Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

Baidu gets Chinese approval for .baidu

It seems China’s Draconian licensing program for TLD registries is not limited to foreigners.

Chinese internet giant Baidu on Friday became the latest new gTLD registry operator to get the nod to run a TLD by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

The approval was for .baidu, which is currently pre-launch with no launch plan on record.

Despite the brand match, it’s not technically a dot-brand gTLD — its ICANN contract has no Specification 13, which contains various carve-outs for single-registrant spaces.

While not particularly well-known in the English-speaking world, Baidu is second only to Google in terms of search engine market share, due to its dominance in China.

The company had 2017 revenue of almost CNY 85 billion ($12.5 billion).

Comment Tagged: , , ,

ICANN rejected Israel as meeting venue due to threat from Gaza and Iran

Kevin Murphy, July 24, 2018, Domain Policy

Israel was rejected as a possible venue for one of ICANN’s 2020 public meetings due to concerns about Middle East violence, DI has learned.

A proposal to host a meeting in Tel Aviv was discounted, with ICANN staff telling the board of directors that it is “not suitable for an ICANN meeting due to security concerns.”

“With the proximity to the Gaza strip and the escalation of an Iran/Israel conflict we feel it is best to avoid this region,” the board was told at its meeting last month.

Cost was also cited as a reason to avoid the city, though there was no mention of visa problems (which I imagine would be a concern for many community members).

Tel Aviv, which was proposed by a local registrar, was among five possible venues for ICANN’s mid-2020 Policy Forum that were rejected in favor of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The others, which all came from the Asia-Pacific region per ICANN’s regional rotation policy, were Macau (China), Auckland (New Zealand), Sydney (Australia) and Adelaide (Australia).

It also appears that locations proposed by community members seem to get preference over those proposed by venues, such as convention centers, themselves.

The alternative proposals have come to light because ICANN neglected to redact confidential information from a set of board briefing documents (pdf) published last week. The unredacted information reads:

Other Hosting Proposals Received:

  • Macao, China: Yannis Li (DotAsia), Bonnie Chun (HKIRC) and Paco Xiao (MONIC) submitted a proposal. However, we found this location to be more expensive than Kuala Lumpur.
  • Auckland, New Zealand: Jordan Carter from InternetNZ submitted a proposal. However, we found this location to be more expensive than Kuala Lumpur.
  • Tel-Aviv, Israel: Yoav Keren from Domain The Net Technologies Ltd. submitted a proposal. However, we found this location to be more expensive than Kuala Lumpur and not suitable for an ICANN meeting due to security concerns. With the proximity to the Gaza strip and the escalation of an Iran/Israel conflict we feel it is best to avoid this region.
  • Sydney, Australia: Joanne Muscat from Business Events Sydney submitted a hosting proposal. However, this location was proposed by the meeting venue not a community member and is more expensive than Kuala Lumpur.
  • Adelaide, Australia: Jacqui Lloyd from Adelaide Convention Bureau submitted a proposal. However, this location was proposed by the meeting venue not a community member and is more expensive than Kuala Lumpur.

The same document also reveals that proposals to host ICANN’s 2020 Latin America meeting — which was ultimately awarded to Cancun, Mexico — were received from Lima, Peru and Monterrey, Mexico.

Monterrey was also rejected due to unspecified “security and accessibility concerns”.

The US State Department currently classifies Monterrey with a “Level 3 — Reconsider Travel” status, whereas Cancun has a lower “Level 2 — Exercise Increased Caution” status.

The unredacted text reads:

  • Lima, Peru: Johnny Laureano from the Asociación de Usuarios de Internet del Perú submitted a hosting proposal. The proposed convention center is still in the process of selecting a management company. The host has not followed through with a valid proposal.
  • Monterrey, Mexico: Monica Trevino from Cintermex Convention Center submitted a hosting proposal. The location was not suitable for an ICANN meeting due to security and accessibility concerns.

Paris, Budapest, The Hague, and Geneva — some of which had been scouted by ICANN as opposed to being proposed by third parties — were rejected as venues for the 2020 European meeting.

The unredacted document reads:

  • Paris, France: Laure Filloux from VIPARIS Palais des Congrès de Paris submitted a hosting proposal. However, this location was proposed by the meeting venue not a community member and is more expensive than Hamburg.
  • Budapest, Hungary: Balazs Szucs from HungExpo Budapest submitted a hosting proposal. This location was proposed by the meeting venue and was not suitable for an ICANN meeting.
  • The Hague, Netherlands: Identified by the ICANN meetings team as a possible location was also considered. The location was more expensive than Hamburg.
  • Geneva, Switzerland: Identified by the ICANN meetings team as a possible location was also considered. The location was more expensive than Hamburg.

The European meeting will instead take place in Hamburg at the invitation of local trade group eco and the city council.

The cost of each successful proposal, which seems to be the clincher in each case, is redacted in these documents.

2 Comments Tagged: ,

ICANN’s GDPR lawsuit bounced up to appeals court

Kevin Murphy, July 24, 2018, Domain Policy

ICANN’s lawsuit against Tucows’ German subsidiary EPAG has been bounced up to a higher court in Cologne.

The suit seeks to force Tucows to continue to collect the Admin-C and Tech-C fields of the Whois spec, something which is required by the Registrar Accreditation Agreement but which Tucows argues would force it to breach the General Data Protection Regulation.

The court of first instance denied ICANN’s application for an injunction.

ICANN then appealed, suggesting that the case should be referred to the European Court of Justice for a definitive answer.

Instead, the Bonn “Regional Court” has referred the case to the “Higher Regional Court” in Cologne. ICANN said the ECJ referral is still a possibility, however.

The lower court did not change its original ruling, but nor did it consider ICANN’s new arguments, which will transfer to the higher court’s attention, according to ICANN.

If you want a migraine to match mine, you can read an ICANN-provided English translation of the latest ruling here (pdf).

Comment Tagged: , , , , ,

Neustar swaps out CEO, PIR looking for new CEO

There are to be changes at the top at two of the industry’s stalwarts.

Neustar has announced that eight-year CEO Lisa Hook has stepped aside to be replaced by Charles Gottdiener, who comes from the world of private equity.

He was most recently COO and MD at Providence Equity Partners.

Hook, who became CEO in 2010, will remain on the Neustar board of directors.

Neustar, which manages .biz, .co and many dot-brand gTLDs, is now owned by private equity group Golden Gate Capital, with a minority ownership by Singapore-based investor GIC, following a $2.9 billion deal last year.

Meanwhile, Public Interest Registry has started advertising for a new CEO of its own, following the mysterious resignation of Brian Cute in May. PIR runs .org and related gTLDs.

PIR said its new boss will need “excellent organizational, strategic planning, financial management and diplomatic skills”.

If it sounds like you, you have a few days to get your application in.

Comment Tagged: , ,

Is the new Whois policy group already doomed to fail?

Kevin Murphy, July 24, 2018, Domain Policy

ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization has set itself extremely aggressive, some might say impossible, targets for its emergency Whois policy work.

The GNSO Council on Thursday approved the charter for a new working group that will attempt to come up with a consensus policy for how to amend the Whois system in light of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.

But the vote was not unanimous — three of the six Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group councilors abstained largely because they think intellectual property interests have managed to capture the discussion before it has begun.

The three abstentions were independent consultant Ayden Ferdeline, cybersecurity policy researcher Tatiana Tropina, and privacy consultant Stephanie Perrin.

Tropina said during the Thursday meeting: “I cannot vote ‘yes’ for a document that in my opinion has parts that are not properly worded and, instead of setting the scope of the EPDP [Expedited Policy Development Process] work, set up multiple possibilities to get the work sidetracked.”

She and Ferdeline pointed specifically to section J of the approved charter (pdf), which addresses “reasonable access” to non-public Whois data.

This is the part of the policy work that will decide whether, and to what extent, entities such as trademark owners and cybersecurity researchers will be able to peek behind the curtain of post-GDPR personal data redactions and see who actually owns domain names.

There are several “gating” questions that the working group must answer before it gets to J, however, such as: what data should be collected by registrars, how data transfer to registries should be handled, and are the reasons for this data to be collected all valid?

But when it comes to section J, the abstaining NCSG councilors reckon that the Intellectual Property Community has managed to sneak in the notion that its members should get access to private data as a fait accompli. Section J reads in part:

What framework(s) for disclosure could be used to address (i) issues involving abuse of domain name registrations, including but not limited to consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime, DNS abuse and intellectual property protection, (ii) addressing appropriate law enforcement needs, and (iii) provide access to registration data based on legitimate interests not outweighed by the fundamental rights of relevant data subjects?

Ferdeline said in his abstention:

I believe that Section J includes, first and foremost, questions that unnecessarily expand the scope of this EPDP and put perceived answers — rather than genuine, open ended questions — into this important document. Overall I think this section of the charter’s scope is unnecessary and will not allow the EPDP team to complete their work in a timely manner.

Tropina said J “poses the questions that, first of all, imply by default that issues related to intellectual property protection and consumer protection require the disclosure of personal data”, adding that she was bewildered that IP interests had been lumped in with security concerns:

This wording fails me: as I am criminal lawyer working in the field of frameworks for cybercrime investigation, I do not see why cybercrime investigations are separated from law enforcement needs and go to the same basket with intellectual property protection as they are on a completely different level of legitimate demands

In short, the newly approved EPDP charter has been framed in such a way as to make discussions extremely fractious from the outset, pitting privacy interests against those of the trademark lobby on some of the most divisive wedge issues.

This is problematic given that the working group has an extremely aggressive schedule — its members have not yet even been named and yet it expects to produce its Initial Report shortly after ICANN 63, which ends October 25 this year.

It’s an absurdly short space of time to resolve questions that have dogged ICANN for almost two decades.

Will this pressure to come to agreement against the clock work in favor of the trademark community, or will it doom the policy-making process to deadlock?

Attempting to steer the WG through this minefield will be Kurt Pritz, who was confirmed by the Council as its neutral chair on Thursday, as DI first reported a week ago.

The make-up of the group has also proved contentious.

While it is a GNSO process that would lead to a Consensus Policy binding on all gTLD registries and registrars, the decision has been made to bring in voices from other areas of the community, such as the Country Code Names Supporting Organization, which will not be directly affected by the resulting policy.

There will be 29 members in total, not counting the non-voting chair.

The GNSO gets 18 of these seats at the table, comprising: three registries, three registrars, two IPC members, two ISPs, two Business Constituency members, six NCSG members (which, I imagine would be split between the privacy-focused NCUC and more IP-friendly NPOC).

But also joining the group on an equal footing will be two members of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (I’ve no idea why), two from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, two from the ccNSO, two from the At-Large Advisory Committee and three from the Governmental Advisory Committee.

The actual individuals filling these seats will be named by their respective constituencies in the next few days, ahead of the first WG meeting July 30.

It has been said that these people could expect to devote north of 30 hours a week (unpaid of course, though any necessary travel will be comp’d) to the discussions.

Comment Tagged: , , , , , , ,