Smaller, more intense ICANN meetings with no free cocktails?

ICANN has floated the idea of hosting smaller, more focused meetings that eschew tedious PowerPoint presentations and do away with the free cocktail receptions.

Seeking to eliminate $10 million from its annual budget, management recently reached out to community leaders to see if they can put their heads together to make ICANN’s public meetings less expensive.

Ideas include scrapping one of the thrice-yearly in-person meetings entirely and replacing it with a virtual-only event, along the lines of the seven that were held over Zoom during the recent coronavirus pandemic.

The suggestions appear in a “How We Meet” discussion paper (pdf), presented as a jumping-off point for community discussions rather than a top-down edict.

Straight to the important stuff: ICANN is proposing to “reduce or eliminate ICANN-hosted or ICANN-sponsored social and outreach events” such as receptions, group dinners and other social networking events.

ICANN could seek third-party sponsors for these kind of events or, horror of horrors, operate a “cash bar”, the document states.

No more free booze!

If cost-conscious alcoholics have a reason to be concerned, it’s arguably worse news for community time vampires who enjoy nothing more than sucking up 45 minutes of their hour plodding through a PowerPoint explaining what their group has been up to since the last meeting.

The document suggests focusing meetings on “timely topics”, such as those with upcoming deadlines, that require “interactive dialogue in a hybrid format”, and cutting some of the extraneous nonsense.

Therefore, “extensive slide presentations, updates, and meetings (including between ICANN staff and community groups) that do not clearly require in-person or hybrid interactions will not be scheduled”, the document suggests.

Speaking as a remote participant in recent years, I’ve often chose to wait for session recordings to become available, rather than listening live, precisely so I can fast-forward through that kind of thing. That’s obviously not an option for an in-person attendee, many of whom are there on ICANN’s dime.

The document also suggests getting rid of “informational and training” events, such as the “How It Works” sessions, which it says “incur significant costs” but have “limited participation”.

ICANN is also floating the idea of reducing the number of sessions overall, and grouping constituency-specific sessions into a tighter schedule over fewer days (presumably in order to slash the hotel bill).

But the biggest shake-up of them all is arguably the idea of reducing the number of full in-person community meetings from three to two, with the cut meeting replaced with a virtual one.

Given the shared experiences from seven, consecutive Virtual Public Meetings during the pandemic and the costs of a hybrid ICANN Public Meeting, it may be timely to discuss whether there is, in fact, a current need to have three in-person/hybrid ICANN Public Meetings each year, or whether the community can work just as effectively if at least one of these meetings is conducted virtually.

It does not say which meeting could be cut, but points out that reducing the number of public meetings may increase the need for smaller, intersessional events that focus on individual constituencies or topics.

The discussion document will inform a series of calls interim CEO Sally Costerton will hold with community leaders over the next month or so. Any consensus reached could be acted up as early as September.

Private auctions to be banned in next new gTLD round

ICANN plans to ban private auctions in the next new gTLD application round, chair Tripti Sinha has told governments.

The board of directors plans to accept the Governmental Advisory Committee’s recent advice to “prohibit the use of private auctions in resolving contention sets in the next round of New gTLDs”, Sinha told her GAC counterpart in a letter published this week.

This is a significant departure from the 2012 round, where many contention sets were resolved privately, with tens of millions of dollars changing hands. Simply applying for a gTLD, in order to lose an auction rather than actually running a registry, will quite possibly no longer be a business model.

What replaces private auctions is yet to be determined. ICANN plans to publish a paper and hold two community webinars in August to discuss alternatives, and reach a decision at its meeting in early September.

Sinha warned that if it cannot reach a conclusion by the September meeting, it might delay the publication of the Applicant Guidebook and thus the opening of the next application window.

It’s quite an aggressive deadline, given the complexity of the problem. ICANN is essentially trying to figure out a way to prevent unscrupulous actors from attempting to game the system for financial gain.

Ideas such as allowing good-faith joint ventures to be formed between competing applicants have been floated in recent months, but have faced scrutiny as they might permit side-deals to be inked that have the same effect as private auctions.

What seems certain is that “last resort” auctions — where ICANN gets all the money for its already $200 million war chest — will still be an option in the next round, which is current penciled in for the first half of 2026.

ICANN’s board plans to pass resolutions on the matter next Monday, so we should have a little more clarity by the start of August at the latest.

Nominet names director hopefuls

Nominet has named the five people who have put themselves forward for two seats on its board of directors. While there are familiar faces, there are also notable absences.

Ashley La Bolle of Tucows is defending her non-executive director seat and standing for her second term, but fellow NED Simon Blackler, famously of the PublicBenefit.uk campaign, is not.

PublicBenefit.uk resulted in a boardroom bloodbath at Nominet in 2021 and a change of focus for the .uk registry under new management.

Jim Davies, who threatened legal action after being excluded from the 2023 election, is also not on the list.

Rex Wickham of TwentyTwentyMedia, who sits on Nominet’s .UK Registry Advisory Council, is also on the list, along with Rob Golding, who has previously stood unsuccessfully for a NED seat.

Thomas Mangin and David Ward, neither of whom I believe have been candidates in Nominet elections before, round off the list.

Candidates’ election statements appear to be available to members only.

Nominet members get to vote, weighted according to how many .uk domains they manage, from September 23, and the new NEDs take their seats at the company’s AGM the following month.

ICANN to earmark $10 million for new gTLD subsidies

ICANN is planning to give $5 million of its auctions war-chest to new gTLD applicants from less well-off nations and wants community feedback on the idea.

The Org is sitting on over $200 million raised by auctioning gTLDs from the 2012 application round, and thinks some of it could be well-spent on subsidizing applicants in the next round.

It wants to create a $10 million fund for the Applicant Support Program, half of which will come from the auction proceeds and half of which will be covered by the existing program budget.

ICANN says this will be enough to provide “meaningful support for up to 45 new gTLD applicants”.

The auction funds have previously been used to replenish ICANN’s reserve and to launch the new Grant Program, which is making $10 million available with year to worthy, on-topic projects.

Clearly, at that rate, the Grant Program may well never exhaust the auction fund, given the likelihood of future auctions and investment gains over the next couple of decades.

The Applicant Support Program will be open to non-profit or small business applicants in most of the world’s territories, as I previously blogged. In the 2012 round, three applicants applied but only one received the discount.

The request to divert some of the cash into the ASP is not subject to a regular public comment process. Rather, ICANN’s community groups have been asked to send their thoughts to the board directly before August 12.

Americans and ICANNers avoid Kigali in droves

The number of North Americans and ICANN staffers turning up to the latest community meeting hit their lowest numbers since records began, according to newly published ICANN statistics.

In-person attendance plummeted compared to the same meeting last year, and the total number of North Americans collecting lanyards was the lowest since ICANN started tracking these things in 2016.

The number of staffers showing up to ICANN 80 in Kigali, Rwanda last month also tied as the lowest-ever turnout for Org employees.

There were 214 North Americans at Kigali, compared to 612 at the Washington DC meeting a year earlier and 262 at the meeting in The Hague in 2022, which was the first post-pandemic non-virtual meeting.

The previous low was 310, at the ICANN 65 meeting in Marrakech, Morocco.

It’s probably no surprise that many regular attendees stayed away. The shorter, mid-year Policy Forum meetings typically see the lowest in-person participation, and that’s particularly noticeable when the rotation has them held in Africa.

Flight web sites I checked show no direct flights from the US to Kigali. A connection at a European hub is required and you’re realistically looking at over 24 hours of travel time. Asian community members have it a little easier, with connecting hubs available in the Middle East.

For ICANN, the lower number of staff being sent may be indicative of the Org’s latest belt-tightening moves, which recently saw a number of staff laid off.

ICANN financial data dump a damp squib?

It was supposed to be a means for ICANN to improve the transparency of its financials, but the latest output of a decade-long accountability project appears to be a damp squib, perhaps not even meeting community requirements.

But a newly published document appears to reveal one vendor that was paid almost $2 million in a single year, that ICANN has mysteriously not previously disclosed a relationship with.

Org has published its first “Annual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers” (pdf), covering its fiscal 2022, but it weighs in at just one page of rather vague information, most of which was already in the public domain, printed in a font size I didn’t need my glasses to read.

The published data is less granular than what ICANN already reveals on its published tax forms, and it’s arguably less informative as a result.

The document shows that ICANN has at least 10 suppliers that received over $500,000 from the Org in FY22, and that if you aggregate all its insurance providers and landlords together each grouping also crosses that threshold.

There are three line items for payments over $2 million — the aforementioned landlords in aggregate, along with the law firm Jones Day and the software developer Architech Solutions.

Disclosing that these two companies were paid “above $2 million”, rather than the actual dollar value, is odd considering that we already know from ICANN’s 2022 tax form (pdf) that Jones Day was paid $5,164,603 and Architech was paid $2,857,500.

At the next tier down, we discover that ICANN paid IT consulting firm SHI International between $1.5 million and $2 million during the period.

This is arguably the most interesting stat on the page, as SHI doesn’t appear on ICANN’s 2022 tax return or the tax returns for 2021 and 2023, despite apparently meeting the criteria for being one of its “five highest compensated independent contractors”.

It doesn’t appear ICANN has ever publicly mentioned the firm before, but SHI is a large, decades-old IT services provider.

Paid between $1 million and $1.5 million were insurance providers in the aggregate, along with IT firms Outsource Technical and Zensar Technologies, both of which appear on the FY22 tax return with the precise dollar value they were paid.

On the lowest rung of the disclosure, each accounting for between $500,000 and $1 million in the period, are two HR outsourcing companies, two companies providing services for ICANN’s public meetings, and escrow provider NCC.

NCC was paid $800,798 in FY22, the lowest-paid of the top five contractors, according to the tax return, so we can assume the other four firms were paid less than that.

ICANN is making the disclosures in response to one of the over 100 recommendations of Work Stream 2 (WS2) of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, which were issued in 2018 after four years of community discussions, but it’s debatable whether they live up to what the community wanted.

CCWG-Accountability had issued implementation guidance stating:

In the first year of implementation ICANN should publish a register of all suppliers (name of supplier, country or origin and actual annual amount) it pays 500,000$US or more per fiscal year broken down by categories (e.g., computer equipment, software, telecommunication services, contracting etc.).

Note the references to “country or [sic] origin” and “actual annual amount”, two data points that do not seem to appear in the newly published document.

The group also said that the minimum reporting threshold should drop to $250,000 in the second reported year, so the FY23 document could be much larger. ICANN had 130 suppliers receiving six-figure payments in FY22, according to its tax return.

Governments call for new gTLD auctions ban

Governments have upped the stakes in their opposition to new gTLDs being auctioned off privately, now calling for an outright prohibition on the practice.

ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee today published its formal advice coming out of last week’s public meeting in Kigali, calling for ICANN to “prohibit the use of private auctions in resolving contention sets in the next round of New gTLDs”.

It’s a strengthening of previous language from last year’s Washington DC meeting which called for ICANN to “ban or strongly disincentivize private monetary means of resolution of contention sets, including private auctions”.

Private auctions were the most-common way that contests between new gTLD applicants with matching strings were resolved in the 2012 application round. Many tens of millions of dollars changed hands, with the losing bidders pocketing the winning bids.

But the practice came in for criticism from groups such as the GAC and the At-Large Advisory Committee, partly because it made it harder for non-commercial or less well-financed developing-world applicants to get a foothold in the gTLD space.

“The 2012 round was basically a game for millionaires,” ALAC chair Johnathon Zuck told the GAC at a meeting between the two groups last week. “There were many things that made the last round kind of a joke… but this was the very big thing that made the community look bad.”

Discussions with the ALAC, which wanted to issue joint advice with the GAC, seems to be at least partly responsible for the GAC aligning around advising a full-on ban on private auctions.

ICANN’s board of directors is broadly in favor of “discincentivizing” private auctions, but has stopped short of advocating for a full prohibition, according to directors’ public statements and board resolutions.

The Org commissioned a study from a New York company called NERA Economic Consulting, published shortly before the Kigali meeting, to look into ways to dissuade applicants from private auctions and encourage them towards ICANN’s “last resort” auctions — where ICANN gets all the money — or into joint ventures.

While it did not come up with any recommendations as such, the study did lay out some possible mechanisms — such as forcing applicants into last-resort auctions, or making them pay an extra fee if they want to resolve their contention sets privately.

Separately, ICANN has told the GAC it intends to reject another piece of its advice related to contention sets. The GAC had told ICANN last year:

To take steps to avoid the use of auctions of last resort in contentions between commercial and non-commercial applications; alternative means for the resolution of such contention sets, such as drawing lots, may be explored

But ICANN reckons a lottery might be illegal under California law. That’s pretty much what it said before it came up with “Digital Archery” during the last application round, and it turned out to not be completely correct.

It also disagrees with the GAC that non-commercial applicants in contention sets should be treated preferentially, with the board wary about having to pick winners and losers in the next round.

The board has therefore triggered the part of its bylaws that require it to hold formal negotiations with the GAC to see if they can come to a compromise before the advice is rejected.

ICANN names new CEO, and it isn’t Costerton

ICANN has picked industry veteran Kurt Erik “Kurtis” Lindqvist to take over as president and CEO.

He will replace interim CEO Sally Costerton, who has been serving since Goran Marby’s resignation in December 2022, but not until December 5 this year.

Since 2019 he’s been CEO of the London Internet Exchange, LINX, and has to served out his notice while a replacement is found. He announced his resignation a few days ago.

ICANN said Lindqvist has also been CEO of .no operator Netnod worked for the Internet Architecture Board, RIPE and the Internet Engineering Task Force.

ICANN received 100 applications for the gig from 20 countries and drew up an interview shortlist of seven — three of whom were female, ICANN noted — and three finalists were interviewed by the full board of directors.

Lindqvist will be based in ICANN’s Geneva, Switzerland regional office but “will spend significant time” in the ICANN Los Angeles HQ.

ICANN: We will NOT police content

ICANN seems to have killed off the idea of content-restricting Registry Voluntary Commitments being included in registry contracts, judging by a conversation today between its board of directors and Governmental Advisory Committee.

Speaking moments ago at a session at ICANN 80 in Rwanda, director Becky Burr said the board took legal advice and decided that the Org’s bylaws do not allow it to enforce contractual commitments that involve content regulation.

“The board was looking at the legal issues there to determine whether under our bylaws we were permitted to accept and enforce Registry Voluntary Commitments related to the restriction of content… on Saturday at our board meeting the board has resolved that we can’t,” Burr said.

“We will not accept into the contracts the new registry commitments that involve the restriction of content,” she said.

The RVC-like Public Interest Commitments found in 2012-round gTLDs are grandfathered in the current bylaws and will not be affected by the RVCs decision, she said.

Registries will be free to make RVC-like commitments outside of their ICANN contracts, but ICANN will not enforce them, she said. She also said the board has ruled out hiring a third party enforcer, citing US case law and the First Amendment to the US constitution.

Burr said that if an Independent Review Process panel struck down a single RVC it would risk invalidating all of the RVCs in all registry contracts.

The board’s resolution will be published later this week, but its legal advice will remain confidential, she said.

The decision is a win for registries and registrars, which earlier this year responded to an ICANN consultation by saying it should not permit RVCs that regulate content. The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group had even raised the possibility of legal action if ICANN went ahead with RVCs.

The opposing view was put forth by the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the At-Large Advisory Committee, all of which are now presumably feeling bummed out by the board’s latest decision.

More sticker shock as new gTLD fees could top $300,000

The base new gTLD application fee could top $300,000, according to an analysis released by ICANN at its meeting in Kigali, Rwanda, this morning.

The per-gTLD fee will likely range between $208,000 and $293,000, according to the latest estimate, but this does not include mandatory fees that have yet to be figured out that as a whole could amount to “tens of millions”.

ICANN is blaming inflation for most of the increase from the 2012 round, where the fee was $185,000. Staff said that if you take into account a 44% rise due to 14 years of inflation, the 2026 application fee could actually be lower in real-money terms.

The reason for the broad range provided is that ICANN still doesn’t have a good guess as to how many applications it will receive. The program is being run on a cost-recovery basis and ICANN has already budgeted for a spend of $70 million before the application window even opens.

If it only receives 500 applications, it could lose tens of millions of dollars even with a high application fee. With a fee of $242,000, ICANN would need 1,000 applications to make its money back, staff said during an ICANN 80 session today.

There were 1,930 applications in 2012, but demand in 2026 will depend a lot on how many desirable strings remain undelegated, particularly in non-English languages and non-Latin scripts, and how enthusiastic brand owners are about the dot-brand concept (or defensively registering their dot-brands).

The main unknown not included in the latest estimate is the cost of implementing the recommendations of the second Name Collision Analysis Project, which in May called for all gTLDs to be tested live in the DNS before being awarded to the applying registry.

Each of the NCAP2 recommendations could cost between “thousands” and “tens of millions” in total, which would be divided between all the applicants, staffers said. Scrawling on the back of an envelope, it looks to me like this could easily push the top end of the range well over $300,000.

The good news is that if ICANN gets a lot of applications and recovers its costs, it already anticipates giving applicants some of their money back. As an example, it said that if the fee is $220,000 and there are 2,000 applications, applicants could each get $35,000 back.

But that ray of sunlight was not enough to temper the concerns of community members in the room in Kigali today, several of whom sparred with CFO Xavier Calvez and new gTLD program lead Marika Konings over their calculations.

Registry services providers are already angry about the large increase in evaluation fees for the RSP program announced last month.

One thing that doesn’t seem to be under any dispute is that high fees will scare off some applicants, meaning the cost burden will be borne by fewer shoulders, meaning the fees did in fact need to be high; a self-fulfilling prophecy.