ICANN has committed to post more unredacted documents from its Independent Review Process case with DotConnectAfrica, following a request from DI.
The organization told DI today that it will publish the documents on its web site by August 31, in response to our July 27 Documentary Information Disclosure Request.
I’d asked ICANN to publish, unredacted, the entire declaration of the IRP panel, along with all equally unredacted exhibits and hearing transcripts.
Aware that ICANN enjoys invoking its “Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure” in order to stop material being released sometimes, I added “that the public interest and transparency benefits to ICANN of disclosing this information far outweigh any benefit that could be accrued by invoking the Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure”.
In response, ICANN said today (pdf) that it evaluates the public interest when processing DIDP requests, adding:
we have determined that to the extent additional information warrants disclosure and can be released without further consultation with third parties ICANN will publish that unredacted information no later than 31 August 2015. We will send you an email notification upon that publication. To the extent that disclosure of some information designated as confidential by third parties may be warranted and requires further consultation with third parties, or consultation with other third parties not previously consulted, ICANN has already initiated that consultation process. ICANN will publish such further unredacted information promptly upon, and to the extent that we receive, authorization from the relevant parties to release the information, and will send you an email notification upon that publication.
Since the DIDP was filed, ICANN has published over 700 pages of redacted transcripts from two in-person IRP hearings that took place in May.
Today, it also published a letter from DCA’s competing .africa applicant, ZA Central Registry, comprising an ultimately unsuccessful request for a couple of seats at the hearing.
What has not yet been published are the IRP exhibits showing exactly what ICANN did to oil the gears for ZACR’s application.
Due to Kieren McCarthy’s articles at The Register and ICANN’s subsequent admissions, we know that ICANN staff drafted a letter that the African Union Commission could use to express its support for ZACR in the correct format.
However, the IRP exhibits that would give clarity into what exactly ICANN sent and why remain redacted.
Communications between ICANN and InterConnect, which ran the Geographic Names Panel, and references to the Kenyan government’s did-they-didn’t-they support for DCA also remain redacted.
ICANN has suspended OpenTLD’s ability to sell gTLD domain names for the second time, following an arbitration ruling yesterday.
OpenTLD, part of the Freenom group, will not be able to sell gTLD names or accept inbound transfers from tomorrow — about two hours from now — to November 24, according to ICANN’s web site.
That doesn’t give the company much time to make the required changes to its web site and registrar systems.
As reported earlier today, OpenTLD lost its battle to have the suspension frozen in arbitration with ICANN.
The arbitrator agreed with ICANN Compliance that the registrar cybersquatted its competitors and has not yet done enough to ensure that it does not do the same again in future.
Evidence of a possibly dodgy deal between XYZ.com and Network Solutions has emerged.
Court documents filed last week by Verisign suggest that the .xyz registry may have purchased $3 million in advertising in exchange for $3 million of .xyz domain names.
Among them are these two:
- Email from Negari to Andrew Gorrin re EPP Feed and billing directly for $3,000,000 in domains
- Credit Memo to Andrew from Negari “We have elected to pay for our $3MM Q2 advertising insertion order, which was dated May 20th with a credit…….” (5/31/14)
Gorrin is Web.com’s senior VP of marketing and Negari is Daniel Negari, XYZ.com’s CEO.
The documents these headings refer to are not public information, and are not likely to be any time soon, but they appear to refer to on the one hand XYZ billing NetSol for $3 million in domain names and on the other NetSol billing XYZ for $3 million in advertising.
Only one of the two document headings is dated, so we don’t know how closely they coincided.
Other headings, among the 446 documents Verisign wants to use at trial, suggest that they happened at pretty much the same time:
- Email from Andrew Gorrin to Ashley Henning (web.com) re Bulk Purchase of .xyz domains (5/29/14)
- Email from Andrew Gorrin to Negari re XYZ.Com Advertising IO and Marketing Agreement attaching signed agreements (5/20/14)
- Email string Ashley Henning to Christine Nagey, Andrew Gorrin, Edward Angstadt re Bulk Purchase of .XYZ Domains (5/30/14)
The emails Verisign cites were dated May 2014, shortly before .xyz went into general availability June 2.
What we seem to be looking at here — and I’m getting into speculative territory here — are references to two more or less simultaneous transactions, both valued at exactly $3 million, between the two parties.
Both companies have consistently refused to address the nature of their deal, citing NDAs.
As you recall, the vast majority of .xyz’s early registrations were provided by NetSol, which pushed hundreds of thousands of free .xyz domains into its customers’ accounts without their explicit consent.
The number of freebies is believed to be about 350,000, based on comments Negari recently made to The Telegraph, in which he stated that .xyz, which had about 850,000 domains in its zone at the time, would have 500,000 registrations if the freebies were excluded.
With a registry fee roughly equivalent to .com’s (.xyz’s is believed to be a little lower), 350,000 names would work out to roughly $3 million.
Negari has stated previously that every .xyz registration was revenue-generating, even the freebies.
Is it possible that NetSol paid XYZ’s registry fees using money XYZ paid it for advertising? Is it possible no money changed hands at all?
I’m not saying either company has done anything illegal, and it’s completely possible I’m completely misunderstanding the situation, but it does rather put me in mind of the old “round-trip” deals that tech firms used to dishonestly prop up their tumbling revenue at the turn of the century.
Back in 2000, the dot-com bubble was on the verge of popping, taking the US economy with it, and companies facing the decline of their businesses came up with “creative” ways to show investors that they were still growing.
AOL Time Warner, for example, “effectively funded its own online advertising revenue by giving the counterparties the means to pay for advertising that they would not otherwise have purchased”.
Regulators exercised their legal options in these cases only where there appeared to be dishonest accounting, and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that XYZ or Web.com unit NetSol have failed to adhere to anything but the highest accounting standards.
Again, I’m not saying we’re looking at a “round-trip” deal here, and there’s not a great deal of evidence to go on, but it sure smells familiar.
Certainly, questions have been raised that Verisign did not raise in its initial complaint.
On a personal note, I’d like to disclose that among the documents Verisign demanded from XYZ are dozens of pages of previously confidential emails exchanged between myself and Negari.
I’ve read them, and they’re mostly heated arguments about a) his refusal to give details about the NetSol deal and b) my purported lack of journalistic integrity whenever I published a post about .xyz with an even slightly negative angle.
XYZ had no choice but to supply these emails. I can’t blame it for complying with its legal requirements.
I wasn’t the only affected blogger. Mike Berkens, Konstantinos Zournas, Rick Schwartz and Morgan Linton also had their private correspondence compromised by Verisign.
I don’t know how they feel about this violation, but in my view this shows Verisign’s contempt for the media and its disregard for the sanctity of off-the-record conversations between reporters and their sources.
And that’s what I have to say about that.
The domain ashleymadison.sucks, which hosted a tool to search a database of millions of stolen Ashley Madison users’ data, has been deleted.
According to Uniregistry CEO Frank Schilling, the domain was deleted by its registrant within the five-day grace period permitted under ICANN rules.
The site looked like this shortly after it launched at the weekend.
Ashley Madison, which uses .com, is the “dating” site specifically designed for people who want to have extra-marital affairs.
Hackers recently released a 9GB file containing, reportedly, as many as 32 million users’ email addresses. The breach has led to much online shaming of public figures and has reportedly led to suicides.
The ashleymadison.sucks site hosted a forum and a search engine that allowed partial email address searches. Even in the short time it was up, it attracted a fair amount of forum posts, as well as the attention of Vox Populi itself, which tweeted:
Of all the new sites emerging on the dotSucks platform, none seems more timely or driven by passion than http://t.co/2sx4zk6s7V
— DotSucks (@DotSUCKSDomain) August 22, 2015
Interestingly, I’m not sure if the site would have fallen foul of any Vox Pop policies.
There’s a provision against hacking, but the site was merely showing the proceeds of hacking rather than doing any hacking. In addition, the registry’s prohibition on cyberbullying only extends to children.
The domain, at time of writing, is back in the available pool. Uniregistry wants $2,078.96 for it, which may explain why it was deleted while a refund was still available.
Free domains provider OpenTLD has been dealt a crushing blow in its fight against the suspension of its Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
ICANN is now free to suspend OpenTLD’s RAA, due to the company’s “pattern of cybersquatting”, following a decision by an independent arbitrator.
The arbitrator ruled yesterday that OpenTLD’s suspension should go ahead, because “OpenTLD’s continued operation could potentially harm consumers and the public interest.”
The 90-day suspension was imposed by ICANN Compliance in June, after it became aware that OpenTLD had lost two UDRP cases filed by competing registrars.
WIPO panelists found in both cases that the company had infringed its competitors’ trademarks in order to entice resellers over to its platform.
The suspension was put on hold voluntarily by ICANN, pending the arbitrator’s ruling on OpenTLD’s request for emergency stay. That request was conclusively rejected yesterday.
The arbitrator wrote:
the Arbitrator has little doubt that the multiple abusive name registrations made by OpenTLD, each of which included the registered mark of a competing domain name registrar and OpenTLD’s subsequent use of those domains… formed part of a broad concerted effort by OpenTLD calculated to deliberately divert name registration business, otherwise destined for competing domain name registrars… away from those registrars to OpenTLD instead.
He wrote that OpenTLD needs to put a process in place to prevent similarly cybersquatty behavior in future, rather than just making a commitment to changing its ways.
It’s pretty harsh stuff.
OpenTLD said recently that a suspension would “devastate” and “decimate” its business, due to the intertwining of its massive ccTLD business and rather smaller gTLD platform, but the arbitrator thought a technology workaround would be rather simple to implement.
No RAA means no gTLD sales and no inbound transfers.
OpenTLD is part of Freenom, which runs .tk and other free-to-register ccTLDs.
The company’s only ray of sunlight in the ruling is that the arbitrator said the costs of the proceeding should be split equally, not all falling on OpenTLD’s shoulders.
ICANN has not yet re-instituted the suspension, but it could come soon.
The full ruling can be read here.