ICANN suggests its Covid waiver may be worthless

The controversial legal waiver ICANN is insisting you agree to before attending its next public meeting may not be worth the pixels it’s written with, judging by the Org’s latest statement on the matter.

In an updated FAQ, posted in response to a complaint from Blacknight, ICANN now states:

Attending an ICANN meeting remains a risk-based analysis for each attendee, recognizing that sometimes things can and do go wrong. A liability waiver helps enshrine that ICANN’s funds should not be used to defend ICANN against items for which ICANN itself should not be held liable. Protecting ICANN in this way helps support ICANN’s continued ability to serve its mission.

But it denies that the waiver is as all-encompassing as some fear:

There will be times, of course, where ICANN might not perform to an expected best practice, and that might be the cause of injury or damage to an attendee. Those claims against ICANN are not waived.

This apparently contradicts the waiver itself, which continues to say:

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.

It also continues to require you to sign away your rights to sue, and your kids’ rights to sue, even if you die of Covid-19 due to ICANN’s “gross negligence”.

There may be a way to avoid the waiver.

Based on my experience, it appears that the waiver is presented in the registration path if you click the box indicating that you will be attending in-person, but if you ALSO check the box saying you’ll be attending remotely then the waiver does not appear.

So if you’re planning on attending in a hybrid fashion, perhaps in-person for only a day or two and on Zoom for the balance, ICANN doesn’t need you to waive your rights.

I expect this is a glitch in how the web form is configured that will probably be fixed not too long after I publish this article.

ICANN 74 will take place in The Hague, and Zoom, in June.

Domain sales exempt from US sanctions on Russia

A variety of internet technologies, including domain name registration services, have been declared exempt from US sanctions on Russia.

The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has issued a notice (pdf) specifically authorizing the export to Russia for the following:

services, software, hardware, or technology incident to the exchange of communications over the internet, such as instant messaging, videoconferencing, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos, movies, and documents, web browsing, blogging, web hosting, and domain name registration services

The move is reportedly meant to support independent media’s and activists’ fight against Russian government propaganda during the Ukrainian invasion.

Some US registrars, including Namecheap and GoDaddy, have chosen to restrict their Russian customer base on ethical grounds since the first week of the war in Ukraine.

Namecheap, which has many staff in Ukraine, has banned all Russian custom other than those actively opposing the Putin government.

African Union can’t register .africa domain

File this one under “ironic”. Also file it under “Maarten Botterman might be the worst pen-pal in history.”

It turns out that the African Union has been unable to register its domain of choice in the .africa gTLD — for which AU support was a crucial and divisive deal-breaker — because of rules insisted upon by governments.

The AU Commission’s vice chair, Kwesi Quartey, has asked ICANN to release the string “au” from the list that all contracted registries have to agree to reserve because they match the names or acronyms of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs).

The AU is an IGO, so its string is protected from being registered by anyone, including itself.

Quartey wrote, in a letter (pdf) to ICANN chair Botterman:

Unfortunately inclusion of the AU label within the IGO List had the unintended consequence of preventing any third party, including the African Union, from registering the acronym as a domain name (au.africa), yet there is an urgent need to change the African Union digital identifier on the internet from au.int to the .africa domain name.

“Urgent need”, you say? That’s ICANN’s specialty!

Botterman immediately sprang into action and sent his urgent reply (pdf), waiting just 21 short months from Quartey’s July 2020 urgent request to urgently pass the buck to the Governmental Advisory Committee.

Only the GAC can ask for a protected acronym to be removed from the list, he wrote. ICANN Org and board have their hands tied.

Also, removing “au” from the list will release it in all gTLDs, potentially allowing it to be registered by third parties in hundreds of other zones, so watch out for that, Botterman noted.

An additional wrinkle not noted in the letter, which may help or hinder the AU, is that Australia also has rights to the same string under an entirely different new gTLD program reserved list, because it matches the Aussie ccTLD.

You’ll recall that .africa was a contested gTLD in which AU support was the deciding factor.

The AU had originally offered to support a bid from DotConnectAfrica, but after the new gTLD program got underway it withdrew that support and conducted a registry tender that was won by ZA Central Registry, which now runs .africa.

DCA has been pursuing ICANN about this in arbitration and the courts ever since.

Microsoft seizes domains Russia was using to attack Ukraine

Microsoft says it has taken control of some domain names that we being using by hackers connected to the Russian security services to launch cyber attacks against Ukrainian, US and EU targets.

Company VP Tom Burt wrote that seven domains used by a group called Strontium were seized via a US court order and redirected to a Microsoft sinkhole, disrupting these attacks.

Burt wrote that the targets were Ukrainian media organizations and US and EU foreign policy think tanks, adding:

We believe Strontium was attempting to establish long-term access to the systems of its targets, provide tactical support for the physical invasion and exfiltrate sensitive information.

One wonders why Russia would use domains under US jurisdiction to conduct such attacks.

Blacknight objects to ICANN 74 Covid waiver

Irish registrar Blacknight has objected to ICANN’s demand that attendees at its forthcoming 74th public meeting sign a legal waiver over the potential for Covid-19 infections.

CEO Michele Neylon has written (pdf) to his ICANN counterpart and chair Maarten Botterman to complain that the waiver is “excessive” and “unreasonable”.

Neylon said he’d consulted his lawyer and concluded: “I cannot sign this waiver and I obviously cannot ask any of my staff to do so either.”

“[The lawyers] agree that you would want to reduce your liability, but you cannot expect people to grant you a blanket exclusion of liability which includes actual fault,” he wrote.

As I reported earlier in the week, registering for ICANN 74 requires attendees to agree to a waiver which states:

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 four-day June meeting is set to be the first to have an in-person component — in The Hague, the Netherlands — since the pandemic began two years ago. Zoom participation will also be a prominent feature.

Attendees are strictly expected to be double or triple-vaccinated, wear masks, and socially distance while at the venue. There will also be “health checks” whenever you enter the venue.

Blacknight has no complaint about these precautions, but wants ICANN to reconsider the legal waiver.

ICANN lists the reasons I probably won’t be going to ICANN 74

“Don’t blame us if you die!”

That’s one of the messages coming out of ICANN, which has confirmed that it’s returning to in-person meetings for ICANN 74 this June.

The “hybrid” four-day meeting in The Hague is going ahead, but under strict Covid-19 mitigation rules that seem a bit too annoying for this particular potential attendee.

If you want to get in the venue, you’ll need to show proof of a full course of WHO-approved vaccinations, wear a face mask, stay an appropriate distance away from your peers, and subject yourself to a temperature check and “health screening” every time you walk through the door.

You’ll be issued a wrist-band on first entry that you have to keep visible at all times. If you lose it, you’ll have to re-verify your vaccination status.

As somebody who got irritated by even the metal detectors as pre-Covid ICANN meetings, this all seems a bit too much of a hassle for me, despite The Hague being pretty much right on my doorstep. I probably won’t go, at least not for the full four days.

There will be no on-site registration, and you’ll have to register your attendance online five days in advance of the meeting, which begins June 13.

ICANN’s also asking attendees to sign away their rights, and their children’s rights, to sue if they get sick, even if they catch the virus from general counsel John Jeffrey walking up and sneezing a Covid payload directly into their eyes.

As spotted by Michele Neylon, the registration process for ICANN 74 contains an extensive, obligatory waiver that contains the following text:

Participation in the Event includes possible exposure to and illness from infectious diseases including but not limited to COVID-19. While particular rules and personal discipline may reduce this risk, the risk of serious illness and death exists. 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. I understand that, unless otherwise confirmed in writing by ICANN, if I am suggested or required to take diagnostic tests, seek medical treatment, extend my stay due to quarantine or illness, or otherwise change travel arrangements, I am responsible for making such arrangements and all costs incurred. I understand that ICANN recommends that I obtain appropriate insurance to cover these risks.

…

I hereby knowingly assume all risks, and covenant not to sue any employees, board members, agents, executives, contractors or volunteers of ICANN or its affiliate for any expense, loss, damage, personal injury, including loss of life, illness, including but not limited to COVID-19, disability, property damage, or property theft or actions of any kind that I may hereafter suffer or sustain before, during, or after the Event, unless said expense, loss, damage, personal injury, including loss of life, illness, disability, property damage or property theft or actions of any kind is caused by the sole, gross negligence of ICANN or its affiliate. This Liability Waiver and Release is specifically binding upon my heirs and assigns and is knowingly given.

I agree to indemnify and hold ICANN and its affiliate harmless from and against any claims, suits, causes of action, loss, liability, damage or costs, including court cost and attorneys’ fees, and fees to enforce this Agreement, that ICANN may incur arising from my involvement in the Event.

This kind of waiver is par for the course with ICANN. Just ask any new gTLD applicant. ICANN really, really doesn’t like being sued.

ICANN has outlined its health-and-safety measures, which may change, here. The waiver can be read during the registration process.

ICANN “volunteers” want to get paid for sitting through pandemic Zoom calls

It’s often said that ICANN policy-making has become so complex, long-winded and thankless that it’s becoming harder and harder to attract and retain community volunteers, and now some of those community members are calling on ICANN to open its wallet to sweeten the deal.

ICANN could provide volunteers, particularly those who have participated heavily in remote meetings during pandemic travel restrictions, with monetary stipends or free business trips to future ICANN meetings, the At-Large Advisory Committee has said.

In a letter (pdf), ALAC chair Maureen Hilyard, along with members Marita Moll and Joanna Kulesza, ask that ICANN starts measuring the contribution of its volunteers and compensate them according to their work.

“There is a need to recognize and reward the efforts of volunteers who kept the public face of the institution going through 7 virtual public meetings,” they wrote.

“The pandemic ultimately exposed the limited efficiency of the existing volunteer system within the ICANN community. It is clear that the system of incentives currently in effect needs to be adjusted to address challenges of the post-pandemic reality,” the letter says.

ICANN’s thrice-yearly public meetings have been held over Zoom since the start of 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Many community members have not sat in the same room as their peers for over two years.

ICANN 72 last October had the lowest turnout since records began, though this bounced back a little at ICANN 73.

ALAC’s suggestions for incentivizing its members include extending the term of leadership appointments to enable some face-time at future meetings, paying for “one or two trips to future ICANN meetings” and “a retroactive honoraria for those who would have been funded travellers during the period of virtual meetings, considering the fact that they were still incurring costs re: internet connection, electricity, food, etc”

An “honorarium” is a cash payment for services rendered on a voluntary basis. Basically, ALAC seems to be asking for travel expenses that were not incurred to be reimbursed retroactively regardless.

ICANN already has a program for reimbursing community members, such as those on metered connections, who incur extra connectivity charges during ICANN meetings, but it has regardless saved millions of dollars on funded travel since the pandemic started.

The letter goes on to say “volunteer work by definition is work without pay or compensation” but that “forms of monetary or in-kind compensation are possible”. These could include stipends, “symbolic gifts” and reimbursements.

Before you start getting outraged about the potential for high-priced IP lawyers and well-paid registry VPs putting their hands in ICANN’s pocket, ALAC is asking ICANN to distinguish between genuine volunteers and those who are paid for, or get a direct business benefit from, participating in community work.

ALAC defines volunteers as “individuals who commit time and effort to the work of ICANN with no personal connection to the domain name industry and who pay their own costs of participation, engagement and commitment to this work”.

That’s a rare thing in some segments of the community, but more common in the At-Large community.

Many of the issues raised in the letter were also discussed at the ALAC’s session with the ICANN board earlier this month.

Marby pledges low red tape in $1 million Ukraine donation

It’s been three weeks since ICANN promised $1 million to support internet access in Ukraine and CEO Göran Marby says he’s trying to get the money put in to action as efficiently as possible.

Thankfully, the Org doesn’t seem to be resorting to its regular fallback position of creating a time-consuming committee or esoteric process, but there are still some hoops that need to be jumped through.

Marby wrote today:

We made the decision to partner with an organization that is already on the ground in Ukraine providing support that is in alignment with our mission. I believe that contributing to an existing organization is a better option than creating our own tailor-made solution, especially when we do not have expertise in disaster recovery and crisis response work.

ICANN is doing due diligence on “several” organizations to make sure the Org meets “applicable laws, regulations, and ICANN’s fiduciary obligations”, he wrote.

While the money has been committed to help internet access — in line with ICANN’s mission — nothing has been publicly disclosed about what specifically it will be spent on.

One idea floated during ICANN 73 earlier this month was to provide satellite terminals that could be used to work around any infrastructure damage caused by the Russian invasion on the ground.

Marby wrote:

We are working diligently to implement this initiative in a timely manner, doing everything we can to speed the process, while at the same time proceeding in a cautious and responsible way.

He promised an update when the money has been allocated.

ICANN says higher domain prices may be in the public interest

ICANN is trying to get an arbitration case covering the removal of price caps in .org, .biz and .info thrown out because it is registrants, not registrars, that are left shouldering the burden of higher prices.

The argument came in January filings, published this week, in the two-year-old Independent Review Process case being pursued by Namecheap, which is trying to get price caps reinstated on the three gTLDs.

ICANN’s lawyers are saying that the case should be thrown out because Namecheap lacks standing — IRP claimants have to show they are being harmed or are likely to be harmed by ICANN’s actions.

According to ICANN, Namecheap is not being harmed by uncapped domain prices, only its customers are, so the case should be dismissed.

Drawing heavily on an analysis commissioned by ICANN from economist Dennis Carlton, ICANN’s latest IRP submission (pdf) reads:

rational economic theory predicts that if wholesale registry prices increased, Namecheap would pass on any price increases to its customers. Namecheap is one of nearly 2,500 ICANN-accredited registrars that offer domain names to registrants, and one of hundreds of ICANN-accredited registrars that offer domain names specifically in .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG. Namecheap thus competes against many other registrars that have exactly the same access to same registries, such as .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG,as does Namecheap, which all pay the same wholesale price for these registry input…

Given the hundreds of registrar competitors (each facing the same registry prices from the .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG registry operators), economic theory predicts that Namecheap and other such registrars do not have significant market power. Without market power, registrars like Namecheap do not earn supra-competitive margins and cannot absorb higher input costs. As a result, economic theory, as well as common sense, predicts that Namecheap and other competing registrars must pass on higher registry wholesale prices by raising prices to registrants, with little or no resulting harm to Namecheap.

The filing goes on the suggest that higher prices might actually be in the public interest, because ICANN lacks the expertise to set price caps at an appropriate level.

the likely harms of price regulation in these three gTLDs outweigh the likely benefits of price controls. ICANN lacks the expertise to set optimal prices. Without such expertise, the danger is that ICANN could set the wrong price — one that impairs efficient market outcomes — which would ultimately harm registrants rather than protect them…

In short, Namecheap cannot demonstrate that the public interest required ICANN to maintain price control provisions in the .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG Registry Agreements, especially given that the majority of evidence they cite either pertains to a drastically different DNS or pertains to potential harm to registrants, not registrars.

Interestingly, in almost the same breath, the filing argues that the price of .com domains, which is capped per Verisign’s agreements with ICANN and the US government, acts as an effective deterrent to runaway price increases in other gTLDs.

With its popularity, and relatively-low, regulated price, .COM acts as a check on any registry, including .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG, that seeks to increase prices above competitive levels.

So, regulating .com prices is good because it indirectly acts as a restraint on other registries’ prices, but regulating those other registries’ prices is bad because ICANN lacks the expertise to regulate prices.

And anyway, it’s only the registrants who get harmed if prices go up.

Got it?

.org price caps: ICANN chair denies “secret” meetings

ICANN chair Maarten Botterman has denied that the board of directors approved the removal of price caps in .org, .biz and .info in “secret” meetings in 2019.

In written testimony (pdf) recently filed as part of Namecheap’s two-year-old Independent Review Process proceeding, Botterman scoffed at the idea that ICANN secretly gave the nod to the removal of price caps in 2019:

I understand that Namecheap is claiming that the Board acted in secret when deciding to go forward with the 2019 Registry Agreements. Nothing about the Board’s conduct occurred in secret. The Board did not convene a “secret” annual, regular, or special Board meeting and did not make any “secret” formal decisions or “secret” resolutions. Instead, the Board was briefed by ICANN staff regarding contract renewals that were well within their delegated authority to negotiate and execute.

Namecheap is claiming in its IRP that ICANN broke its bylaws when it renewed the .org, .info and .biz contracts without the historical price caps that all three had in place for the better part of 20 years.

It wants those decisions annulled, potentially enabling the reinstatement of the caps.

Part of its case is that ICANN failed in its transparency obligations, with Namecheap saying that the decision to remove caps was “entirely opaque” and made with “no analysis whatsoever”.

The .info, .org and .biz contracts were renewed without the ICANN board making a formal resolution or discussing them during a session that was being recorded and minuted.

Botterman, along with declarations from with fellow director Becky Burr and VP Russ Weinstein and outside lawyers’ filings, says that the extent of the board’s involvement was two briefings that occurred at workshops in January and June 2019.

ICANN staff explained to the board why it intended to go ahead with signing the cap-free contracts, and the board “saw no reason to intervene”, Botterman wrote. Staff have delegated authority to deal with contract stuff, he said.

Now, it could be argued that these meetings were not “secret” as such — ICANN board workshops are a standard event, happening in the few days leading up to each of ICANN’s thrice-yearly public meetings.

ICANN’s chair (then Cherine Chalaby) even blogs about them, posting a rough agenda beforehand and a summary of discussions a few weeks later.

In the case of the January 2019 pre-workshop post, there’s no mention whatsoever of any contract renewals. Nor is there in the post-workshop summary.

The June 2019 post-workshop post fails to mention the fact that the board had essentially given the nod to the lifting of caps at that meeting.

The pre-workshop post makes a passing, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it reference to “Göran will update the Board on the renewal of some registry agreements”, which substantially played down what was actually going on.

At that time, ICANN was well-aware that there was huge public interest in at least the .org renewal, where over 3,300 comments had been submitted, mostly objecting to the removal of price caps.

It’s possible that the first time ICANN disclosed that the discussions had even taken place was when a spokesperson told me how the .org decision was made, in July that year.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder why ICANN pretty much skimmed over the whole issue in its public disclosures, even though it was the hottest topic in town at the time.

Even now, Botterman and Burr are both invoking attorney-client privilege to limit their testimony about what happened at these two workshops.

You don’t have to think anything untoward was going on to ask whether this is all paints a picture of ICANN acting “to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner”, as its bylaws requires.

Botterman says in his declaration:

The Bylaws are clear that ICANN must “operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner.” But I have never understood this Bylaws provision to require that every time the Board needs to get work done, or every time the Board receives a briefing from ICANN staff on a specific topic, it must do so in public or at a annual, regular or special Board meeting. Nor would such a requirement be feasible.