ICANNWiki fans protest funding cut

ICANN should continue to fund the independent ICANNWiki project, according to high-profile industry supporters.
As I first reported back in December, ICANN plans to stop giving a $100,000 annual grant to ICANNWiki, a repository of about 6,000 community-sourced articles on the people and organizations involved in the ICANN community.
While ICANNWiki does not merit an explicit mention in ICANN’s latest proposed budget, both organizations have confirmed to DI that the funding is for the chop, as ICANN attempts to rein in spending in the face of depressed revenue.
About a quarter of the 41 comments filed on the budget express support for the wiki.
Consultant Kurt Pritz, a 10-year veteran of ICANN and one of the key architects of its new gTLD program, wrote that the wiki “has been an essential part of the ICANN culture for many years… often saving ICANN meetings from terminal ennui.”
Roland LaPlante, chief marketing officer of Afilias (one of about 15 sponsors listed on ICANNWiki’s front page), wrote:

The complete withdrawal of funding from ICANN so abruptly not only threatens the viability of the project, but rather disrespectfully junks the valuable time and resources that the community has invested over the years. Ultimately the loss of ICANNWiki would be a loss to our overall sense of community.
ICANN should continue to support ICANNWiki at a reasonable level in the next fiscal year. At a minimum, please consider giving the team time to find other sources of funding.

Sandeep Ramchandani, CEO of Radix, concurred, writing:

ICANNNWiki benefits the entire ICANN community. Cutting the funding entirely would effectively halt its operations and be a disservice to the community it serves. It is in ICANN and the community’s best interest to continue funding it in an amount that works for ICANN long-term, and provide ICANNWiki sufficient time to develop a more sustainable business plan.

Simon Cousins, CEO of Chinese market localization specialist Allegravita, said:

Before ICANNWiki, there was precious little information on industry fundamentals in China, and since Allegravita has supported the pro-bono translation of ICANNWiki content into Chinese, the vital platform that is ICANNWiki has been acknowledged hundreds of times.
We do not support the immediate and full withdrawal of funding for ICANNWiki. We guardedly support incremental, annual decreases to give ICANNWiki the time necessary to generate new sponsorship income to cover their costs.

Pablo Rodriguez of .pr ccTLD operator PRTLD, host of ICANN 61 and an ICANNWiki sponsor, wrote:

We believe that they should not be cut out from the ICANN’s Budget, instead, they should be supported and embraced to continue their engaging approach and work with ICANN’s Community and as well newcomers, veterans, special programming for beginners and others in order to deliver what is ICANN and what does the organization do and so forth.

Several other commentators on ICANN’s budget asked ICANN to maintain the funding and I was unable to find any comments supporting its withdrawal.
It’s worth noting that ICANN’s $100,000 is not ICANNWiki’s only financial support. It says it receives an additional $61,000 a year from corporate sponsorship, and as a wiki much of its output is produced by volunteers.
It has been in existence for a decade, but ICANN has only been giving it money for three years.
The costs associated with running it appear to be mostly centered not on maintaining the web site but on its outreach and promotional activities, such as attending meetings and the popular caricatures and card decks it distributes.
It could be argued that ICANNWiki is pretty good value for money when compared to cost of a dedicated outreach professional (the average cost of an ICANN staffer has been estimated at $175,000+ in the latest budget).
ICANNWiki will host an “Edit-A-Thon” during the current ICANN 61 public meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico on Tuesday at 0900 local time.

Is ICANN still over-estimating revenue from “stagnating” gTLD industry?

ICANN may have slashed millions from its revenue estimate for next year, but it has not slashed deeply enough, according to registrars and others.
Industry growth is flat, and below even ICANN’s “worst case” expectations for the fiscal year starting July 1, registrars told the organization in comments filed on its FY19 budget last week.
The Registrars Stakeholder Group said that “the FY 2019 budget fails to recognize that overall industry growth is flat.”
ICANN’s budget foresees FY19 revenue of $138 million, up $3.5 million on the projected result for FY18.
“These revenue projections presume growth in the domain market that is not aligned with industry expectations,” the RrSG said, pointing to sources such as Verisign’s Domain Name Industry Brief, which calculated 1% industry growth last year.
ICANN’s predictions are based on previous performance and fail to take into account historical “one-time events”, such as the Chinese domain speculation boom of a couple years ago, that probably won’t be repeated, RrSG said.
RrSG also expects the number of accredited registrars to decrease due to industry consolidation and drop-catching registrars reducing their stables of shell accreditations.
(I’ll note here that Web.com has added half a dozen drop-catchers to its portfolio in just the last few weeks, but this goes against the grain of recent trends and may be an aberration.)
RrSG said ICANN’s budget should account for reduced or flat accreditation fee revenue (which as far as I can tell it already does).
The comment, which can be read in full here, concludes:

Taken together, these concerns represent a disconnect between ICANN funding projections, and the revenue expectations of Registrars (and presumably, gTLD Registries) from which these funds are derived. In our view, ICANN’s assessment of budgetary “risks” are too optimistic , and actual performance for FY19 will be significant lower.

For what it’s worth, the Registries Stakeholder Group had this to say about ICANN’s revenue estimates:

Reliable forecasts, characterised by their scrutiny and realism, are fundamental to put together a realistic budget and to avoid unpleasant surprises, such as the shortage ICANN is experiencing in the current fiscal year. The RySG advises ICANN to continue to conduct checks on its forecasts and to re-evaluate the methodology used to predict its income in order to prevent another funding shortfall such as that which the organization experienced in FY18.

Community calls on ICANN to cut staff spending

ICANN should look internally to cut costs before swinging the scythe at the volunteer community.
That’s a key theme to emerge from many comments filed by the community last week on ICANN’s fiscal 2019 budget, which sees spending on staff increase even as revenue stagnates and cuts are made in other key areas.
ICANN said in January that it would have to cut $5 million from its budget for the year beginning July 1, 2018, largely due to a massive downwards revision in how many new gTLD domains it expects the industry to process.
At the same time, the organization said it will increase its payroll by $7.3 million, up to $76.8 million, with headcount swelling to 425 by the end of the fiscal year and staff receiving on average a 2% pay rise.
In comments filed on the budget, many community members questioned whether this growth can be justified.
Among the most diplomatic objections came from the GNSO Council, which said:

In principle, the GNSO Council believes that growth of staff numbers should only occur under explicit justification and replacements due to staff attrition should always occur with tight scrutiny; especially in times of stagnate funding levels.

The Council added that it is not convinced that the proposed budget funds the policy work it needs to do over the coming year.
The Registrars Stakeholder Group noted the increased headcount with concern and said:

Given the overall industry environment where organizations are being asked to do more with less, we are not convinced these additional positions are needed… The RrSG is not yet calling for cuts to ICANN Staff, we believe the organization should strive to maintain headcount at FY17 Actual year-end levels.

The RrSG shared the GNSO Council’s concern that policy work, ICANN’s raison d’etre, may suffer under the proposed budget.
The At-Large Advisory Committee said it “does not support the direction taken in this budget”, adding:

Specifically we see an increase in staff headcount and personnel costs while services to the community have been brutally cut. ICANN’s credibility rests upon the multistakeholder model, and cuts that jeopardize that model should not be made unless there are no alternatives and without due recognition of the impact.
…
Staff increases may well be justified, but we must do so we a real regard to costs and benefits, and these must be effectively communicated to the community

ALAC is concerned that the budget appears to cut funding to many projects that see ICANN reach out to, and fund participation by, non-industry potential community members.
Calling for “fiscal prudence”, the Intellectual Property Constituency said it “encourages ICANN to take a hard look at personnel costs and the use of outside professional services consultants.”
The IPC is also worried that ICANN may have underestimated the costs of its contractual compliance programs.
The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group had some strong words:

The organisation’s headcount, and personnel costs, cannot continue to grow. We feel strongly that the proposal to grow headcount by 25 [Full-Time Employees] to 425 FTE in a year where revenue has stagnated cannot be justified.
…
With 73% of the overall budget now being spent on staff and professional services, there is an urgent need to see this spend decrease over time… there is a need to stop the growth in the size of the staff, and to review staff salaries, bonuses, and fringe benefits.

NCSG added that ICANN could perhaps reduce costs by relocating some positions from its high-cost Los Angeles headquarters to the “global south”, where the cost of living is more modest.
The ccNSO Strategic and Operational Planning Standing Committee was the only commentator, that I could find, to straight-up call for a freeze in staff pay rises. While also suggesting moving staff to less costly parts of the globe, it said:

The SOPC – as well as many other community stakeholders – seem to agree that ICANN staff are paid well enough, and sometimes even above market average. Considering the current DNS industry trends and forecasts, tougher action to further limit or even abolish the annual rise in compensation would send a strong positive signal to the community.

It’s been suggested that, when asked to find areas to cut, ICANN department heads prioritized retaining their own staff, which is why we’re seeing mainly cuts to community funding.
I’ve only summarized the comments filed by formal ICANN structures here. Other individuals and organizations filing comments in their own capacity expressed similar views.
I was unable to find a comment explicitly supporting increased staffing costs. Some groups, such as the Registries Stakeholder Group, did not address the issue directly.
While each commentator has their own reasons for wanting to protect the corner of the budget they tap into most often, it’s a rare moment when every segment of the community (commercial and non-commercial, domain industry and IP interests) seem to be on pretty much the same page on an issue.

Amazon’s .amazon gTLD may not be dead just yet

South American governments are discussing whether to reverse their collective objection to Amazon’s .amazon gTLD bid.
A meeting of the Governmental Advisory Committee at ICANN 61 in Puerto Rico yesterday heard that an analysis of Amazon’s proposal to protect sensitive names if it gets .amazon will be passed to governments for approval no later than mid-April.
Brazil’s GAC rep said that a working group of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization is currently carrying out this analysis.
Amazon has offered the eight ACTO countries commitments including the protection of such as “rainforest.amazon” and actively supporting any future government-endorsed bids for .amazonas.
Its offer was apparently sweetened in some unspecified way recently, judging by Brazil’s comments.
ACTO countries, largely Brazil and Peru, currently object to .amazon on the grounds that it’s a clash with the English version of the name for the massive South American rain forest, river and basin region, known locally as Amazonas.
There’s no way to read the tea leaves on which way the governments will lean on Amazon’s latest proposal, and Peru’s GAC rep warned against reading too much into the fact that it’s being considered by the ACTO countries.
“I would like to stress the fact that we are not negotiating right now,” she told the GAC meeting. “We are simply analyzing a proposal… The word ‘progress’ by no means should be interpreted as favorable opinion towards the proposal, or a negative opinion. We are simply analyzing the proposal.”
ICANN’s board of directors has formally asked the GAC to give it more information about its original objection to .amazon, which basically killed off the application a few years ago, by the end of ICANN 61.
Currently, the GAC seems to be planning to say it has nothing to offer, though it may possibly highlight the existence of the ACTO talks, in its formal advice later this week.

ICANN mulls $68 million raid on auction war chest

ICANN wants to put away another $68 million for a rainy day and it’s considering raiding its new gTLD auction war chest in order to do so.
It’s also thinking about dipping into the pool of cash still left over from new gTLD application fees in order to bolster is “reserve fund” from its current level of $70 million to its target of $138 million.
But, as a relief to registrants, it appears to have ruled out steep fee increases, which had been floated as an option.
The reserve fund is basically a safety net that ICANN could use to keep the lights on in the event that revenue should suddenly plummet dramatically and unexpectedly.
If, for example, Verisign returned to its old antagonistic ways and refused to pay its .com fees for some reason, ICANN would lose about a third of its annual revenue but would be able to tap its reserve until the legal fisticuffs were resolved.
ICANN said in a discussion document (pdf) this week that it took $36 million from the reserve since 2014 in order to complete the IANA transition. Over the same period, its annual budget has swelled from about $85 million to $138 million and contributions back into the reserve have been minimal.
That’s left it with a meager $70 million squirreled away, $68 million shy of its longstanding target level of one year’s budget.
ICANN is now saying that it wants to replenish the fund in less than five years.
About $15 million of its target would come from cost-cutting its operations budget over the period.
It also wants to take at least $36 million from the new gTLD auction proceeds fund, which currently stands at $104 million (with another $132 million incoming should Verisign successfully obtain .web over the objections of rival bidders).
The remaining $17 million could come from “leftover” new gTLD application fees — that fund is currently about $80 million — or from more cost-cutting or more auction proceeds, or from a combination of the three.
A fourth option — increasing the per-transaction fees registrants are charged via their registries and registrars — appears to have been ruled out.
My back-of-the-envelope maths suggests that an annual per-transaction increase of about $0.07 would have been needed to raise $68 million over five years.
The proposal is open for public comment until April 25.

ICANN strikes back at “offensive” .gay bidder

ICANN has responded harshly to claims that a probe of its handling of applications for the .gay gTLD was fixed from the outset.
Writing to dotgay LLC lawyer Arif Ali this week, ICANN lawyer Kate Wallace said claims that the investigation “had a pre-determined outcome in mind” were “as offensive as they are baseless”.
FTI Consulting gave ICANN the all-clear in January, dismissing allegations that ICANN staff had interfered with Community Priority Evaluations of .gay and other gTLDs conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
But dotgay quickly responded by calling the FTI report a “whitewash”, saying “a strong case could be made that the purported investigation was undertaken with a pre-determined outcome in mind.”
Now, in an unusually pointed letter (pdf) Wallace calls dotgay out for its “insulting” implications.

While dotgay LLC may have preferred a different evaluation process and may have desired a different outcome, that is not evidence that FTI undertook its investigation “with a pre-determined outcome in mind.”
Your accusations in this regard are as offensive as they are baseless. The Board initiated the CPE Process Review in its oversight role of the New gTLD Program to provide greater transparency into the CPE process. There was no pre-determined outcome in mind and FTI was never given any instruction that it was expected to come to one conclusion over another.
…
Your assertions that FTI would blatantly violate best investigative practices and compromise its integrity is insulting and without any support, and ICANN rejects them unequivocally.

Wallace works for ICANN outside counsel Jones Day — which contracted with FTI for the investigation — but states that she is writing at the behest of the ICANN board of directors.
The board “is in the process of considering the issues” raised by Ali and gay rights expert lawyer William Eskridge, she wrote.
The board’s agendas for next week’s ICANN 61 public meeting in Puerto Rico have not yet been published.
dotgay wants to avoid a costly (or lucrative) auction against other .gay applicants by gaining “community” status, but it failed its CPE in 2014, largely because its definition of “gay” over-stretches, and has been appealing the decision ever since.

Whois privacy will soon be free for most domains

Enormous changes are coming to Whois that could mark the end of Whois privacy services this year.
ICANN has proposed a new Whois model that would anonymize the majority of domain name registrants’ personal data by default, only giving access to the data to certain certified entities such as the police.
The model, published on Friday and now open for comment, could change in some of the finer details but is likely being implemented already at many registries and registrars.
Gone will be the days when a Whois lookup reveals the name, email address, physical address and phone number of the domain’s owner.
After the model is implemented, Whois users will instead merely see the registrant’s state/province and country, organization (if they have one) and an anonymized, forwarding email address or web form for contact purposes.
Essentially, most Whois records will look very much like those currently hiding behind paid-for proxy/privacy services.
Technical data such as the registrar (and their abuse contact), registration and expiry dates, status code, name servers and DNSSEC information would still be displayed.
Registrants would have the right to opt in to having their full record displayed in the public Whois.
Anyone wanting to view the full record would have to be certified in advance and have their credentials stored in a centralized clearinghouse operated by or for ICANN.
The Governmental Advisory Committee would have a big hand in deciding who gets to be certified, but it would at first include law enforcement and other governmental agencies.
This would likely be expanded in future to include the likes of security professionals and intellectual property lawyers (still no word from ICANN how the legitimate interests of the media or domain investors will be addressed) but there could be a window in which these groups are hamstrung by a lack of access to thick records.
The proposed model is ICANN’s attempt to bring Whois policy, which is enforced in its contracts with registries and registrars, into line with GDPR, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, which kicks in fully in May.
The model would apply to all gTLD domains where there is some connection to the European Economic Area.
If the registrar, registry, registrant or a third party processor such as an escrow agent is based in the EEA, they will have to comply with the new Whois model.
Depending on how registrars implement the model in practice (they have the option to apply it to all domains everywhere) this means that the majority of the world’s 188 million gTLD domains will probably be affected.
While GDPR applies to only personal data about actual people (as opposed to legal persons such as companies), the ICANN model makes no such distinction. Even domains owned by legal entities would have their records anonymized.
The rationale for this lack of nuance is that even domains owned by companies may contain personal information — about employees, presumably — in their Whois records.
Domains in ccTLDs with EEA connections will not be bound to the ICANN model, but will rather have to adopt it voluntarily or come up with their own ways to become GDPR compliant.
The two largest European ccTLDs — .uk and Germany’s .de, which between them account for something like 28 million domains — last week separately outlined their plans.
Nominet said that from May 25 it will no longer publish the name or contact information of .uk registrants in public Whois without their explicit consent. DENIC said something similar too.
Here’s a table of what would be shown in public Whois, should the proposed ICANN model be implemented.
[table id=50 /]
The proposal is open for comment, with ICANN CEO Goran Marby requesting emailed input before the ICANN 61 public meeting kicks off in Puerto Rico this weekend.
With just a couple of months left before the law, with its huge fines, kicks in, expect GDPR to be THE hot topic at this meeting.

ICANN loses comms chief to Fannie Mae

ICANN’s top PR guy has quit for a job at Fannie Mae.
Duncan Burns, senior vice president of global communications and managing director of the Washington DC office, will leave the organization next month after the ICANN 61 meeting in Puerto Rico.
Burns has been leading comms at ICANN for five years. Last year, he also took over as ICANN’s lead DC lobbyist, a reduced role in the post-IANA-transition world.
He told DI that he’s going to be VP of external communications at Fannie Mae, the mortgage finance company.
ICANN said that while a permanent replacement is found his deputy Gwen Carlson will take over the comms role while Chris Mondini, VP of stakeholder engagement, will cover US government relations.
If anyone’s wondering how this affects ICANN’s current budget discussions, Burns received total compensation in excess of $415,000 in 2016, ICANN’s last-reported tax year.

Should ICANN cut free travel, or its own staff?

Is ICANN’s suddenly limited budget best spent on its staff wages or on flights and hotels for certain volunteers?
That’s the debate that’s been emerging in the ICANN community in the last few weeks since ICANN revealed it would have to make some “tough choices” in the face of lower than expected revenue from a stagnant domain industry.
Members of the ICANN Fellowship program have started a petition calling for the organization to look at its own staffing needs before cutting the number of Fellows it supports in half.
The petition is not signed (though I have a pretty good idea who started it) and at time of publication, it has 194 signatures.
The Fellowship program sees ICANN pay for the travel and lodging, along with a per diem allowance, of up to 60 community members at each of its three annual major meetings.
They’re usually ICANN newbies and generally from less-developed regions of the world.
But because ICANN is trying to cut $5 million from its fiscal 2019 budget it wants to reduce the number of supported Fellows down to 30 per meeting.
ICANN says (pdf) that the average cost to send a Fellow to a meeting is $3,348, which would work out at or $200,880 per meeting or $602,640 per year.
Cutting the program in half would presumably therefore save a tad over $300,000 a year.
It’s not nothing, but it’s chickenfeed in a budget penciled in at $138 million for FY19.
While Fellows are not the only people seeing budget cutbacks, the only one of five broad areas that will actually see growth in ICANN’s FY19 budget is staffing costs.
The organization said personnel spend will go up from $69.5 million to $76.8 million in its next fiscal year.
That’s based on the staff growing by 34 people in the fiscal year to June 30. Those people will then earn a full year’s wages in FY19, rather than the partial year they earned in FY18.
It also plans to increase headcount by four people in FY19, and to give employees an average of 2% pay rises (cut from 4%).
The end-of-year headcount would be 425. That means headcount will have doubled since about September 2013. It was at under 150 when the new gTLD program kicked off in 2012.
Does ICANN really need so many staff? It’s a question people have been asking since before headcount even broke into three digits (over 10 years ago).
The petition organizers wrote that ICANN could not only maintain but increase funding for Fellows by just lowering staffing levels by one or two people, adding:

Given that most of the fellows are from developing countries, the Fellowship Program is not only a learning platform for capacity building to empower volunteers with the skills needed to create a positive impact both within ICANN and in their home countries, but also it is practically the only way to overcome the insurmountable financial burden faced by individuals coming from world regions where even access to drinking water is problematic, not to mention access to computers and quality IT infrastructure that is taken for granted in developed countries.

There’s no denying that attending ICANN meetings can be a pricey undertaking. I come from the developed world and I’ve skipped a few for cost reasons.
But there’s no point ICANN splashing out its cash (which is after all a quasi-tax gathered ultimately from domain registrants) on a Fellowship program unless it knows what the ROI is.
Are the Fellows worth the money?
There’s a kind of running joke — that, disclosure alert, I participate in regularly — that Fellows are mainly good for being strong-armed into singing ICANN’s praises at the open-mic Public Forum sessions held at two of the three meetings each year.
But that’s probably not entirely fair. The program has supported some committed community members who are certainly not slackers.
There are two former Fellows — Léon Felipe Sanchez Ambia and Rafael Lito Ibarra — currently sitting on the ICANN board of directors, and at least one I know of on the GNSO Council.
There are also about 10 members of ICANN staff who were former fellows and ICANN has documented several more participants who are still active in formal roles in ICANN.
Would these people have gotten so involved with ICANN if that financial support had not been there for them originally? I don’t know.
ICANN has attempted in the past to put some hard numbers on the value of the program, and the results are perhaps not as encouraging as when one cherry-picks the success stories.
It conducted a survey last year (pdf) of all 602 former Fellows and managed to get a hold of 597 of them. It wanted to know whether they were still engaged in the ICANN community.
But only 53%, 317 people, even bothered to respond to the survey. Of those who did respond, 198 said they were still involved in the ICANN community.
Basically, of the 600 Fellows ICANN has subsidized to attend ICANN meetings over the last 10 years, just one third say they are still participating.
Is that a good hit rate?
Would it be worth firing a couple of ICANN staffers — or at least allowing a position or two to fall to attrition — in order to keep the Fellowship program funded at current levels?
I honestly have no strong opinion either way on this one, but I’d be interested to hear what you have to say.
No doubt ICANN is too. Its public comment period on the FY19 budget is still open.

ICANN would reject call for “diversity” office

ICANN’s board of directors would reject a call for an “Office of Diversity”, due to its current budget crunch.
The board said as much in remarks filed to a public comment period that got its final report this week.
The report of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 working group had recommended several potential things ICANN could do to improve diversity in the community, largely focused on collecting and publishing data on diversity.
“Diversity” for the purposes of the recommendations does not have the usual racial connotations of the word. Instead it means: geography, language, gender, age, physical disability, skills and stakeholder group.
Some members of the working group had proposed an independent diversity office, to ensure ICANN sticks to diversity commitments, but this did not gain consensus support and was not a formal recommendation.
Some commenters, including (in a personal capacity) a current vice chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee and a former ICANN director, had echoed the call for an office of diversity.
But ICANN’s board said it would not be able to support such a recommendation:

Given the lack of clarity around this office, lack of consensus support within the subgroup (and presumably within the CCWG-Accountability and the broader community), and noting the previously-mentioned budget and funding constraints and considerations, the Board is not in a position to accept this item if it were to be presented as a formal consensus-based recommendation

In general terms, it encouraged the working group to consider ICANN’s “limited funding” when it makes its final recommendations.
It added that it may be difficult for ICANN to collect personal data on community members, in light of the General Data Protection Regulation, the EU privacy law that kicks in this May.
All the comments on the report can be found here.