Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    New gTLDs ICANN's Divide and Conquer Strategy
    posted by michael on Monday March 05 2001, @04:20AM

    According to a story in Reuters [UPDATE: I redirected the link to ZDNet mirror], ICANN General Counsel Louis Touton blames the delay in rolling out the draft contracts with the new gTLD registries on the registries themselves. Perphaps more importantly, this article contains the astonishing admission that ICANN staff secretly, and with no public consultation, decided to negotiate only with the prospective operators of the large open gTLDs, and excluded the small restricted non-profit gTLDs from the first round of negotiation.

    In fact, in this one short article, we find three smoking guns unintentionally revealed about ICANN's divide and conquer strategy. Pity that the reporter didn't understand the full significance of his scoop ...

    1. Show me the money. ICANN originally planned to have its draft contracts ready for public discussion on January 1, 2001. This would have left more than two months for public scrutiny before an ICANN meeting. Text and annexes continue to dribble out at this writing, so we still don't have the whole picture five days before Melbourne (heck we don't even have a Board agenda!). Touton blames the "dot-bomb phenomenon" for this delay, suggesting that the prospective registries are in financial trouble. In part, that accusation is clearly false, since the three specialized registries, with whom he chose not to negotiate, cannot be blamed for either lack of finance, or for ICANN's decision to cold-shoulder them. And, again according to Reuters, the prospective operators of the large registries blame ICANN for the delay. But let's suppose Touton is right, and that some of the prospective registries are having financial troubles. It follows from this, that the great big deal ICANN made about only accepting the most financially sound applicants was, er, somewhat fictitious. Indeed, alert observers will recall that after the LA meeting there were allegations that the staff did not treat applications equally as regards the necessary financial support. In addition, in LA the staff were asked if they had actually investigated applicants' claims as to financial backing, and they admitted they had not.

    Bottom line: This demonstrates, if demonstration was needed, that ICANN is not competent to make regulatory judgments regarding the finances and business models of applicants. But you knew that.

    2. Policy on the Sly. The decision to negotiate only with large commercial operators so they can go online first, and to leave the smaller and non-commercial operators behind, sure sounds like a policy decision to me. If ICANN had a resource constraint (not that it did, of course – the delays were all the applicants' fault, see above), I could see randomizing or going alphabetically, but the decision to say the Internet is first for commercial users is not one that I recall the Board making, or being the result of any consensus-based policy. Once again, the staff makes policy on its own.

    3. Divide and Conquer. Lest you think that point two above is just some niggling lawyer's process fetish, consider the consequences of this little tiny sequencing decision combined with the decision to negotiate the contracts in secret. By negotiating only with the commercial registry operators in secret meetings that the non-commercial operators (not to mention losing bidders, or us, the public) were not allowed to attend, ICANN managed to divide and conquer, and thus has produced model contracts that are nothing less than a regulator's charter (I'll have more to say about this once the whole set is published and I've had time to digest them, but the trend is already clear.). The large commercial gTLD application victors have incentives that are unique, and are in fact opposed to almost everyone else in the Internet community. Their incentives are,

    • First, to reach a deal as fast as possible - especially if they are having money troubles (see point one above). The non-profits can afford to take a longer time horizon and hold out against unfair contract terms; the for-profits are under the gun and have a much stronger incentive to cave to ICANN. And cave they did.
    • Second, they want to block subsequent entrants into the gTLD market to preserve their oligopolistic position. Perversely, entering into onerous contracts partly serves this goal, since it will scare off investors from subsequent rounds of applications - why buy a poisoned chalice?
    • Third, the new commercial gTLDs want a pricing regime that puts no pressure on them to have to cut prices. ICANN was fine with that, and they got it - even though that's not good for consumers.
    • Fourth, once satisfied that they won't be exposed to much downward pressure on their prices, the new commercial gTLDs have no incentive to resist ICANN's demand that they pay it. Prior funding mechanisms had ICANN getting the lion's share of its revenues from the now increasingly competitive registrar market. By shifting funding to registries ICANN finds a much more compliant group of funders. And indeed, in addition to greatly increasing the base level of payment, ICANN asked for and received agreement that it could raise its levies on them by as much as 15% per year. (The domain name tax returns, but don't expect tax cuts).

    We've already seen how the ICANN staff's proposed supplanting of the RFCs relating to .org was an attempt to buy off the non-profit community, but it may be that ICANN's divide-and-conquer strategy goes a lot deeper than it first appears.

    [To respond, click the "Send Your Comment" button in the yellow box to the right.]

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

      Related Links  
  • ICANNWatch.org
  • we don't even have a Board agenda
  • domain name tax
  • the ICANN staff's proposed supplanting of the RFCs relating to .org was an attempt to buy off the non-profit community
  • a story in Reuters
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    ICANN's Divide and Conquer Strategy | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 2 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: ICANN's Divide and Conquer Strategy
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Monday March 05 2001, @05:16AM (#359)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    Here's a ZDNET mirror of the Reuters story in case the Reuters link goes away.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: ICANN's Divide and Conquer Strategy
    by jbw123 on Monday March 05 2001, @06:42AM (#364)
    User #37 Info | www.jonathanbwilson.com

    A well-written article! Thanks for the insight. Unfortunately, though, the link to the original Reuters story seems to be inactive. (Perhaps your webmaster can update it).

    Obviously, this post-facto changing of the rules by ICANN is further evidence that ICANN's regulatory posture is incompatible with the kind of process we expect to see from U.S. government agencies. If ICANN is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, they're violating it.

    I'd be interested in any updates ICANNWatch may have on Congressional attempts to review ICANN's gTLD policy (or its relationship with NTIA, for that matter). Has anything happened since the Senate hearings?

    Keep up the good work!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]

    Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com