Three applicants qualify for cheapo gTLDs

Three organizations have been given ICANN’s approval to apply for new gTLDs next year at a deeply discounted rate.

All three are non-profit or nongovernmental organizations, ICANN said. Two come from the Asia-Pacific region and one comes from Europe.

The identities of the applicants have not and will not be disclosed — to publish their names would likely tip the applicants’ hands in terms of what strings they intend to apply for, inviting competition.

The Applicant Support Program offers non-profit entities worldwide or small businesses in non-developed nations a discount of 75% to 85% on the base $227,000 application fee, along with a selection of other benefits.

As of today, there are 45 active applications, ICANN said. Seven come from Africa, 14 from Asia-Pac, five from Europe, two from Latin America, and 12 from North America. Another five haven’t said where they’re based yet.

According to July 23 stats, only five applications — three of which presumably have now been approved — had been fully submitted and were in review.

In the 2012 round, there were only three ASP applications and only one, from the company that now runs .kids, was successful in obtaining the discount.

The window for ASP applications closes in November.

Blockchain crisis looming for new gTLD next round

New gTLD applicants could face more of a threat from blockchain-based alternative naming systems next year than perhaps they first thought.

ICANN is coming under pressure to give additional rights to the owners of top-level strings that act like TLDs on blockchains, potentially adding friction — and six figures of extra costs — to applications for matching strings.

In the recently closed public comment period on the current draft Applicant Guidebook, two blockchain naming firms focused on the risk posed from name collisions should a gTLD get delegated that matches a blockchain TLD.

More importantly, ICANN’s influential Security and Stability Advisory Committee expressed the same views.

Alexander Urbelis, general counsel and CISO of Ethereum Name Service, said in his comments that many operators of alt-TLDs will apply for their DNS matches in next year’s application round, adding:

ICANN should consider that a new gTLD, for which an identical string already exists in an alternative name space, should be considered a compromised asset, and that delegating such gTLDs may subject ICANN, and applicants, to substantial liability. In addition to the technical issues posed by name collision, such delegations could also result in consumer confusion, difficulties with resolving queries (particularly as access to alternative names is increasingly integrated into mainstream web browsers), security risks, and broken authentication systems

Shifting gears, Urbelis then goes on to espouse the exactly opposite view to what you might expect from an operator of a blockchain naming system:

We urge ICANN to ensure that operators of strings in alternative names spaces are not given preferential treatment in the upcoming new gTLD application round, either deliberately or inadvertently. Such operators should not be rewarded for choosing to operate outside of ICANN governance and policies, particularly when the results of such preferential treatment could be so devastating for the stability of the DNS, as well as consumer trust in the new gTLD program and the DNS itself.

However, he concludes that alt-TLDs should be considered during the application process, specifically when ICANN’s evaluators conduct the String Similarity Evaluation.

we note that the string similarity evaluation does not appear to account for strings that may exist in alternative name spaces that are not under ICANN governance. Given the proliferation of such strings and alternative name spaces in recent years, ICANN should not ignore their existence by considering string similarity within only the ICANN-governed DNS, particularly due to the technical issues outlined above in connection with name collision.

Currently, this evaluation stage only looks at similarity to existing TLDs, some strings blocked by policy, and other applied-for strings.

If Urbelis’ advice were taken on board, an application for .clown, for example, could find itself ruled similar to alt-TLD .down, which is on the Handshake naming system and available at some registrars.

ENS runs .eth as a blockchain TLD. While the company claims over 1.6 million names registered there, .eth can never make it to the consensus DNS because ETH is the protected three-letter code for Ethiopia and therefore blocked by a Guidebook policy that is pretty much locked-in.

Unstoppable Domains, which markets dozens of alt-TLDs, focused on name collisions in its brief comment to ICANN, seeking extra clarity in how the collision assessors will decide whether a string is “high risk”.

The current AGB says evaluators will look at both quantitative data — measurements of traffic for non-existent TLDs to the root servers for example — and unspecified “qualitative” factors. Unstoppable’s head of operations Michael Campagnolo wrote:

If ICANN wants to help applicants to assess their risk pre-application submission, examples and sources of qualitative evidence should be described and made available to applicants prior to, and in a reasonable amount of time before the opening of the application window, similar to the quantitative information.

The subtext here, it appears, is that Unstoppable wants to know if non-DNS qualitative factors, such as the existence of an alt-TLD matching an applied-for string, will be taken into account.

That’s a good question, and as the AGB currently stands it appears to be up to the Technical Review Team that will conduct the name collision evaluation on each application.

The Name Collision Analysis Project working group, which came up with most of the current name collision rules, seemed to have mostly ignored alt-TLDs in its work due to difficulty and timing.

Unstoppable points out that applicants with strings deemed at high risk of collisions could incur extra fees of $100,000 to $150,000, on top of the $227,000 standard application fee, so the extra clarity on the rules could avoid applicants having to reach deeper into their pockets.

While ICANN is adept at ignoring or merely paying lip service to self-serving public comments filed by commercial entities, it is bound by its bylaws to take the advice of its Advisory Committees seriously.

Comments filed by the 17-member SSAC will carry more weight, and SSAC is warning that collisions between DNS and non-DNS naming systems could raise security risks, promote instability, and create user confusion.

SSAC’s SAC130 (pdf) — formal Advisory Committee advice — makes four recommendations related to name collisions. One is:

The AGB should explicitly state that the TRT is allowed to include evaluating potential collisions with known, widely used alternative naming systems and other external sources, as these can create foreseeable security and stability risks for DNS users.

If ICANN adopts the SSAC recommendations, it seems the TRT will be encumbered with the heavy burden of figuring out how, when and why an alt-TLD and an applied-for gTLD create risks so unacceptable that the applied-for string should be blocked.

Another question that has been raised in recent weeks is whether alt-TLD operators should be able to use mechanisms such as Community Priority Evaluation and Community Objection to secure their TLDs or disrupt other applications.

Could Unstoppable, for example, claim that its cohort of .wallet alt-TLD registrants constitute a protected “community” and thus get a priority approval?

The company could certainly try, but experts in the policy-making community and ICANN staff seem to think the point-based CPE mechanism is designed in such a way to make such a claim incredibly difficult to back up.

ICANN will consider all of the public comments over the coming weeks and months before making changes, if any, to the AGB.

There are hundreds of thousands of alt-TLDs out there — over 6,000 are even carried by a handful of ICANN-accredited registrars — but it’s not clear how many are actually used.

With that in mind, should ICANN offer additional protections to blockchain-based alt-TLDs, many new gTLD applicants would face the very real risk of additional friction and huge extra costs.

ICANN looking at new bulk reg rules

ICANN seems set to start creating more rules governing DNS abuse, including limits on bulk registrations and more tracking of registrants.

A small team of GNSO volunteers have put together a list (pdf) of dozens of proposed policy change areas, covering everything from registrant data accuracy to pricing to API access to getting ICANN Compliance to be more proactive.

While most of the ideas in the team’s analysis received a broad range of views, it settles on three areas, all related to bulk registration of abusive domains, that it thinks are ripest for further policy work.

The first is “Associated Domain Checks”. The small team think it’s worth looking into whether registrars should have to investigate proactively domains registered by known abusive registrants.

The group also thinks it’s worth looking into better industry information-sharing about domain generation algorithms, which bad actors use to create vast numbers of gibberish names that can be used in spam runs, phishing attacks, or botnets.

Finally, the group thinks rules around API access to registrar platforms should be looked at, given that bulk-registered abusive domains often seem to use APIs to programmatically obtain thousands of throwaway domains in seconds.

The small team thinks a Policy Development Process looking at just these three issues could be completed relatively quickly and the community could address the remaining issues later.

Whether the recommendations go to a PDP is now up to the GNSO Council, which will vote on the matter this Thursday. Assuming the vote passes, which seems likely, ICANN staff would then have to prepare a formal Issue Report, setting out the scope of future work, if any.

A PDP would likely take years to complete.

The three priority topic areas reflect closely the Governmental Advisory Committee advice coming out of June’s ICANN 83 public meeting. Both small team and GAC heavily source ICANN’s INFERMAL research and a recent NetBeacon white paper as their inspirations.

Wine producers worried about new gTLDs

American vintners are worried that someone might steal their protected regional names in the next new gTLD round.

The Napa Valley Vintners has written to ICANN to “express strong opposition to the creation of any generic top-level domain
(gTLDs) that uses our distinctive name.”

The trade association asks that the names of wine-producing areas of the States be added to the Reserved Names List in the new gTLD program’s Applicant Guidebook.

That list currently is limited to the names of intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, and Red Cross/Crescent related entities.

The NVV points out that the names of wine-producing regions are protected by US law — you can’t say your wine comes from Napa unless it was in fact made there.

According to Wikipedia, there are 276 protected American Viticultural Areas in 34 states. More than half are in California.

Some of these names actually have a small degree of protection already, but only accidentally. The string “Napa” would be considered a protected geographic string until the current AGB rules, for example, but only if somebody wanted to run .napa as a city-gTLD.

The issue of protecting wine-related geographic indicators has come up at ICANN before. While it was processing the applications for .wine and .vin in 2014, there was a protracted bust-up in the Governmental Advisory Committee about whether they should go ahead.

Several European governments pressed ICANN to ban or delay .wine, now an Identity Digital gTLD, until promises were made about protecting names like “Champagne” and “Rioja” at the second level.

France in particular got very pissed off, but ultimately objections were dropped after the registry made some kind of deal with the wine-makers.

The NVV letter is cc’d to the federal government’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, presumably to send the message that the group is not messing about.

The letter (pdf) is addressed to “The Honorable Sally Costerton”, under the apparent assumption that she’s still ICANN’s acting CEO. That hasn’t been true for the last eight months. Also, as lovely as she is, I’m not sure she qualifies for that particular honorific.

ICANN’s “review of reviews” kicks off

The ICANN community has kicked off its “review of reviews”, a hopefully brief exercise in navel-gazing designed to free ICANN from even more navel-gazing over the longer term.

The seven supporting organizations and advisory committees have put forth a proposal, which ICANN’s top brass has accepted, for a Review of Reviews Cross Community Group (RoR CCG) that will seek to rescue ICANN from the quagmire of introspection into which it has sunk in recent years.

ICANN’s bylaws, written when the Org got divorced from the US government a decade ago, call for more than half a dozen reviews — of stuff like accountability, competition, security and Whois — most of which are on five-year cycles.

But the institutional lethargy that has consumed ICANN for the last decade, coupled with an already heavy volunteer workload, has meant that the reviews sometimes miss deadlines and still haven’t been fully implemented by the time the next cycle comes around.

The new CCG is being set up to see what can be done to terminate this vicious cycle. A charter document (pdf) sent to ICANN this week reads:

The purpose of the CCG is to manage a fundamental evaluation of the following reviews set out in the ICANN Bylaws, as a whole system, including their implementation, and propose a refreshed system of reviews.

Its timeline is ambitious. The group hopes to have some proposals ready to show the community by ICANN 86, less than a year from now. By ICANN standards that’s pretty much Ludicrous Speed.

The CCG will have a limited membership: two members from each SO and AC, two ICANN staffers and two members of the board for a total of 18. Anyone will be able to passively observe the mailing list and teleconferences.

The draft CCG charter has been accepted by ICANN chair Tripti Sinha. It’s expected that the group will hold public sessions this October in Dublin at ICANN 84.

Poblete’s ICANN board seat safe

Patricio Poblete seems set to serve a third and final term on ICANN’s board of directors, after nobody else put themselves forward as an alternative.

Poblete, of Chilean ccTLD registry NIC Chile, was nominated to continue in the role as one of the two ccNSO representatives on the board after his current term expires October 2026.

Nobody else stepped up as an alternative, so Poblete now appears to be a shoo-in, assuming he passes due diligence. The ccNSO said “if only one candidate is nominated, no election is required”.

His third term would end in late 2029.

ICANN settles $77 million sexual harassment suit

ICANN has settled another sexual harassment lawsuit filed against it by a former employee.

An ICANN spokesperson said the case, filed last August by 22-year meetings-team veteran Tanzanica King, “has been resolved”. King did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

King had asked for $77 million in damages, approximately half of ICANN’s annual budget, alleging she was the victim of a widespread “frat boy culture” that contributed to her being sexually harassed by her boss, passed over for promotions, and paid less than male colleagues.

The settlement, any financial component of which will no doubt be for a tiny fraction of what was demanded, seems to have come just a few weeks after ICANN lost its attempt to get the case thrown out and referred instead to arbitration.

A Los Angeles judge in June ruled that King was protected by a post-#MeToo law, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), even though her employment contract dated back to 2002.

ICANN said last year that the allegations were “untrue” and that it “strives to create a positive, safe, and inclusive work and community environment, and is committed to the highest possible standards of ethical, moral, and legal business conduct.”

It’s at least the third time ICANN has had to settle sexual harassment suits in recent years.

ICANN to review reviews after review review request fails

An effort by ICANN’s At-Large community to force the Org to stick to its bylaws commitments to periodically review its accountability and transparency has failed after nobody else supported it.

As I reported last month, ALAC petitioned its Empowered Community co-members to get ICANN to overturn its decision to delay Accountability and Transparency Review Team 4, which is already more than a year late.

The other EC members — Government Advisory Committee, the Address Supporting Organization, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization and the Generic Names Supporting Organization — had until July 10 to file their letters of support or objection.

But it received no support and the ccNSO actively objected. The threshold for the petition to go ahead was three votes in favor and no more than one vote against.

The ccNSO pointed out that the current cycle of constantly reviewing itself is broken and getting worse over time. It instead called for a fundamental change in how ICANN reviews itself:

We strongly believe that breaking this vicious cycle can only be achieved if the community pauses and critically assesses the current review system. Specifically, the community should evaluate the breadth and number of reviews by looking at purpose, scope, frequency and associated workload of all ICANN Bylaw mandated reviews (a review of reviews), before embarking again on an Accountability and Transparency Review, or any other Bylaw mandated review.

The GNSO Council had a motion on its table last week that would have expressed non-support for the ALAC’s petition, but a vote was deferred until August, by which point it will be moot anyway.

The ASO and GAC do not appear to have publicly expressed an opinion.

It was the first time any community group has attempted to get the Empowered Community to flex its powers over ICANN. Since Org’s split from the US government nine years ago, the EC has been essentially ICANN’s sovereign body.

The petition being thrown out enables either, depending on your point of view: a) a horrifying, bylaws-defying power grab by Org that threatens transparency and accountability or b) a common-sense step away from an interminable, soul-crushing, resource-sapping cycle of endless navel-gazing.

What it means is that ICANN is going to conduct a meta-review, reviewing how it conducts reviews, and then will fiddle with its bylaws to implement a new renew regime.

ICANN ditches Oman due to Middle-East conflicts

ICANN is relocating its next meeting, scheduled for this October in Muscat, Oman, due to travel difficulties and uncertainties caused by the ongoing conflicts in the region.

The meeting, ICANN’s 2025 Annual General Meeting, will now take place in Dublin, Ireland from October 25 to 30, the same dates as the Oman meeting was meant to take place, Org said.

“Recent developments, including associated flight disruptions and impending timelines related to planning the meeting, made it prudent and necessary to select an alternative and available location,” ICANN said.

While Oman is not involved in any current hostilities, other than as a mediator, Israel’s recent strikes on Iran have caused some busy air corridors in the region to be shut down.

Oman is over 2,000 kilometres distant from Israel, and just across the Gulf of Iran from Iran.

The switch will be frustrating not only for Omanis but also to community members from further afield who have booked their travel early or paid for visas and might have limited refund options. Dublin’s a way more expensive city to visit for travelers on a budget, too.

It also sucks for the organizers of Domain Days Dubai, the upcoming domainer conference. It is scheduled to take place in nearby Dubai immediately before ICANN 84.

ICANN has visited Dublin once before, exactly 10 years before the upcoming ICANN 84.

The Org hinted that Muscat could be selected for a future meeting, when and if things settle down.

ICANN’s mighty overlord flexes on transparency

ICANN is heading into uncharted waters after a key community group flexed its powers to hold the Org accountable for a recent board decision.

The At-Large Advisory Committee has become the first of ICANN’s overseers to push for a formal objection to ICANN’s decision to delay its next large-scale accountability review.

In layman’s terms, the ALAC wants the other DPs of the EC — the ASO, the ccNSO, the GNSO, and the GAC — to support its ECRP for a CRR challenging ICANN’s decision to delay ATRT4.

All clear? Great. Thanks for clicking.

Or… perhaps that all deserves some unpicking.

ALAC, the group that represents end-users at ICANN, is one of the five members of the Empowered Community — the group from which, under its bylaws, ICANN derives its powers and authority over domain names and such.

The other Decisional Participants are the Government Advisory Committee, the Address Supporting Organization, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization and the Generic Names Supporting Organization.

One of the EC’s powers is the ability to file a Community Reconsideration Request challenging an ICANN board or staff decision, if three of the DPs support the request and no more than one objects.

ALAC has become the first EC member since ICANN split from the US government in 2016 to formally kick off the process of scrounging up support for such a reconsideration request.

It’s filed an Empowered Community Reconsideration Petition, giving the other four DPs 21 days to vote yay or nay on whether the request should be formally filed.

Its beef is with the ICANN board’s decision in May to delay indefinitely the fourth Accountability and Transparency Review Team, ATRT4, and replace it with a CEO-led meta-review.

ATRTs are community-led reviews that ICANN, according to its bylaws, have to carry out every five years. ATRT3 kicked off at the end of 2018 and concluded in 2020 but its recommendations have not yet been fully implemented by ICANN.

ATRT4 has already been delayed for a year once by the board, last April, but the board wants the delay to continue so the community can take a step back and review, as one group put it, “why we review, what we should review and how best to review”.

I’m not making this up. One review is being replaced with a broader, CEO-led, meta-review that reviews the reviews. I haven’t even mentioned the Pilot Holistic Review or the various Continuous Improvement Programs.

The root rationale here relates to intellectual bandwidth. Arguably the biggest issue facing ICANN in recent years is its perceived (or actual) inability to get anything done in a timely fashion, and part of the reason for that is that community members, most of whom have day jobs or are volunteers, are forced to spend so much time navel-gazing or entangled in Tolkienesque cobwebs of red tape.

ALAC’s petition (pdf) accused the board of “usurping” the community by delaying ATRT4, in violation of its bylaws:

The EC, and by extension the ICANN community, believes that this continuing contravention of the Bylaws and disregard for ICANN’s Core Values poses a serious threat to ICANN’s mandate… It also significantly undermines trust in, and protection of, ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance. This brings about a real risk of negative actions against ICANN, which could result in the loss of its mandate or could substantially risk the credibility and effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model.

It wants the decision to delay ATRT4 reversed. The question is, will it be able to muster up support from two other Decisional Participants, as required by the bylaws? I’d say that ALAC’s most-natural ally is the GAC, with the GNSO, seemingly baffled by the ALAC’s filing, the most likely to object.

The other four DPs have until a minute before midnight July 10 to submit expressions of support or objection.