Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

PIR chief: registries should stop stressing about volume

Kevin Murphy, September 11, 2018, Domain Registries

Public Interest Registry has announced some sweeping changes to how it markets .org and its other TLDs, with interim CEO Jay Daley telling DI that there’s too much focus on volumes in the industry today.

PIR is scrapping is volume discount programs after the current batch of incentives expires at the end of the year.

These are the programs that offer rebates to registrars if they hit certain performance targets, all based around newly created domains.

“They particularly favor large registrars, and we don’t think that’s appropriate going forward,” Daley told DI yesterday.

He said that when PIR removed some developed markets from its geographically-targeted discount programs, it saw creates go down but revenue improve.

He suggested that some registries have too much focus on volumes as a benchmark of success, failing to take account of important factors such as renews and abuse rates.

Part of the problem is that success is often measured (by folk including yours truly) by domains under management, rather than TLD health or revenue-per-domain.

“How many people are simply trying to get their numbers up without worrying about the underlying revenue, or taking a very low underlying revenue in order to get their numbers up?” Daley said.

“We’re not in any way somebody who is trying to get our numbers up at all costs, certainly not,” he said.

Another marketing program getting a makeover is pay-per-placement, where PIR would pay for prominent positions in the TLD drop-down menu of registrars storefronts.

These relationships have been based purely on new creates, Daley said, with appropriate “clawback” provisions when registrations turn out to be predominantly abusive.

In future, PIR intends to take a “longer-term, hygiene oriented view” of how its marketing money is used, making better use of data, he said.

“We need to be looking more at the quality of the registrations we get, the level of technical abuse generated by those registrations, looking at the renewal rates that come from those registrations,” he said.

PIR has a new four-strong channel services team that will be leading these changes.

“We are a public interest organization and need to take a public interest view on everything we do,” Daley said. “We need to be looking at our promotions for more than just commercial reasons, we need to be looking at public interest reasons as well.”

Daley, who ran New Zealand’s .nz registry from 2009 until this January, said that the big changes he is overseeing do not reflect an attempt to put his stamp on PIR and take over the CEO office on a permanent basis.

He does not want to run a registry and does not want to relocate to PIR’s headquarters in Virginia, he said.

“I’ve been a registry CEO for nine years,” he said. “I’ve done this and it’s time for me to look at other things.”

He also sits on PIR’s board of directors.

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.

Cute abruptly quits PIR

Brian Cute unexpectedly resigned as CEO of Public Interest Registry late last week. No reason was given for his departure.

In a May 10 press release, the .org registry said that he’d left May 7.

He’s been replaced temporarily by board member Jay Daley until a permanent replacement can be found.

I asked a PIR spokesperson the reasons for the resignation and was told yesterday: “Brian has chosen to move on to pursue new challenges.”

Hmm.

Cute, a Verisign and Afilias alum, had been with PIR for seven years.

Now the DNA backpedals on “Copyright UDRP”

Kevin Murphy, February 27, 2017, Domain Policy

The Domain Name Association has distanced itself from the Copyright ADRP, a key component of its Healthy Domains Initiative, after controversy.

The anti-piracy measure would have given copyright owners a process to seize or suspend domain names being used for massive-scale piracy, but it appears now to have been indefinitely shelved.

The DNA said late Friday that it has “elected to take additional time to consider the details” of the process, which many of us have been describing as “UDRP for Copyright”.

The statement came a day after .org’s Public Interest Registry announced that it was “pausing” its plan for a Systemic Copyright Infringement Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy modeled on UDRP.

PIR was the primary pen-holder on the DNA’s Copyright ADRP and the only registry to publicly state that it intended to implement it.

It’s my view that the system was largely created as a way to get rid of the thepiratebay.org, an unwelcome presence in the .org zone for years, without PIR having to take unilateral action.

The DNA’s latest statement does not state outright that the Copyright ADRP is off the table, but the organization has deleted references to it on its HDI web page page.

The HDI “healthy practices” recommendations continue to include advice to registries and registrars on handling malware, child abuse material and fake pharmaceuticals sites.

In the statement, the DNA says:

some have characterized [Copyright ADRP] as a needless concession to ill-intentioned corporate interests, represents “shadow regulation” or is a slippery slope toward greater third party control of content on the Internet.

While the ADR of course is none of these, the DNA’s concern is that worries over these seven recommendations have overshadowed the value of the remaining 30. While addressing this and other illegalities is a priority for HDI, we heard and listened to various feedback, and have elected to take additional time to consider the details of the ADR recommendations.

Thus, the DNA will take keen interest in any registrar’s or registry’s design and implementation of a copyright ADR, and will monitor its implementation and efficacy before refining its recommendations further.

The copyright proposal had been opposed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Commerce Association and other members of ICANN’s Non-Contracted Parties House.

In a blog post over the weekend, ICA counsel Phil Corwin wrote that he believed the proposal pretty much dead and the issue of using domains to enforce copyright politically untouchable:

While the PRI and DNA statements both leave open the possibility that they might revive development of the Copyright UDRP at some future time, our understanding is that there are no plans to do so. Further, notwithstanding the last sentence of the DNA’s statement, we believe that it is highly unlikely that any individual registrar or registry would advance such a DRP on its own without the protective endorsement of an umbrella trade association, or a multistakeholder organization like ICANN. Ever since the U.S. Congress abandoned the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) in January 2012 after millions of protesting calls and emails flooded Capitol Hill, it has been clear that copyright enforcement is the third rail of Internet policy.

PIR slams brakes on “UDRP for copyright”

Kevin Murphy, February 24, 2017, Domain Policy

Public Interest Registry has “paused” its plan to allow copyright owners to seize .org domains used for piracy.

In a statement last night, PIR said the plans were being shelved in response to publicly expressed concerns.

The Systemic Copyright Infringement Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy was an in-house development, but had made its way into the Domain Name Association’s recently revealed “healthy practices” document, where it known as Copyright ADRP.

The process was to be modeled on UDRP and similarly priced, with Forum providing arbitration services. The key difference was that instead of trademark infringement in the domain, it dealt with copyright infringement on the associated web site.

PIR general counsel Liz Finberg had told us the standard for losing a domain would be “clear and convincing evidence” of “pervasive and systemic copyright infringement”.

Losers would either have their domain suspended or, like UDRP, seized by the complainant.

The system seemed to be tailor-made to give PIR a way to get thepiratebay.org taken down without violating the owner’s due process rights.

But the the announcement of Copyright ADRP drew an angry response from groups representing domain investors and free speech rights.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said the system would be captured by the music and movie industries, and compared it to the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the US.

The Internet Commerce Association warned that privatized take-down policies at registries opened the door for ICANN to be circumvented when IP interests don’t get what they want from the multi-stakeholder process.

I understand that members of ICANN’s Non-Contracted Parties House was on the verge of formally requesting PIR pause the program pending a wider consultation.

Some or all of these concerns appear to have hit home, with PIR issuing the following brief statement last night:

Over the past year, Public Interest Registry has been developing a highly focused policy that addresses systemic, large scale copyright infringement – the ”Systemic Copyright Infringement Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy” or SCDRP.

Given certain concerns that have been recently raised in the public domain, Public Interest Registry is pausing its SCDRP development process to reflect on those concerns and consider forward steps. We will hold any further development of the SCDRP until further notice.

SCDRP was described in general terms in the DNA’s latest Healthy Domains Initiative proposals, but PIR is the only registry to so far publicly express an interest in implementing such a measure.

Copyright ADRP may not be dead yet, but its future does not look bright.

UPDATE: This post was updated 2/26 to clarify that it was only “some members” of the NCPH that were intending to protest the Copyright ADRP.