Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

Conflicted? STFU under new ICANN rules

Kevin Murphy, May 14, 2025, 16:48:25 (UTC), Domain Policy

ICANN community members who refuse to disclose their conflicts of interest should keep their mouths shut during public meetings, according to a proposed new code of conduct now open for comment.

An updated Community Participant Code of Conduct Concerning SOIs was published this week, following an initial public comment period late last year, which saw some community members ask for more clarity on what the rules mean in practice.

A key change states that people who won’t disclose their potential conflicts shouldn’t even get up to the mic to express an opinion in public, even when they’re not directly participating in policy-making.

“When disclosure cannot be made, the participant must not participate in ICANN processes or make interventions at ICANN sessions on that issue,” the new draft states (changes in bold).

The change might lead to some community members staying in their seats or keeping their microphones muted during discussions at public ICANN meetings.

The policy is intended to improve the perceived legitimacy of ICANN’s processes and policies by forcing community volunteers to publish a statement of interest (SOI) naming who’s paying their wages.

The proposal has largely been championed by registries, registrars and governments, and opposed by lawyers in private practice, some of whom think they shouldn’t, or ethically can’t, name their clients.

The argument goes that if somebody is being paid by a company that wants to torpedo or delay the new gTLD program, or is working on a patent covering RDAP, you’d want to know if they were working on policies covering new gTLDs or RDAP.

The counter-argument goes that if an attorney is working on new gTLD policy on behalf of Coca-Cola, putting that information in an SOI would tip off Pepsi that a .coke gTLD application is in the works.

The updated policy draft clarifies what SOIs must disclose — it doesn’t just cover employers or clients — and provides lengthy guidance on specific scenarios where disclosures must be made.

The types of interests that should be disclosed are broad, and cover a variety of influences and relationships, both monetary and nonmonetary. These could include: familial relationships; employment relationships; agreements to represent a specific person, entity or group of entities; vendor or contracting relationships; stock/equity ownership (other than de minimis ownership); and all similar types of influences and relationships that impact the discloser’s participation within ICANN. Interests can be general or they can be issue-specific.

Working group chairs would get the right (though not, it seems, the obligation) to temporarily kick anyone found to be in violation of the rules. Complaints could also be escalated to the Ombuds, but she’s not getting any extra enforcement powers.

Lawyers have had their objections to the policy roundly rejected. The guidelines now state:

When an attorney is engaged to participate in ICANN on behalf of a client, while that attorney holds specific duties to their client, those duties do not override the need for others participating within ICANN to understand what other interests are advocating and participating within ICANN processes… when that attorney starts participating within processes, such as participating in mailing lists, making public comments, joining working groups, etc., on behalf of that client, the client’s and attorney’s obligations to the broader ICANN community emerge

The updated policy clarifies that governments enjoy some immunity — they don’t have to disclose who lobbied them on a particular issue they’re engaged with — with ICANN assuming their nations’ own transparency laws will cover that type of thing.

For the domain industry, volunteers will have to disclose all the roles their employer has. Nominet, for example, would have to disclose that it’s a ccTLD registry, a contracted gTLD registry, and a back-end registry services provider.

The policy now also provides guidance for trade groups, academics and IP owners.

The draft is now open for public comment until June 30. It’s possibly the last chance you’ll get to file a comment without disclosing your interests.

If you find this post or this blog useful or interestjng, please support Domain Incite, the independent source of news, analysis and opinion for the domain name industry and ICANN community.

Tagged: , ,

Add Your Comment