ICANN’s top brass get pay raises

ICANN’s CEO and several top executives are to receive pay raises amounting to tens of thousands of dollars.

The Org’s board of directors has approved a 4% raise for Göran Marby and four other of the top brass, with CFO Xavier Calvez getting an extra 4.5%.

The board also approved the payment of Marby’s bonus, but the amount — capped at 30% of his salary — will likely not be disclosed until ICANN files its tax returns.

It’s the fourth year in a row the CEO has received a pay rise.

Last year it was 3% andthe year before’s was 5%, but it was not a unanimous decision of the board. It’s not yet known how this year’s vote broke down.

The other execs receiving a raise of up to 4% are general counsel John Jeffrey, senior VPs Theresa Swinehart and David Olive and CIO Ashwin Rangan. None of them earned less than $450,000 in ICANN’s last tax filings.

The board resolution states that Marby’s salary is still lower than the low end of the 50-75th percentile of comparable industry salaries, though this formula is sometimes criticized for weighing tech industry CEOs in with non-profit CEOs.

New gTLD prep work delayed until December

ICANN has confirmed that the current phase of preparation for the next round of new gTLDs will last six weeks longer than previously expected.

The new deadline for the delivery of the Operational Design Assessment for the project is December 12, almost certainly pushing out board consideration of the document out into 2023.

The extension follows the GNSO’s approval of a new Whois Disclosure System, which will suck Org resources from the new gTLDs ODP as work on both continues in parallel.

ICANN chair Maarten Botterman confirmed the delay yesterday, and the precise length was disclosed by staff in a blog post today. It says in part:

While we’re sharing our best estimate of the impact that the WHOIS Disclosure System design paper work could have on the SubPro ODA in the interest of transparency, rest assured that we are simultaneously moving forward on the ODA and actively seeking ways to streamline and minimize the impact as much as possible.

The updated timetable has been published here.

New gTLDs WILL be delayed by Whois work

The next round of new gTLD applications will be delayed by ICANN’s work on Whois reform, ICANN chair Maarten Botterman confirmed today.

In a letter to his GNSO Council counterpart Philippe Fouquart, Botterman states that the new gTLDs Operational Design Phase, which was due to wrap up in October, will have to proceed with an “extended timeline”.

This is because the GNSO has pushed the concept of a Whois Disclosure System, previously known as SSAD Light and meant to provide the foundations of a system for access private Whois data, and ICANN needs time to design it.

Botterman wrote (pdf):

there is an overlap in org resources with the relevant expertise needed to complete these efforts. As a result, work on the [Whois] design paper will impact existing projects. While SubPro [new gTLDs] ODP work will not stop during this period, we anticipate that an extended timeline will be required to account for the temporary unavailability of resources allocated to the design paper work.

Botterman did not put a length of time to these delays, but previous ICANN estimates have talked about six weeks. GNSO members had worried that this estimate might be a low-ball that could be extended.

ICANN had given the GNSO the option to choose to delay Whois work to complete the SubPro ODP, but it could not come to an agreement on which project was more important, and seemed to resent even being asked.

ICANN backtracks on legal waiver for ICANN 75

ICANN has softened the language in the legal waiver it requires all of its public meeting attendees to agree to.

The waiver for ICANN 75, due to take place in Kuala Lumpur in September, no longer requires you to absolve ICANN from blame if you get sick due to the Org’s own gross negligence.

For last month’s ICANN 74 in The Hague, the waiver stated:

I knowingly and freely assume all risks related to illness and infectious diseases, including but not limited to COVID-19, even if arising from the negligence or fault of ICANN.

The Kuala Lumpur waiver states:

I knowingly and freely assume all risks related to illness and infectious diseases, including but not limited to COVID-19.

So if an infected ICANN staffer spits in the coffee, this time you could probably sue.

The 74 waiver caused a fair few complaints when it first emerged. It was accused of being “excessive” by the CEOs of Blacknight and the Namibian ccTLD registry in a Request for Reconsideration that was eventually dismissed by the ICANN board of directors.

It also caused the At-Large Advisory Committee to issue a withering takedown accusing ICANN of insensitivity and intimidation, which ICANN’s chair brushed off (pdf) a couple weeks ago.

There are other language changes in the new waiver, but none seem to be as significant as ICANN making itself legally bullet-proof.

Kuala Lumpur will have substantially the same Covid-19 precautions as The Hague, which includes mandatory mask-wearing indoors, testing, and social distancing, ICANN has confirmed.

Community tells ICANN to walk and chew gum at the same time

Whois or new gTLDs? Whois or new gTLDs? Whois or new gTLDs?

It’s the question ICANN has been pestering the community with since early May. ICANN can’t work on developing the proposed Whois Disclosure System (formerly known as SSAD) without delaying work on the next round of new gTLDs, Org said, so the community was given a Sophie’s Choice of which of its babies to sacrifice on the altar of failed resource planning.

And now it has its answer: why the heck can’t you do both, and why the heck are you asking us anyway?

GNSO Council chair Philippe Fouquart has written to Maarten Botterman, his counterpart on the ICANN board of directors, to request that Org figure out how to do both Whois and new gTLDs at the same time, and to existing deadlines:

While Council members might differ on which project should take precedence, there is unanimous agreement that the Subsequent Procedures ODP and SSAD development are among the most important tasks before ICANN. Therefore, we urge that every effort should be undertaken by ICANN Org to complete the work in parallel and to meet currently published milestones.

Fouquart goes on (pdf) to puzzle as to why ICANN decided to “inappropriately include the broad community in the minutiae of ICANN operations planning”.

ICANN had told the GNSO that if it wanted the Whois work to kick off, it would add “at least” six weeks of delay to the new gTLDs Operational Design Phase, which is scheduled to wrap up in October.

Naturally enough, folks such as IP lawyers were very keen that ICANN start to do something — anything — to roll back the damage caused by GDPR, while domain-selling companies are anxious that they get more inventory for their virtual shelves.

The public record has always been a bit sketchy on where the resource bottleneck actually is, in an organization with half a billion bucks in the bank, a $140 million operating budget, and around 400 staff.

Maintaining Whois and the expansion of the root zone are, after all, two of the main things ICANN was founded to do, being unable to do both at once could be seen as embarrassing.

But now it has its answer, as unhelpful as it is.

And it only took two months.

ICANN picks comms firm for new gTLDs outreach

The next round of new gTLDs is getting real.

ICANN has selected a communications firm to promote the next round ahead of its launch, and authorized a wedge of cash to pay for it, according to a resolution of the board of directors.

The resolution does not name the firm or the exact amount of money earmarked, because a deal has yet to be signed, but it is worth over $500,000.

In the 2012 round, I believe ICANN worked with long-time PR agency Edelman.

The agency will be responsible for planning the outreach campaign and then executing it over three months ahead of the application window opening, whenever that may be.

The resolution states that ICANN will contract the firm for 50 “instances”, where an instance is a country or industry.

The 2011/2012 outreach campaign came under criticism for not doing enough to entice applications from the global south and emerging economies, something which current ICANN management has said they hope to rectify next time around.

Broker says it will sue after DNS abuse sting operation

The CEO of domain broker VPN.com is threatening to sue an online safety advocacy group after a report was published alleging the company trades in names that could be used for illegal activity.

Michael Gargiulo said he will take action against the Digital Citizens Alliance unless it removes a report that claimed one of the company’s brokers agreed to coordinate the $21,000 purchase of covidvaccinecardsforsale.com, even after being told it would be used for illegal purposes.

“[We] sadly have no choice but to sue the Digital Citizens Alliance, Executive Director Tom Galvin, their Managing Editor, and every John Doe that coordinated this fraud unless this content is removed within 48 hours from now,” Gargiulo said.

The DCA report, entitled “Peddling For Profit — How Website Retailers Enable Bad Actors to Become the Master of Illicit Domains” (pdf), is largely an attempt to highlight how domain registrars don’t vet domains for potentially illegal use before allowing them to be registered.

It’s mostly familiar nonsense, apparently written with a general audience and tabloid headlines, rather than the domain industry or tech industry, in mind.

There’s no attempt to explore the complexities of automatically determining a registrant’s intent at the point of sale and comparing it to the world’s hundreds of legal jurisdictions, it’s mainly just “Woah, GoDaddy let me register untraceablegunsforsale.com!”

Where the report differs from the norm is when it looks at the secondary market, where human beings work with buyer and seller to agree a price and transfer a domain.

With VPN, the DCA reporter posed as the potential buyer of covidvaccinecardsforsale.net and carried out an email conversation with a broker in which it was stated the domain would be used to sell “Covid cards” to “the unvaccinated”, from which one could certainly infer a nefarious purpose.

The VPN broker responded by trying to negotiate the sale of the matching .com for a higher price, the DCA report states. Later, the DCA reporter says he wants to “stay under the radar of the FTC” but VPN’s response, if any, is not reported.

Gargiulo told DI that DCA “posed as a legitimate Buyer on the original inquiry with fraudulent intent, which by their publication admission, is fraudulent and illegal in America.”

The broker in question is from outside the US and “did not understand their [DCA’s] illegal intent” he said.

“In many parts of the world including Europe, Covid cards are used for vaccinated and unvaccinated people,” he said, giving the Netherlands as an example.

“We take this matter very seriously as the characterization of our company is absolutely ridiculous in this document,” he said. “There was little-to-no journalistic integrity to verify the other side of this story by DCA and the transaction never even got remotely close to occurring.”

DCA also attempted to buy buystolencreditcards.com via broker Domain Agents, but after blatantly describing how the name would be used for crime, “the broker canceled the deal.”

DCA, as its name implies, is funded by undisclosed companies in Big Content, Big Pharma, internet security and consumer safety. It’s led by former Verisign PR man Tom Galvin.

“We will let the report speak for itself,” a DCA spokesperson said when asked for comment on the legal threat.

The slow crawl to closed generics at ICANN 74

Last Monday saw the 10th anniversary of Reveal Day, the event in London where ICANN officially revealed the 1,930 new gTLD applications submitted earlier in 2012 to a crowd of excited applicants and media.

Dozens of those applications were for closed generics — where the registry operator is the sole registrant, but the string isn’t a trademark — but now, a decade later, the ICANN community still hasn’t decided what to do about that type of gTLD.

At ICANN 74 last week, the Generic Names Supporting Organization and Governmental Advisory Committee inched closer to agreeing the rules of engagement for forthcoming talks on how closed generics should be regulated.

The GNSO’s working group on new gTLDs — known as SubPro — had failed to come to a consensus on whether closed generics should even be allowed, failing even to agree on whether the status quo was the thousand-year-old earlier GNSO policy recommendations that permitted them or the later GAC-influenced ICANN retconning that banned them.

But ever since SubPro delivered its final report, the GAC has been reminding ICANN of its 2013 Beijing communique advice, which stated: “For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal.”

At the time, this amounted to an effective ban, but today it’s become an enabler.

ICANN has for the last several months been coaxing the GNSO and the GAC to the negotiating table to help bring the SubPro stalemate into line with the Beijing communique, and the rules of engagement pretty much guarantee that closed generics will be permitted, as least in principle, in the next application round.

GAC chair Manal Ismail told ICANN (pdf) back in April:

discussion should focus on a compromise to allow closed generics only if they serve a public interest goal and that the two “edge outcomes” (i.e. allowing closed generics without restrictions/limitations, and prohibiting closed generics under any circumstance) are unlikely to achieve consensus, and should therefore be considered out of scope for this dialogue.

Remarkably, the GNSO agreed to these terms with little complaint, essentially allowing the GAC to set at least the fundamentals of the policy.

Last week, talks centered on how these bilateral negotiations — or trilateral, as the At-Large Advisory Committee is now also getting a seat at the table — will be proceed.

The rules of engagement were framed by ICANN (pdf) back in March, with the idea that talks would begin before ICANN 74, a deadline that has clearly been missed.

The GNSO convened a small team of members to consider ICANN’s proposals and issued its report (pdf) last week, which now seems to have been agreed upon by the Council.

Both GNSO and GAC are keen that the talks will be facilitated by an independent, non-conflicted, knowledgeable expert, and have conceded that they may have to hire a professional facilitator from outside the community.

That person hasn’t been picked yet, and until he/she has taken their seat no talks are going to happen.

ICANN said a few months ago that it did not expect the closed generics issue to delay the SubPro Operational Design Phase, which is scheduled to wind up in October, but the longer the GAC, GNSO and ICANN dawdle, the more likely that becomes.

All that has to happen is for a group of 14-16 community members to agree on what “public interest” means, and that should be easy, right? Right?

Over 900 people show up for ICANN 74

Has community participation in ICANN meetings rebounded now that in-person meetings have returned? That’s one possible interpretation of data released by the Org today.

ICANN said that ICANN 74, which concluded yesterday, had 1,817 attendees, of whom 917 showed up in The Hague in person, their first opportunity to travel to an ICANN meeting since November 2019. The remaining 900 participated remotely via Zoom.

If we take the top-line number, that’s the highest attendance of the pandemic era, and comparable to the Montréal meeting immediately prior to the arrival of the Covid-19, ICANN 66, where 1,894 people showed up.

But the top-line number from Montréal does not include off-site Zoom participants, which were counted separately and amounted to 1,752 people.

So the number of people “attending” ICANN meetings one way or the other has either returned to pre-pandemic levels, or has been cut in half, or even quartered, over the last two and a half years, depending on how you’re counting.

The fact that the 66 was an Annual General Meeting, with a longer, more cluttered agenda and more opportunities to engage for a broader range of people than the mid-year Policy Forum, probably had some impact on the numbers.

The 2019 Policy Forum, held in Morocco, attracted 1,186 in-person attendees and 2.909 off-site Zoom participants.

Regardless of whether you think Zoom users count as full participants or not, 917 bums on seats is the smallest attendance for any meeting since ICANN started counting.

Verisign and Afilias spar over .web delays

Afilias and Verisign are at odds over a further delay to the resolution of the .web gTLD dispute.

Afilias, aka Altanovo Domains, says its lawyers are too busy to meet ICANN’s deadline for arguments about whether either company broke the rules in the 2016 auction of .web, but Verisign thinks they have plenty of time,

ICANN’s Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee had set a deadline of July 15 for both applicants to submit a document explaining why they believe the other broke the rules and should have their auction bids voided.

But Afilias’ lawyers say they “have longstanding international travel and hearing commitments in June and July that cannot be rescheduled” and want an extension to July 29.

Just two weeks seems like no big deal in a contest that has been running for literally a decade, but Verisign is opposing it anyway, according to emails Afilias submitted to ICANN (pdf).

“ICANN provided the parties with a generous briefing schedule sufficient to accommodate counsel’s other commitments. For this reason, Verisign and NDC do not support Altanovo’s current request for a further extension,” a Verisign lawyer wrote.

Verisign, which won the auction via its proxy, Nu Dot Co, believes Afilias broke a communications blackout period before the auction by texting NDC to negotiate a deal. Afilias believes NDC broke the rules by not disclosing Verisign’s involvement.

The BAMC’s job, following the outcome of an Independent Review Process case last year, is to decide whether either of these claims is legit and settle who won the auction once and for all.