN..."

"Now that new gTLDs are here, I’ve heard people suggest that ICANN, the registries, and the registrars should be responsible for marketing them. This is a correct suggestion."

Really? Is marketing new gTLD domain names what ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, "a nonprofit corporation that coordinates the Internet's global domain name system" [Wikipedia] is supposed to be doing? Is marketing new gTLD domain names within ICANN's purpose or mission as expressed within its articles of incorporation, bylaws, affirmation of commitments, or applicable California or federal (US) law?

Not only is "marketing domain names" NOT within ICANN's purpose and mission, but to do such "marketing" for for-profit companies appears to be a violation of the ICANN corporate instruments and applicable state and federal laws, for example:
Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations: "... The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct...."
Some might argue that ICANN has already violated one or more of the legal provisions cited above, but at a minimum, the world of ICANN has become so dysfunctional that some ICANN insiders -- registries, registrars, and other for-profit domain industry members -- actually believe ICANN is supposed  to do the "marketing" of the new gTLD domain names for them-- for the registries and registrars which were authorized by ICANN to offer said new gTLD domain names for registration!

Somehow, in the world of ICANN, the interests of the regulated (registries and registrars) and the regulator (ICANN) have become one, at least in the minds of many. Is this what happens when a non-profit corporation, lacking proper oversight, transparency and accountability, becomes dominated by insiders and the special interests of the commercial, for-profit domain name industry it is supposed to be regulating and governing; when ICANN's Chief Strategy Officer (and architect of the new gTLDs program) resigns due to a conflict of interest (the particulars of which were never disclosed to the global multistakeholder community), and then becomes the Executive Director of the Domain Name Association, a lobbying group of that same for-profit domain name industry?

Is this why that same Domain Name Association has now jumped into the middle of ICANN's new gTLD auction process, to grab the money for itself and "marketing?"-- Domain Name Association: "The proceeds will be distributed as follows: First: Fees for the auction provider will be paid. Second: Disbursements, if any, will be made to auction participants. Third: Optional membership fees in the DNA will be paid. All remaining proceeds will go to the DNA. The auction winner will determine how those proceeds are allocated between funding TLD marketing and awareness campaigns and funding other DNA industry development efforts."

Sounds like ICANN should just shut down and turn everything over to DNA -- the Domain Name Association! Or more likely, ICANN will just contract with the DNA to perform all of ICANN's functions! 

I think it is now clear why the public interest was so disregarded in ICANN's new gTLDs program--

“'The public at large, consumers and businesses, would be better served by no expansion or less expansion' of domains" said Jon Leibowitz, former chairman of the US Federal Trade Commission in the New York Times."

"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." University of Pennsylvania Wharton School marketing professor Peter Fader, co-director of the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative. (source: Knowledge@Wharton, emphasis added)

Esther Dyson On New Top-Level Domains: “There Are Huge Trademark Issues” | TechCrunch: "... we are not running out of domains. This is a “way for registries and registrars to make money,” says Dyson. She also points out that “there are huge trademark issues. I just think it is offensive... It will create a lot of litigation.”" [see: Esther Dyson Told ICANN new gTLDs were a mistake in 2011 (video)]

Tim Berners-Lee: "....when a decision is taken about a possible new top-level domain, ICANN's job is to work out, in a transparent and accountable manner, whether it is really in the best interest of the world as a whole, not just of those launching the new domain. It also means that ICANN's use of the funds should be spent in a beneficent way...."

Memo to ICANN: money spent on "marketing new gTLDs" is NOT a "beneficent way."





Domain Mondo archive