US extends ICANN’s IANA contract

ICANN has received a six-month extension to its crucial IANA contract, apparently in order to give the US government more time to take public comments and make amendments.
The contract may have been extended some weeks ago, but I believe the first public acknowledgment from ICANN came in a presentation before the ccNSO at its meeting in Singapore last week.
The IANA contract is what gives ICANN the power to make changes to the DNS root – including adding new top-level domains to the internet.
It is granted by the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
The contract is now set to expire March 31, 2012, towards the end of the newly approved first-round new gTLDs application window, which is expected to be open from January 12 until April 12.
It would be helpful, from an applicant confidence perspective, if the contract is renewed on a longer-term basis before January 12, when money will start changing hands.
The NTIA currently has a Further Notice Of Inquiry (pdf) open, soliciting public comments on what terms should and should not be included in the contract.
Quite a few civil liberty types are annoyed about the fact that the NTIA has added a clause that may enable it to block new gTLDs from the root if governments find them disagreeable.

How the US shaped the new ICANN

The US government pushed hard for ICANN to pay more attention to international governments, which caused it to delay .xxx and the new top-level domains program, a new document reveals.
A transcript of a December 2010 meeting between ICANN’s board and National Telecommunications and Information Administration chief Larry Strickling, published following a disclosure request by DomainIncite, outlines America’s “tough love” policy over ICANN.
It reveals that Strickling hauled ICANN over the coals over its opaque decision-making, its failure to adequately address its Affirmation of Commitments obligations, and its apparent lack of respect for its Governmental Advisory Committee.
The era of ICANN engaging maturely and in earnest with governments, witnessed over the last six months, arguably began in that meeting room in Cartagena, the evening of December 7, 2010.
But it did so partly because it fitted with Obama administration policy.
Strickling told the board that the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance was critical to US public policy on other matters, but that he wanted to ensure “the reality fits the model”:

we are cheerleaders for this. But as I’ve said to several of you, there’s a model but then there’s the reality. And it is incumbent on us at this particular point in time, more so than perhaps ever before, to do what we can to ensure the model, that the reality fits the model.
…
what it comes back to at the end of the day is our concern that we want to be able to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the quality of decision-making by this organization is absolutely top drawer.

ICANN was failing to live up to these ideals, he said. This was particularly true in the case of the new gTLD program, which many had expected ICANN to approve in Cartagena.
Strickling said that ICANN had not done enough to evaluate the pros and cons of the program:

I’ve heard expressed the idea that somehow I or the United States is opposed to the expansion of top-level domains. That’s not the case. I don’t have a view one way or the other. Frankly, that’s up to you to decide.
What I do care about is that when you decide that question, that you do it with a quality of decision-making with all of the information in front of you that you ought to have with the experts having given you the opportunity to ask questions and evaluate the pros and cons of decisions as fully as possible.

He later added:

It’s very clear that there are a lot of warning signs, just in the studies that have been done so far, incomplete as they are, to suggest that rushing headlong into this issue, I think, could be a mistake.
But I want to very quickly kind of backtrack from that remark in the sense that I don’t think it’s my place, in my role, to tell you how to make your decisions in terms of what the outcome should be.
And I do think I have a role to play and will play the role of evaluating the quality of decision-making, which largely is processes, but at the end of the day it really comes down to did the board have in front of it the facts it needed to have to make an informed decision, and does their decision, as reflected in their report of that decision, reflect a reasoned, mature, responsible decision.

It’s impossible to tell precisely what the tone of the meeting was from the transcript, but it’s possible to infer from the content that it was likely that of a parent scolding an unruly child.
At one point in the transcript, director Rita Rodin Johnston refers to Strickling as “Dad”, and Strickling says moments later that he does not want to “play schoolteacher” .
Seemingly pushing for it to mature as an organization, he urged ICANN to engage more seriously with the GAC, which had concluded a frustrating public meeting with the board just minutes earlier.

I don’t know what all of the top challenges are to ICANN in the next three to five years, but I absolutely believe that in that top three will be the issue of ICANN’s relations with foreign governments.
…
I think you all are missing a tremendous opportunity to deal with this issue of ICANN and Internet governance and the role of foreign governments, and it’s absolutely incumbent upon you all to find a way to work with the GAC along the lines that Heather [Dryden, GAC chair] and her fellow members expressed to you today.
…
I think that’s important for your ultimate preservation as an independent organization, and I cannot, I guess, emphasize enough the importance of working out these processes with the GAC in terms of receiving their advice, treating it with respect by responding to it promptly and fully, sitting down and mediating with them where it appears there are disagreements.

His words hit home.
Later that week, ICANN deferred a decision on approval of .xxx, pending formal discussions with the GAC, and it arranged to meet with the GAC in Brussels to discuss the new gTLDs program.
Over the last six months we’ve seen numerous changes to the Applicant Guidebook – addressing the concerns of trademark owners, for example – as a result of these consultations.
The structure of this process also appears to been formed during this private Cartagena meeting.
Strickling clashed with then-chairman Peter Dengate Thrush on their respective interpretations of ICANN’s bylaws as they relate to rejecting GAC advice.
Dengate Thrush expressed a view that could be characterized as “vote first, consult later” (my words, not his), which Strickling dismissed as “silliness”.
Strickling evidently won the argument; ICANN this year has started consulting formally with the GAC prior to voting on important issues.
The first beneficiary of this policy was .xxx applicant ICM Registry, which Strickling addressed directly during the Cartagena meeting:

But let me just say I don’t know how — based on, as I understand the facts on both top-level domains and ICM, how you can possibly have a mediation this week, in terms of the fact that information has not been provided to the GAC that they’ve asked for, the fact that they do not feel they understand exactly what the board has disagreed with and why.

This appears to be the reason we’re looking at .xxx domain names hitting the market in September, rather than right now.
Finally, I find it ironic that, given the meeting’s focus on transparency, it was Strickling, rather than ICANN, who asked for a transcription of the talks to be made.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We are currently scribing this session. But under our rules if you want us not to scribe this, we just turn it off.
>>LAWRENCE STRICKLING: I’m fine to be on the record. I have spoken to some of you individually, and I urged every one of you who I talked to individually to share my views as far as they wished. And I have absolutely no problem with anything I say here being in the public record.

Despite this exchange, the transcript did not become part of the public record until last Friday, 30 days after I filed a request using ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, which is a little like its Freedom Of Information Act.
I wish I’d filed it sooner.
You can download the PDF of the transcript here.

Calls to fix new gTLD “revolving door” at ICANN

ICANN’s CEO has acknowledged calls for a rethink of its ethics policies in light of the approval of the new generic top-level domains program and a recent high-profile staff departure.
Rod Beckstrom, during his opening remarks at ICANN’s international public meeting in Singapore last week, said he expects to lose staff to new gTLD applicants:

we could see a rise in departures as our highly qualified staff are recruited by other organizations, including some in this room, for their unique experience in this emerging area.
This would be a solid endorsement of our staff. Not unexpectedly, the first such resignation has already occurred.
I am pleased to hear the community begin discussions on whether ICANN ethics policies need to be strengthened.

The resignation referred to was that of Craig Schwartz, who has quit his job as ICANN’s chief gTLD registry liaison to head BITS’ application for .bank and other financial TLDs.
There are fears that the sudden influx of new money into the gTLD space could easily attract ICANN’s top talent away from the organization, making it less effective.
This looming problem is particularly troubling given ICANN’s recent staff retention problems.
Adrian Kinderis, CEO of likely applicant and registry services provider AusRegistry, said during a meeting between the ICANN board and the GNSO Council last week:

I need to ramp up some people very very quickly that know about this domain application process, and I’ll pay big dollars because there’s big dollars out there…
If you don’t do something, I will poach all your good people.

A small number of people who know the Applicant Guidebook inside-out – I’ve heard stories of meetings where ICANN executives use a whiteboard to brainstorm all the possible ways to game the program – would make invaluable recruits for registry services providers or consulting firms.
Senior vice president Kurt Pritz, who’s been heading the development of the Guidebook for the last few years, would be a killer hire if and when he decides to leave.
Currently, there’s nothing in these employees’ contracts that would prevent such talent leakage – although many have signed confidentiality agreements – Beckstrom said on Monday.
The GNSO has started talking about a policy that could help prevent a “revolving door” between the industry and ICANN, which is in many ways its regulator.
A very early-stage draft document compiled by Go Daddy’s Tim Ruiz has been circulated to the Council, outlining eight ideas for such a policy.
It could for example require contracted parties to agree not to hire ICANN staff during their employment and for a period thereafter, and vice versa.
It also suggests banning staff joining ICANN from a contracted party working on matters related to that company for two years after being hired.
Governments around the world already have such policies in place, although they vary wildly and are enforced with various degrees of effectiveness.
Perversely, the fact that everyone knows these talks are now underway may in fact accelerate registries’ headhunting of ICANN staff – there presumably can be no revolving door ethics policy violation before a revolving door ethics policy has been created.

Crocker picked to lead ICANN

Steve Crocker has been elected chairman of ICANN’s board of directors, following the departure of Peter Dengate Thrush, whose term on the board expired today.
Described earlier this week by CEO Rod Beckstrom as “one of the uncles of the internet”, Crocker is the creator of the Request For Comment format for internet standards.
Replacing Crocker as vice-chair is fellow geek Bruce Tonkin, chief strategy officer of Melbourne IT, the Australian domain name registrar.
Both men were selected by secret board poll.
The board revealed the unsuccessful candidates for the first time too: Cherine Chalaby and Sebastien Bachollet stood for chair, while Bachollet and Ray Plzak stood for vice-chair.
Because Crocker’s term on the board ends in October, his long-term future depends now on whether the ICANN Nominating Committee decides to renew his term for another three years.
I expect it will. Last year, NomCom kicked out all three of its appointees whose terms were up, irking some. Declining to re-appoint Crocker this year could look like regicide by committee.
This leaves NomCom with only one pick in 2011. It will almost certainly be a woman from a region currently under-represented on the board. My guess is Russia.
Also joining the board today was .au’s Chris Disspain, who replaces Dengate Thrush as ccNSO appointee, and Canadian consultant Bill Graham, who replaces Rita Rodin Johnston from the GNSO.

ICANN names European vice president

ICANN has appointed Thomas Spiller to be its first vice president, Europe.
Spiller has worked for the French Prime Minister’s Office, but most recently was head of global policy strategy at the software vendor SAS.
He’s a French national, but will be based in ICANN’s Brussels office when he begins, August 29.
“I look forward to reinforcing ICANN’s outreach to all stakeholders and strengthening the ongoing inclusive dialogue with Europe’s Internet users, national governments, EU institutions and business,” he said in a press release.
If you’re counting, Spiller will be ICANN’s eighth vice president, the third to be appointed this year.

Kroes slams ICANN new gTLD approval

Neelie Kroes, vice-president of the European Commission, has repeated her call for ICANN reform after it rejected governmental advice in its newly approved top-level domains program.
According to a statement from her official spokesperson sent to Intellectual Property Watch, Kroes said the approval of the program “disregard[ed] governmental advice on public policy issues” and “underscores the need for the model to be reformed to remain sustainable”.

The lack of an adequate response on the part of ICANN Board clearly points to some deficiencies in the current functioning of the model. This calls for specific actions in order to remedy the situation.

Kroes seems to believe that governments are entitled to every concession they demand from “multistakeholder” policy-making processes.
According to IP-Watch, she promised to coordinate a response with EU member states and the US.
While the Governmental Advisory Committee had filed about 80 objections to aspects of the Applicant Guidebook earlier this year, ICANN managed to whittle the list down to a small handful.
It refused to remove the requirement for trademark owners to provide proof of use before participating in sunrise periods, and to lower the burden of proof in certain anti-cybersquatting mechanisms.
Governments also don’t seem particularly convinced by ICANN’s decision to approve the program before consulting more deeply with competition authorities over the vertical integration issue.
GAC chair Heather Dryden delivered a more measured statement expressing “disappointment” with the decision yesterday.
EC GAC representative Gerard de Graaf, who’s earning himself a reputation in ICANN as a bit of a firebrand, was less measured in his response, accusing ICANN of potentially putting new gTLD applicants at risk of violating European competition laws.
More at Intellectual Property Watch.

Facebok.com had 250 million hits a year

The typo domain name facebok.com was receiving an estimated 250 million visits per year, according to a Facebook attorney.
As I’ve previously reported, the domain was subject to controversy after Facebook won it in a UDRP adjudication and was subsequently sued by the cybersquatter.
“Obviously, it’s Facebook except lacking one O, and attracting a lot of traffic – 250 million was the estimate by our SEO team, 250 million hits a year,” Facebook’s Susan Kawaguchi said during a panel on UDRP here at the ICANN meeting in Singapore.
“Somebody was making a lot of money off of it,” she said.
Facebok.com bounced users to what Kawaguchi described as a “social survey scam” – a site that used Facebook’s look-and-feel to get users to sign up for expensive text message services.
After Facebook won the UDRP in September, a bogus Panama-based shell company sued Facebook and the registrar, EuroDNS, claiming to be the true owner of the domain.
The suit persuaded EuroDNS to put the transfer to Facebook on hold, and ICANN threatened to terminate the registrar’s accreditation as a result.
The situation has since been resolved, and Facebook owns the domain, but EuroDNS may find itself in trouble with the Luxembourg court.

Infographic — the approved new gTLDs timeline

ICANN’s board of directors today approved this timetable for the first round of new top-level domain applications.
Also available in PDF format here.

(click to enlarge)

New gTLD program approved — full resolution

ICANN’s board of directors has approved its new generic top-level domains program and will start accepting applications from companies in January next year.
The vote this morning at the Raffles City Convention Center in Singapore, was 13 in favor, with George Sadowsky voting against.
Bruce Tonkin of registrar Melbourne IT abstained on conflict-of-interest grounds, and Mike Silber abstained because, while generally in favor of the program, he did not believe it was ready yet.
Here’s the resolution in full. I’ll provide commentary later in the day.

Approval of the New gTLD Program

Whereas, on 28 November 2005, the GNSO Council voted unanimously to initiate a policy development process on the introduction of new gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Committee on the Introduction of New gTLDs addressed a range of difficult technical, operational, legal, economic, and policy questions, and facilitated widespread participation and public comment throughout the policy development process.
Whereas, on 6 September 2007, the GNSO Council approved by a supermajority vote a motion supporting the 19 recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains going forward to the ICANN Board (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm).
Whereas, the Board instructed staff to review the GNSO recommendations and determine whether they were capable of implementation, and staff engaged international technical, operational and legal expertise to support the implementation of the policy recommendations and developed implementation plans for the GNSO’s policy recommendations.
Whereas, on 26 June 2008, the Board adopted the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs and directed staff to further develop and complete its detailed implementation plan, continue communication with the community on such work, and provide the Board with a final version of the implementation proposals for the board and community to approve before the launching of the new gTLD application process (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113171).
Whereas, staff has made implementation details publicly available in the form of drafts of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook and supporting materials for public discussion and comment.
Whereas, the first draft of the Applicant Guidebook was published on 23 October 2008 , and the Guidebook has undergone continued substantial revisions based on stakeholder input on multiple drafts.
Whereas, the Board has conducted intensive consultations with the Governmental Advisory Committee (including in Brussels in February 2011, in San Francisco in March 2011, by telephone in May 2011, and in Singapore on 19 June 2011), resulting in substantial agreement on a wide range of issues noted by the GAC, and the Board has directed revisions to the Applicant Guidebook to reflect such agreement.
Whereas, ICANN received letters from the United States Department of Commerce and the European Commission addressing the issue of registry-registrar cross-ownership, and the Board considered the concerns expressed therein. The Board agrees that the potential abuse of significant market power is a serious concern, and discussions with competition authorities will continue.
Whereas, ICANN has consulted with the GAC to find mutually acceptable solutions on areas where the implementation of policy is not consistent with GAC advice, and where necessary has identified its reasons for not incorporating the advice in particular areas, as required by the Bylaws; see .
Whereas, the ICANN community has dedicated countless hours to the review and consideration of numerous implementation issues, by the submission of public comments, participation in working groups, and other consultations.
Whereas, the Board has listened to the input that has been provided by the community, including the supporting organizations and advisory committees, throughout the implementation process.
Whereas, careful analysis of the obligations under the Affirmation of Commitments and the steps taken throughout the implementation process indicates that ICANN has fulfilled the commitments detailed in the Affirmation (http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm).
Whereas, the Applicant Guidebook posted on 30 May 2011 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-7-en.htm) includes updates resulting from public comment and from recent GAC advice.
Whereas, the draft New gTLDs Communications Plan forms the basis of the global outreach and education activities that will be conducted leading up to and during the execution of the program in each of the ICANN geographic regions.
Whereas, the Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17may11-en.htm) includes a New gTLD Program Launch Scenario, and the Board is prepared to approve the expenditures included in Section 7 of the Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget.
Whereas, the Board considers an applicant support program important to ensuring an inclusive and diverse program, and will direct work to implement a model for providing support to potential applicants from developing countries.
Whereas, the Board’s Risk Committee has reviewed a comprehensive risk assessment associated with implementing the New gTLD Program, has reviewed the defined strategies for mitigating the identified risks, and will review contingencies as the program moves toward launch.
Whereas, the Board has reviewed the current status and plans for operational readiness and program management within ICANN.
Resolved (2011.06.20.01), the Board authorizes the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes the following elements:
1. the 30 May 2011 version of the Applicant Guidebook (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-7-en.htm), subject to the revisions agreed to with the GAC on 19 June 2011, including: (a) deletion of text in Module 3 concerning GAC advice to remove references indicating that future Early Warnings or Advice must contain particular information or take specified forms; (b) incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, and (c) modification of the “loser pays” provision in the URS to apply to complaints involving 15 (instead of 26) or more domain names with the same registrant; the Board authorizes staff to make further updates and changes to the Applicant Guidebook as necessary and appropriate, including as the possible result of new technical standards, reference documents, or policies that might be adopted during the course of the application process, and to prominently publish notice of such changes;
2. the Draft New gTLDs Communications Plan as posted at (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/new-gtlds-communications-plan-30may11-en.pdf), as may be revised and elaborated as necessary and appropriate;
3. operational readiness activities to enable the opening of the application process;
4. a program to ensure support for applicants from developing countries, with a form, structure and processes to be determined by the Board in consultation with stakeholders including: (a) consideration of the GAC recommendation for a fee waiver corresponding to 76 percent of the $185,000 USD evaluation fee, (b) consideration of recommendations of the ALAC and GNSO as chartering organizations of the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group, (c) designation of a budget of up to $2 million USD for seed funding, and creating opportunities for other parties to provide matching funds, and (d) the review of additional community feedback, advice from ALAC, and recommendations from the GNSO following their receipt of a Final Report from the JAS Working Group (requested in time to allow staff to develop an implementation plan for the Board’s consideration at its October 2011 meeting in Dakar, Senegal), with the goal of having a sustainable applicant support system in place before the opening of the application window;
5. a process for handling requests for removal of cross-ownership restrictions on operators of existing gTLDs who want to participate in the new gTLD program, based on the “Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions for Existing gTLDs” (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02may11-en.htm), as modified in response to comments ; consideration of modification of existing agreements to allow cross-ownership with respect to the operation of existing gTLDs is deferred pending further discussions including with competition authorities;
6. the expenditures related to the New gTLD Program as detailed in section 7 of the Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17may11-en.htm); and
7. the timetable as set forth in the attached graphic , elements of which include the New gTLD application window opening on 12 January 2012 and closing on 12 April 2012, with the New gTLD Communications Plan beginning immediately.
Resolved (2011.06.20.02), the Board and the GAC have completed good faith consultations in a timely and efficient manner under the ICANN Bylaws, Article XI, Section 2.j. As the Board and the GAC were not able to reach a mutually acceptable solution on a few remaining issues, pursuant to ICANN Bylaws, Article XI, Section 2.k, the Board incorporates and adopts as set forth in the document describing the remaining areas of difference between ICANN’s Board and the GAC the reasons why the GAC advice was not followed. The Board’s statement is without prejudice to the rights or obligations of GAC members with regard to public policy issues falling within their responsibilities.
Resolved (2011.06.20.03), the Board wishes to express its deep appreciation to the ICANN community, including the members of the GAC, for the extraordinary work it has invested in crafting the New gTLD Program in furtherance of ICANN’s mission and core values, and counts on the community’s ongoing support in executing and reviewing the program.

ICANN plans retreat to regroup under new chair

ICANN’s board of directors will hold a surprise, unprecedented workshop or retreat next Saturday, to address the “multiple challenges” it faces.
This announcement just appeared on the ICANN web site:

Board Workshop to Prepare for the Future
Given the change in Board leadership and related changes in Board committee assignments and the multiple challenges facing ICANN, the Board will take advantage of the presence of most of the new Board and hold an informal workshop following the close of the ICANN meeting. The primary focus of the workshop will be the challenges facing ICANN and the coordination of Board and management directions.

The workshop is slated for June 25, the day after both the current meeting in Singapore and the chairmanship of Peter Dengate Thrush ends.
Though his replacement has not been named, it’s quite likely that the board already knows who it has selected to fill PDT’s shoes.
The “multiple challenges” ICANN faces could refer to anything from the launch of the new top-level domains program, its increasingly close relationship with its newly empowered Governmental Advisory Committee, or the threat of more US interference with its functions.
Probably all of the above and more.
In addition, the reference to the “coordination of Board and management directions” may well fuel the scurrilous gossip that all is not well between ICANN’s board and its senior staff.
(via @DNSConundrum)