ICANN has just resolved:
Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
ICANN's announcement:
"In the absence of existing policy or new bottom-up policy recommendations, the Board saw no rationale for placing restrictions on cross-ownership;" said Peter Dengate Thrush, Chairman of the Board. "Any possible abuses can be better addressed by properly targeted mechanisms. Co-ownership rules are not an optimal technique in this area."
Some folks are very happy.
( Read More... | 255 bytes more | 1 comment )
It's official:
RESOLVED (2010.10.28.17), the Board directs staff to adopt as a working plan the Launch Scenario with launch date of Q2 2011, as contained in the graphic attached here [PDF, 112 KB].
Launch (defined as "first applications accepted" not as "gTLDs actually launch") 30 May 2011, pending delays,
( Read More... )
GeorgeK writes "ICANN has released their IRS Form 990 statements for the year ending June 30, 2008. They're summarized in 2-parts here (redacted) and here (unredacted).
ICANN says they use for-profit companies as comparables when determining employee compensation. However, even in the middle of a great recession, salaries have been going up, up, and up! How many for-profit companies have the job security of ICANN staff, and have been seeing raises during a recession? In my opinion, ICANN needs to be using non-profit organizations as comparables, organizations like the NTIA, DOC, DOJ, universities, hospitals and similar groups. Anything above those non-profit salaries is a waste of your money."
( Read More... | 2 comments )
( Read More... | 6486 bytes more | 1 comment )
( Read More... )
It seems that first-come-first-serve is a dimmer and dimmer memory for domain name registration.
Now the acid test of who gets bank.info, boat.info, body.info, bonds.info, books.info or legal.info will be whose registration will mosst enhance the TLD brand. Here's the latest from Affilias:
Pursuant to the "Phased Equitable Reallocation of Non-Compliant .INFO Sunrise Domain Names" registry services request filed by Afilias, and posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/afilias-request-2008008-28aug08.pdf, as approved by the ICANN Board of Directors, as set forth at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-21may09.htm, Afilias has undertaken a reallocation of certain non-compliant .INFO Sunrise Domain Names (the "Program"). As part of the Program, Afilias is accepting proposals from parties that wish to register one or more of the domain names subject to the Program ("Proposals"). Proposals shall be evaluated on the manner in which the applicant proposes to enhance the .INFO brand through its use of the domain name(s). Afilias is committed to the long-term development of the .INFO TLD, and the RFP portion of the Sunrise redistribution program is designed to identify qualified applicants with the best potential and capabilities to maximize the development of a domain name of interest, and thereby enhance the .INFO brand.
Full list of the names below.
( Read More... | 19632 bytes more | 1 comment )
( Read More... )
Anonymous writes "Please be notified of the window for public comment on a white collar hoax perpetrated by ICANN and big name registrars (Go Daddy), before this becomes reality!
Available for public comment right now through November 16th, Verisign seeks approval of an amendment for its process of Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition (BTAPPA)in dot-COM and dot-NET: http://www.icann.com/en/announcements/announcement-16oct09-en.htm
Verisign requested approval of a Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition (BTAPPA) process from ICANN in July, with the amendment for 15-day notice to registrants. The amendment is open for public comment through November 16th, in a low-key announcement in one domain name publication, [likely] so ICANN, Verisign, Go Daddy, and other big-name registrars can slide it by the public!
( Read More... | 2581 bytes more | 2 comments )
( Read More... )
This "Affirmation" was signed by the CEO on behalf of ICANN and appears to make "commitments" about actions ICANN will take which would have a major impact on ICANN's policies and procedures. the "affirmation" was announced, apparently, just minutes or seconds after a Board telephone vote this morning. The outcome had obviously been expected (and the proposal could have been included with the agenda), and the announcement -- including comments from a select few who had apparently shown the proposal -- had obviously been prepared in advance,
But whatever deliberation occurred prior to the approval of this "affirmation of commitments" was entirely secret -- except for those favorite friends ICANN chose to invite into the smoke-filled room, or to whom the deliberations or decisions were leaked.
Was this a bottom-up process? No.
Was there any community consensus? No. There couldn't be, since the "community" had no idea what was being proposed or considered and there hadn't been any "consensus development" process.
Were the proposed commitments published for community review? No.
Was there any forum for community comment on the proposals? No.
Were they publicly debated by the Board? No.
Was there any notice that they were under consideration by the Board? No. (The closest the agenda for today's non-transparent closed telephone meeting of the Board comes is "JPA progress report". Report. Not new policy proposal. Not action.)
In fact, the completely secret, nontransparent and unaccountable way in which these "commitments" were adopted is clear and compelling evidence of ICANN's continuing *lack* of any actual commitment to these principles, or indeed to any transparency or accountability; its continuing commitment to lie -- as loudly and as prominently as it can -- about its lack of accountability and transparency; and the continuing need for *real* transparency and accountability.
( Read More... | 2364 bytes more | 1 comment )
Extend the comment period, of course, to give itself time to round up some of its cronies and get them to submit comments endorsing whatever the staff or the people in the secret smoke-filled room have proposed.
Case in point: the latest proposal for changes to the Bylaws "to Improve Accountability", which prompted rare unanimity of rejection from a small but diverse and significant cadre of commenters from the ICANN stakeholder "community" ICANN so often prattles about as the source of its policies.
ICANN says the 60-day extension of the comment period announced today (but backdated to last Friday) is "to allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their views". But it's hard to take that seriously as the real reason for re-opening the comment period, since ICANN has never previously bothered with similar translations, or hesitated to make a decision because the proposal hadn't been translated into any language but English.
Look for endorsements of the proposal from ICANN's stooges, coming soon to a comment mailbox in Marina Del Rey.
Or, if you want real accountability, you now have until 27 November 2009 to send your own letter of objection to iic-proposed-bylaws@icann.org. If you need ideas for what to say about what's wrong with the ICANN proposals, see my comments here, or any of the other comments here -- all of them give good reasons for ICANN not to approve the current proposal."
( Read More... | 3 comments )
( Read More... )
( Read More... )
The ICANN Board, led it appears by (at best) very poor staff work (and at worst by disingenuous staff work) decided to shaft the non-commercial constituencies. This tramples the public voice in ICANN and cements its capture.
In response, the Noncommercial Users Constituency produced Top Ten Myths about Civil Society Participation in ICANN.
( Read More... )
Harold Feld has written a strong contender for 'Best Blog Post About ICANN'. Read Could NTIA Please Put ICANN Out of Its Misery Before It Embarasses Itself Further.
( Read More... )
Lest you get complacent about ICANN, here's evidence that the basic DNA remains unchanged. Milton Mueller writes,
A little-noticed outcome of the Sydney ICANN meeting (overshadowed by the excitement surrounding the selection of its new CEO) was a shockingly flagrant display of how arbitrary and unfair ICANN can be.
...
But when faced with the prospect of equal representation of commercial and noncommercial user interests, the commercial user groups revolted. Having lost the fight against parity on principle grounds, they shifted tactics and "went negative," claiming that the Noncommercial Users Constituency was not "representative enough" and did not warrant additional representation. The staff and Board were inundated with non-stop criticism of this sort for months. Numerous threats about withdrawing from the GNSO were made.
...
Two decisions, almost unbelievable in the degree to which they discriminate against civil society and completely ignore public comments, emerged from the Sydney meeting. ...
We've seen this movie before.
( Read More... )
The 9th Circuit issued its ruling in Coalition for ICANN Transparency v. VeriSign. It begins,
This appeal is about whether the plaintiff, Coalition for ICANN Transparency, Inc., using antitrust statutes drafted in the late 19th century, has successfully stated claims in connection with the administration of the Internet domain name system, so essential to the operation of our sophisticated 21st century communications network. The district court ruled that the plaintiff failed. With the benefit of extensive briefing, collegial discussions and amicus participation on appeal from other players in the domain name system, we hold that the plaintiff has stated claims under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Congratulations to Bret Fausett who wrote a brief that deserved to win.
I'm also pleased to note that the court relied in a small but key part on an article I co-wrote with Mark Lemley:
CFIT has essentially alleged that ICANN is a private standards-setting body akin to the NFPA. ICANN administers the DNS and is responsible for entering into agreements with registry operators like VeriSign. According to the complaint, ICANN’s mission includes a commitment to promoting competition for the contracts. CFIT’s allegations further state that ICANN, like the NFPA, is a private body with no public accountability. These allegations are consistent with the view held by commentators on the subject, who have, indeed, identified Allied Tube as providing the strongest argument in favor of imposing antitrust liability on those who seek to coerce ICANN. See Michael Froomkin & Mark A. Lemley, ICANN and Antitrust, 1 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1, 72-73 (2003) (noting that "given ICANN’s private status, VeriSign will face antitrust liability for persuading a private company in a position of power to grant it control over a market," and naming Allied Tube as the "closest analogue"). We hold, therefore, that pursuant to The Supreme Court’s holding in Allied Tube, CFIT has adequately alleged that VeriSign’s improper coercion of ICANN and attempts to control ICANN’s operations in its own favor violated Section 2.
( Read More... )
( Read More... | 1740 bytes more )
Switching costs faced by registrants may create incentives for registries and registrars to act opportunistically by raising prices. However, ex ante competition to attract new registrants, as well as harm to the reputation of the registry and/or registrar limits their ability to engage in such conduct.
( Read More... | 14142 bytes more | 2 comments )
( Read More... )
[ 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. ]
· ICANN finally might appoint an ombudsman (6)
Older Articles
Yesterday's Edition
If you are logged in, you can configure what appears on this page by editing your homepage preferences. The same page allows you to choose our "light" format or exclude certain types of stories (or ICANNWatch editors!). You can decide the content and order of the items in this column, choosing from several optional headline services.
The format comments page lets you set a default for how you view comments and how comments you contribute appear. Elsewhere you can review your karma and posting history, or set what information you would like other users to know about you.
You may want to change your messaging preferences. We can send you a daily email of our headlines, or perhaps you would like a message every time someone replies to one of your comments.
You are currently using the low-bandwidth "light" mode. To switch back to full mode go to your preferences and deselect light mode.
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 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.