DI Leaders Roundtable #4 — Big predictions for 2020

Hindsight is 2020, right? Not this time!
We’re rolling up to the end of the year, so for the fourth DI Leaders Roundtable I thought I’d task my panel of industry experts with the wholly original and unpredictable question:

What do you think will be the major trends or developments in the domain name industry in 2020?

I’m wonderfully happy to report that the panel grasped the opportunity with both hands and delivered an absolute smorgasbord (selection of open sandwiches) of informed opinion about how they reckon 2020 will play out.
From potential changes to security practices to ongoing consolidation to increased government regulation to the death of new gTLDs to the growth of new gTLDs, 2020 is certainly going to be a fun year to report on.
In no particular order, this is what they said:
Rick Schwartz, domain investor

2020 is going to be just a fabulous year.
It comes down to two words: re-branding and upgrading.
Businesses that have gotten domains that may have not been prime to begin with want prime domains now to help them grow and be taken more seriously.
Businesses, especially global businesses that made the mistake of using non-dotcom domains, have realized their mistake and want to upgrade to a dotcom domain because of their own self-interest. They don’t care what domainers think! They only care about what they think and their bottom line, and in that regard they only have one choice and they all know it.
It’s mandatory if they want to grow and become part of the largest franchise ever known to mankind. The dotcom franchise.
If you add up all the net worth of every company on earth using the dotcom brand, the number is unfathomable.
As we go into the seventh year of the new gTLD experiment, they are meaningless. They haven’t been adopted by almost anybody. Circulation is poor. So many registrations are questionable or penny-promotional. The majority are parked and not in use nor will they ever be. And 99.9% of the people on this planet could not name a single one of them! Not a one!
The poor roll-out, poor marketing, poor circulation, questionable tactics and rolling out hundreds of extensions at one time was a death wish. A demolition derby as I have described and look at the HUNDREDS that are truly dying on the vine. They are not viable!
The registries themselves wanted the same result as dotcom but they smothered their own product by holding back anything they deemed to have any value whatsoever. They wanted the same result as dotcom but they certainly didn’t use the same playbook. There was no such thing as premium domains with Network Solutions. That was what gave life to the aftermarket.
They changed the recipe and it is what it is. Instead of replacing dotcom domains they should have marketed them as an on-ramp to their main dotcom website. That was a fatal choice.
Country-code extensions with dual purposes have outperformed all the new gTLDs put together.
.org has legs. Even .net domains seem to be in better shape than any of the new extensions.
According to NTLDStats.com there are 400 extensions with less than 20,000 registrations. Not viable! Over 300 of them have less than 10,000 and more than 200 have less than 5,000 and most of those have 2,000 or less.
On the other hand, there have been a lot of gimmicks used by the top 10 to gain HOLLOW registrations. Those 10 control 63% of all new gTLD registrations. Leaving the other 37% to be divided by over 500 other extensions. It’s laughable.
And when it comes to aftermarket sales, 2019 was worse than 2018 and 2017. Wrong direction for something that is supposed to be “emerging.”
According to TheDomains.com reported sales, of new gTLD’s are in a nosedive for 2019 vs 2018 and 2017. And most were done by registries themselves and not individual domain investors. Wrong direction!
2017
1,007 Total Sales
$5.2m Dollar Volume
$5,118 Average Price
$500.3k High Price
2018
1,490 Total Sales
$5.7m Dollar Volume
$3,847 Average Price
$510k High Price
2019
865 Total Sales
$3.4m Dollar Volume
$3,940 Average Price
$335k High Price
To me, 2020 is a year of total clarity. The experiment is over.
Get on board or get run over.

Sandeep Ramchamdani, CEO, Radix Registry

Within the new domains space, we will see a clear separation between the top 10 most popular extensions, and everything else. Many new TLDs have been able to jump volumes by operating at ultra-low prices. As the reality of renewals hit next year, the top TLDs by DUMs will more closely represent the most popular strings overall. Registrars will naturally tend towards focusing on these strings at the cost of everything else.
We will continue to see the normalization of new strings, as its visibility driven by legitimate end-user usage, rises. Our hope is that more registries play an active role in driving adoption by highly visible end-users and accelerate this evolution.

Jeff Neuman, Senior VP, Com Laude

Looking into my domain name industry crystal ball for 2020, I can see the continuation of some of the same activities, the start of some new debates, and even more maturation of the industry. Here are my views on three of the policy issues likely to be center-stage in 2020 (in no particular order).
Transitioning to a new Steady State of New TLDs.
OK, so the next round of new gTLDs will not open in 2020. However, there will be some real progress made towards the next round. The Subsequent Procedures PDP will complete its policy work on its review of the 2012 round and deliver it to the Council, who in turn will approve (hopefully) the policy work and submit to the Board.
The ICANN Board will put out the report for public comment and we will see those that oppose any new more new TLDs come back out of the woodwork to file the same type of comments reminiscent of 2009/2010. They will claim that more TLDs are not needed, we should not be moving too fast (despite nearly a decade between rounds), and that we should not be adding new TLDs until we solve DNS Abuse, Name Collision, WHOIS/SSAD/GDPR/RDAP/UAM, (insert your own issue), etc.
Despite the likely negativity from some, the community will realize that there is value to additional new gTLDs and maintaining a competitive landscape. There is still value in innovation, encouraging consumer choice and competition. The community will rise above the negativity to realize that many of the issues we experience in the industry are in fact related to the artificial scarcity of TLDs and that we need to continue to push forward towards completing one of the original missions of ICANN.
Rights Protection Mechanisms move to Phase 2.
Admittedly most of the community has not been paying attention to the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Policy Development Process PDP. Currently it is working on Phase 1: Reviewing the RPMs introduced for the 2012 Round of New gTLDs. This work includes looking at the Trademark Clearinghouse, Sunrise Processes, the URS and the Trademark Claims process.
2020 may likely see the beginning of its second phase, the first ever review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
The UDRP was the first of ICANN’s Consensus Policies, and one that has been in place for more than to decades. Great care must be taken in the review of this policy which most will argue has been ICANN’s most successful policy in its relatively young history. The UDRP not only protects the intellectual property community by going after the bad faith registration and use of gTLD domains, but it also has been instrumental for registries and registrars to stay out of the middle of domain name disputes.
Prior to the UDRP, the one domain name registry/registrar was constantly in court defending itself against claims of contributory infringement and hoping that courts would not impose liability on it for allowing the registration of domain names by cybersquatters and not taking back names when notified about the abuse that was occurring on those names.
The passage of the UDRP drastically changed all of that. Registries and Registrars could extricate themselves from domain name disputes by referring the parties to the UDRP and agreeing to following/implementing the decisions. Courts agreed that following the UDRP served as a shield of liability for those registries and registrars that faithfully followed the policy. The bottom line in my view is that domain name registries and registrars need the UDRP as much as the IP Community.
The DNS Abuse Debate continues.
Although some progress has been made in defining and mitigating DNS Abuse with a number of registries and registrars signing a Framework to Address DNS Abuse, more discussions by the ICANN community will continue to take place both within and outside of ICANN. In my opinion, those registries and registrars that are serious of addressing true DNS abuse, will continue to educate the community on the already positive steps that they have been taking to combat phishing, pharming, malware, botnets, etc. as well a number of other non-DNS abuse issues (illegal pharmaceuticals, child exploitation, etc.).
Other groups will continue to press registries and registrars to do more to combat all sorts of other non-DNS forms of abuse, while others will strenuously argue that the more that is done, the more we threaten the civil liberties of domain name registrants. The community will realize that there is no right side or wrong side in this debate. Each side of those complicated debate is right.
Hopefully, a true sense of “multi-stakeholderism” will arise where domain name registries and registrars continue to mitigate abuse while disassociating themselves from those that are not as serious about combating abuse, ICANN will develop tools that will constructively assist with mitigating abuse (as opposed to focusing on contractual regulations), and the rest of the community will work on how to combat the growing problem without trampling on the rights of registrants. At the end of the day, all of us have a role in protecting end users on the Internet.
Note: I know the ePDP work on Universal Access will of course be ongoing, but I am sure others will give their thoughts on that. From a non-policy perspective, the domain name industry will continue to consolidate. We may very well see more registry/registrar combinations, registries purchasing other registries and private equity investment. We will see some more innovative uses of brand TLDs and others following suit.

Christa Taylor, CMO, MMX

1. The predicted 2020 recession will reward agile organizations who embrace machine learning to enhance operational efficiencies, customer experiences and protect corporate profit margins. Naturally, organizations with high operating costs will be the hardest hit with impacts being felt in the second half of 2020.
2. The potential recession combined with mounting pressures to increase efficiency will lead to a renewed focus on reaching niche markets to expand business.
3. Protection and representation movement of identities will continue to gain strength and momentum in 2020 as more and more people recognize the importance of controlling their own personal data.
4. Horizontal and vertical consolidation along with increased synergies will continue throughout the industry.
5. The 4th industrial revolution (IoT, VR, AI, BC) will gather momentum and provide additional opportunities for the use of domain names.
6. The next round of new gTLD applications will encounter unanticipated challenges causing delays.
7. New gTLDs registrations will continue to grow in 2020.

Michele Neylon, CEO, Blacknight

I suspect we’ll see more consolidation across the domain and hosting space. Afilias will probably acquire a few more under-performing registry operators. Some will already be on their platform, while others will be using their competitors. CentralNic will continue to acquire companies that fit with their portfolio of services.
There’ll be more mergers and acquisitions across the hosting and domain registrar space with a small number of companies dominating most developed markets.
The PIR acquisition by Ethos Capital will close and the sky won’t fall. PIR will increase their wholesale price by a few percentage points which will upset domain investors. There’ll be increased calls on ICANN to take action, but these will be rebutted.
More country code operators will start using AI to combat abusive registrations. In some cases I suspect we’ll see more stringent registrant validation and verification policies being introduced, though many ccTLD operators will find it hard to balance maintaining new registration volumes while also increasing the overall “quality” of the registration base.
There’ll be an increase in internet shutdowns in less-developed democracies, while governments in Europe and elsewhere will increase pressure on social media companies to stop the spread of propaganda. Internet infrastructure companies will come under more pressure to deal with content issues.
As we enter a new decade the role of the internet in our daily lives, both business and personal will continue to grow.
The big challenges that lie ahead are going to be complex. Without increasing security there’s a tangible risk that consumers will lose trust in the system as a whole and governments will want to impose more regulations to ensure that. One of the challenges is going to be balancing those increased levels of security and consumer confidence while not stifling innovation.
It’s going to be a fun future!

Dave Piscitello, Partner, Interisle Consulting Group

Expect increased scrutiny of the domain registration business. Our study and others to follow will continue to expose enormous concentrations of abuse and criminal domain registrations at a small number of registrars.
Domains registered using bulk registration services will attract the most attention. We call these “burner domains”, because cybercriminals use these in a “register, use, and abandon” fashion that’s similar to how drug dealers use disposable or burner mobile phones.
Governments will become more insistent that ICANN does more than acknowledge their recommendations and then defer adoption. They will increase pressure to validate domain registration data and legitimate businesses will happily comply with the additional validation overhead because of the abuse mitigation benefits they’ll receive.
There’s a possibility that a government other than the EU will adopt a data protection regulation that exposes the flawed logic in the ill-conceived Temp Spec “one redaction fits all”. Having decided to “run with GDPR”, what will ICANN do when faced with a government that insists that email addresses be made public?
The governance model will also fall under scrutiny, as the “multi” in multi-stakeholder appears to be increasingly dominated by two stakeholder interests and public interest barely receives lip service.

Ben Crawford, CEO, CentralNic

• There will be more creative ways to bake identity, cyber security, crime prevention and policing, and IP protection measures into domains and registration services
• More registries will be auctioning their own deleting domains
• Large tech firms, finance players and telcos will play and increasing role in the domain industry
• Further consolidation of gTLDs as the bigger registry operators continue to acquire some of the smaller ones
• More regulations impacting the domain name industry
• Smart independents like .XYZ, Radix and .ICU (which went from zero to 4+ million DUMs in 18 months) will continue to dominate the nTLD space (without blowing $100m on the rights to their TLDs)

Jothan Frakes, Executive Director, Domain Name Association

Consolidation will continue — look for a lot of M&A activity and corporate development. Lots of moves and role changes with people changing companies as the consolidation occurs. With change comes great opportunity, and there will be a lot of change.
The industry is kicking off the year with oomph — the new location and format for NamesCon, billed as as the Domain Economic Forum in Austin. The event looks promising, as it begins refreshed and demonstrates the strengths of the team who produce Cloudfest. Austin, like Las Vegas, is a mecca for tech startups, but larger, so hopefully the convenience of the venue to the local tech companies, along with with GoDaddy demonstrating a heavier presence at the event this year will be a big lure to attract more new faces to this great industry (and event).
There will be more focus on making things easier for new customers to use and activate services on domain names. Cool technologies such as DomainConnect or other methods that enable “app store” type activation of domain names will continue to make it simpler for a domain name owner to activate, build and use their domains. This is a crucial evolutionary step in the business, as it plays a significant role in renewal rates and overall customer growth.
We’ll see further innovation in the use of domain names become more mainstream. IoT, GPS/Geo, AI, Bots, voice, AR/VR and other technologies will drive expanded use of domain names. Even Blockchain, which seems to have gotten more pragmatic about purpose, has a lot of promise with how it can interact with DNS now that the hype has scaled back and the designated drivers that remain are plowing forth with their efforts to deliver on the core purpose/benefits they set out to deliver.
Domains, as well as the cool things that you can do with them, will continue to be a growing business that enables people and organizations to build and do great things.

A very happy new year to all DI readers and supporters!

Introducing… the DI Leaders Roundtable

Today, I’m introducing what I hope to be the first of several regular features, the DI Leaders Roundtable.
Every week or two, I’ll be putting a single question to a collection of domain industry and ICANN community leaders and compiling their responses in order to gain some insight into current thoughts on hot topics or broader industry trends from some of the space’s top thinkers.
I’ve tried to reflect a broad cross-section of the industry, with a mix of business, policy and technical expertise from registries, registrars, back-ends, new gTLDs, legacy gTLDs, investors, etc.
The initial line-up for the panel, which will likely evolve as time goes by, is, in alphabetical order.
Ben Crawford, CEO, CentralNic
Crawford is CEO of CentralNic, a triple-play domain company based in London and listed on the Alternative Investment Market. Initially a vendor of pseudo-gTLDs such as uk.com and gb.com, CentralNic has over the course of the last seven years evolved into a company that sells both its own self-managed TLDs, such as .sk, as well as acting as a back-end for the likes of .xyz, .site and .online. Describing itself as a consolidator, the company nowadays makes most of its money via the registrar side of the house as a result of a series of mergers and acquisitions, particularly the merger with KeyDrive last year.
Jothan Frakes, Executive Director, Domain Name Association
A long-time industry jack-of-all-trades, Frakes is currently executive director of the Domain Name Association, the prominent industry trade group. Frakes has acted in a number of roles at domain name companies, as well as co-founding the popular NamesCon conference back in 2014. His technical credentials can be exemplified by, among other activities, his participation in Mozilla’s Public Suffix List, while his policy nous could be vouched for by many who have worked with him during his 20 years of ICANN participation.
Richard Kirkendall, CEO, NameCheap
Kirkendall founded leading budget registrar NameCheap in 2000 and has occupied the office of CEO ever since. A long-time Enom reseller, NameCheap’s popularity was for many years shrouded in mystery. It finally transferred the last of its Enom names over to its own accreditation in January 2018, revealing it to have 7.5 million gTLD names under management. It added a further two million over the next 18 months, and says it has over 10 million names in total. NameCheap is known for its low prices and for its occasional support for pro-freedom political causes such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Milton Mueller, Professor, Georgia Tech
Mueller is an academic and among the most prominent voices in ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. Based at the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, he founded the Internet Governance Project, an independent policy research outfit, in 2004. He’s the author of several books on the topic, and very active in ICANN policy development, including the current effort to balance privacy rights with commercial interests in the Whois system.
Jeff Neuman, Senior VP, Com Laude
Neuman is senior vice president of brand-protection registrar Com Laude and sister company Valideus, which provides new gTLD consultancy services to brand owners. From 2000 until 2015, he worked in senior policy and registry business roles at Neustar, helping to apply for and launch .biz in 2001. A noted ICANN policy expert, Neuman has sat on various ICANN working groups and currently co-chairs the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process, which is developing the rules for the next round of new gTLDs.
Jon Nevett, CEO, Public Interest Registry
Nevett is CEO of Public Interest Registry, which manages the 10-million-domain-strong legacy gTLD .org and a handful of new gTLDs. Prior to PIR, he was executive vice president of Donuts, and one of its four co-founders. He’s been in the domain business since 2004, when he joined Network Solutions as a senior VP on the policy side of the house. Nevett has also been involved in ICANN policy-making, including a stint as chair of the Registrars Constituency.
Michele Neylon, CEO, Blacknight
Neylon is CEO and co-founder of Blacknight Internet Solutions, a smaller registrar based in Ireland. Known for his “often outspoken” policy views, he’s a member of several ICANN working groups, sits on the GNSO Council representing registrars, and is a member of stakeholder group committees for various ccTLD registries including .eu, .ie and .us. Blacknight has almost 60,000 gTLD registrations to its name but also specializes in serving its local ccTLD market.
Dave Piscitello, Partner, Interisle Consulting Group
Piscitello is currently a partner at security consultancy Interisle Consulting Group, having retired from his role as vice president of security and ICT coordination at ICANN last year. With over 40 years in the security business, he’s also a board member of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE) and the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG). Interisle is an occasional ICANN security contractor.
Sandeep Ramchamdani, CEO, Radix Registry
Ramchandani is CEO of Mumbai-based new gTLD registry Radix, which currently has a portfolio of 10 gTLDs and one ccTLD. It’s known primarily for its low-cost, high-volume, pure-generic business model, which has seen its two best performers, .online and .site, rack up almost three million domains between them. Radix is a unit of Directi Group, which is where Ramchandani cut his teeth for almost a decade before taking the reins of Radix in 2012.
Frank Schilling, CEO, Uniregistry
Schilling started off as a domain investor at the second level, 19 years ago, eventually managing hundreds of thousands of secondary-market domains with his company Name Administration, before founding Uniregistry in order to invest in new gTLDs in 2012. As a registry, Uniregisty has about a quarter of a million names spread across its 22-TLD portfolio; as a registrar it has over 1.2 million domains under management. Schilling is widely considered one of the most successful domain investment pioneers.
Rick Schwartz, aka the “Domain King”
Schwartz is viewed by domain investors as one of the most successful domainers of all time, and is known for his forthright, blunt criticisms of both new gTLDs and poor domain investment strategies. He’s been buying and selling domain names since 1995, and has sold several category-killer .com domains for seven-figure sums. Schwartz also founded the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. domainer conference in 2004, and it ran for 10 years.

ICANN must do more to fight internet security threats [Guest Post]

ICANN and its contracted parties need to do more to tackle security threats, write Dave Piscitello and Lyman Chapin of Interisle Consulting.
The ICANN Registry and Registrar constituencies insist that ICANN’s role with respect to DNS abuse is limited by its Mission “to ensure the stable and secure operation of the internet’s unique identifier systems”, therefore limiting ICANN’s remit to abuse of the identifier systems themselves, and specifically excluding from the remit any harms that arise from the content to which the identifiers point.
In their view, if the harm arises not from the identifier, but from the thing identified, it is outside of ICANN’s remit.
This convenient formulation relieves ICANN and its constituencies of responsibility for the way in which identifiers are used to inflict harm on internet users. However convenient it may be, it is fundamentally wrong.
ICANN’s obligation to operate “for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole” (see Bylaws, “Commitments”) demands that its remit extend broadly to how a domain name (or other Internet identifier) is misused to point to or lure a user or application to content that is harmful, or to host content that is harmful.
Harmful content itself is not ICANN’s concern; the way in which internet identifiers are used to weaponize harmful content most certainly is.
Rather than confront these obligations, however, ICANN is conducting a distracting debate about the kinds of events that should be described as “DNS abuse”. This is tedious and pointless; the persistent overloading of the term “abuse” has rendered it meaningless, ensuring that any attempt to reach consensus on a definition will fail.
ICANN should stop using the term “DNS abuse” and instead use the term “security threat”.
The ICANN Domain Abuse Activity Reporting project and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) use this term, which is also a term of reference for new TLD program obligations (Spec 11) and related reporting activities. It is also widely used in the operational and cybersecurity communities.
Most importantly, the GAC and the DAAR project currently identify and seek to measure an initial set of security threats that are a subset of a larger set of threats that are recognized as criminal acts in jurisdictions in which a majority of domain names are registered.
ICANN should acknowledge the GAC’s reassertion in its Hyderabad Communique that the set of security threats identified in its Beijing correspondence to the ICANN Board were not an exhaustive list but merely examples. The GAC smartly recognized that the threat landscape is constantly evolving.
ICANN should not attempt to artificially narrow the scope of the term “security threat” by crafting its own definition.
It should instead make use of an existing internationally recognized criminal justice treaty. The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime is a criminal justice treaty that ICANN could use as a reference for identifying security threats that the Treaty recognizes as criminal acts.
The Convention is recognized by countries in which a sufficiently large percentage domain names are registered that it can serve the community and Internet users more effectively and fairly than any definition that ICANN might concoct.
ICANN should also acknowledge that the set of threats that fall within its remit must include all security events (“realized security threats”) in which a domain name is used during the execution of an attack for purposes of deception, for infringement on copyrights, for attacks that threaten democracies, or for operation of criminal infrastructures that are operated for the purpose of launching attacks or facilitating criminal (often felony) acts.
What is that remit?
ICANN policy and contracts must ensure that contracted parties (registrars and registries) collaborate with public and private sector authorities to disrupt or mitigate:

• illegal interception or computer-related forgery,
• attacks against computer systems or devices,
• illegal access, data interference, or system interference,
• infringement of intellectual property and related rights,
• violation of laws to ensure fair and free elections or undermine democracies, and
• child abuse and human trafficking.

We note that the Convention on Cybercrime identifies or provides Guidance Notes for these most prevalently executed attacks or criminal acts:

• Spam,
• Fraud. The forms of fraud that use domain names in criminal messaging include, business email compromise, advance fee fraud, phishing or other identity thefts.
• Botnet operation,
• DDoS Attacks: in particular, redirection and amplification attacks that exploit the DNS
• Identity theft and phishing in relation to fraud,
• Attacks against critical infrastructures,
• Malware,
• Terrorism, and,
• Election interference.

In all these cases, the misuse of internet identifiers to pursue the attack or criminal activity is squarely within ICANN’s remit.
Registries or registrars should be contractually obliged to take actions that are necessary to mitigate these misuses, including suspension of name resolution, termination of domain name registrations, “unfiltered and unmasked” reporting of security threat activity for both registries and registrars, and publication or disclosure of information that is relevant to mitigating misuses or disrupting cyberattacks.
No one is asking ICANN to be the Internet Police.
The “ask” is to create policy and contractual obligations to ensure that registries and registrars collaborate in a timely and uniform manner. Simply put, the “ask” is to oblige all of the parties to play on the same team and to adhere to the same rules.
This is unachievable in the current self-regulating environment, in which a relatively small number of outlier registries and registrars are the persistent loci of extraordinary percentages of domain names associated with cyberattacks or cybercrimes and the current contracts offer no provisions to suspend or terminate their operations.
This is a guest editorial written by Dave Piscitello and Lyman Chapin, of security consultancy Interisle Consulting Group. Interisle has been an occasional ICANN security contractor, and Piscitello until last year was employed as vice president of security and ICT coordination on ICANN staff. The views expressed in this piece do not necessary reflect DI’s own.

ICANN slashes new gTLD income forecast AGAIN

ICANN has yet again been forced to lower its funding expectations from new gTLDs, as the industry continues to face growth challenges.
In its latest draft fiscal year 2019 budget, likely to be approved at the end of the month, it’s cut $1.7 million from the amount it expects to receive in new gTLD transaction fees.
That’s even after cutting its estimates for fiscal 2018 in half just a few months back.
New gTLD registry transaction fees — the $0.25 collected whenever a new gTLD domain is registered, renewed or transferred, provided that the gTLD has over 50,000 domains under management — are now estimated at $5.1 million for FY19
That’s up just $500,000 from where it expects FY18, which ends June 30 this year, to finish off.
But it’s down $900,000 or 15% from the $6 million in transaction fees it was forecasting just four months ago.
It’s also still a huge way off the $8.7 million ICANN had predicted for FY18 in March 2017.
Registrar new gTLD transaction fees for FY19, paid by registrars regardless of the size of the TLD, are now estimated to come in at $4.3 million, up $400,000 from the expect FY18 year-end sum.
But, again, that number is down $800,000 from the $5.1 million in registrar fees that ICANN was forecasting in its first-draft FY19 budget.
In short, even when it was slashing its FY18 expectations in half, it was still over-confident on FY19.
On the bright side, at least ICANN is predicting some growth in new gTLD transactions.
And the story is almost exactly reversed when it comes to pre-2012 gTLDs.
For legacy gTLD registry transaction fees — the majority of which are paid by Verisign for .com and .net — ICANN has upped its expectations for FY19 to $49.6 million, compared to its January estimate of $48.7 million (another $900,000 difference, but in the opposite direction).
That growth will be offset by lower growth at the registrar level, where transaction fees for legacy gTLDs are now expected to be $30.2 million for FY19, compared to its January estimate of $30.4 million, a $200,000 deficit.
None of ICANN’s estimates for FY18 transaction fees have changed since the previous budget draft.
But ICANN has also slashed its expectation in terms of fixed fees from new gTLD registries — the $25,000 a year they all must pay regardless of volume.
The org now expects to end FY18 with 1,218 registries paying fees and for that to creep up slightly to 1,221 by the end of FY19.
Back in January, it was hoping to have 1,228 and 1,231 at those milestones respectively.
Basically, it’s decided that 10 TLDs it expected to start paying fees this year actually won’t, and that they won’t next year either. These fixed fees kick in when TLDs are delegated and stop when the contract is terminated.
It now expects registry fixed fees (legacy and new) of $30.5 million for FY19, down from expected $30.6 million for FY18 and and down from its January prediction of $31.1 million.
ICANN’s budget documents can be downloaded here.

NamesCon dumps the Trop, eyeing beaches for 2020

GoDaddy-owned annual domain industry conference NamesCon has decided to ditch Las Vegas after its 2019 event.
The show is now looking for ideas for a new location close to a beach, according to a post on its web site.
The January event next year will be held at the Tropicana hotel on the Vegas strip, for the sixth year running, but NamesCon said:

if you have any city/venue suggestions you’d like to throw in the hat for NamesCon Global 2020, send them our way! Here’s a hint to steer you in the right direction: we’re looking to be leaving Las Vegas, and we’d love to sink our feet into a sandy beach somewhere…

The current industry thinking is either Florida or California.
The change comes following feedback from attendees at this year’s show, who seem to think the Trop is a little pokey (it is) with crappy food options (also true, particularly if you’re a picky eater like me).
On the other hand, the hotel is also cheap as chips, so NamesCon is looking for somewhere new that is just as affordable for 2020 and beyond.
NamesCon is promising to “send ourselves off in style” at the 2019 show, which runs January 27 to 30.
As a matter of disclosure, I’ve agreed to moderate a panel at sister event NamesCon Europe in Spain next month. I’m not being compensated beyond a complementary media pass.

ICANN flips off governments over Whois privacy

ICANN has formally extended its middle finger to its Governmental Advisory Committee for only the third time, telling the GAC that it cannot comply with its advice on Whois privacy.
It’s triggered a clause in its bylaws used to force both parties to the table for urgent talks, first used when ICANN clashed with the GAC on approving .xxx back in 2010.
The ICANN board of directors has decided that it cannot accept nine of the 10 bulleted items of formal advice on compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation that the GAC provided after its meetings in Puerto Rico in March.
Among that advice is a direction that public Whois records should continue to contain the email address of the registrant after GDPR goes into effect May 25, and that parties with a “legitimate purpose” in Whois data should continue to get access.
Of the 10 pieces of advice, ICANN proposes kicking eight of them down the road to be dealt with at a later date.
It’s given the GAC a face-saving way to back away from these items by clarifying that they refer not to the “interim” Whois model likely to come into effect at the GDPR deadline, but to the “ultimate” model that could come into effect a year later after the ICANN community’s got its shit together.
Attempting to retcon GAC advice is not unusual when ICANN disagrees with its governments, but this time at least it’s being up-front about it.
ICANN chair Cherine Chalaby told GAC chair Manal Ismail:

Reaching a common understanding of the GAC’s advice in relation to the Interim Model (May 25) versus the Ultimate Model would greatly assist the Board’s deliberations on the GAC’s advice.

Of the remaining two items of advice, ICANN agrees with one and proposes immediate talks on the other.
One item, concerning the deployment of a Temporary Policy to enforce a uniform Whois on an emergency basis, ICANN says it can accept immediately. Indeed, the Temporary Policy route we first reported on a month ago now appears to be a done deal.
ICANN has asked the GAC for a teleconference this week to discuss the remaining item, which is:

Ensure continued access to the WHOIS, including non-public data, for users with a legitimate purpose, until the time when the interim WHOIS model is fully operational, on a mandatory basis for all contracted parties;

Basically, the GAC is trying to prevent the juicier bits of Whois from going dark for everyone, including the likes of law enforcement and trademark lawyers, two weeks from now.
The problem here is that while ICANN has tacit agreement from European data protection authorities that a tiered-access, accreditation-based model is probably a good idea, no such system currently exists and until very recently it’s not been something in which ICANN has invested a lot of focus.
A hundred or so members of the ICANN community, led by IP lawyers who won’t take no for an answer, are currently working off-the-books on an interim accreditation model that could feasibly be used, but it is still subject to substantial debate.
In any event, it would be basically impossible for any agreed-upon accreditation solution to be implemented across the industry before May 25.
So ICANN has invoked its bylaws fuck-you powers for only the third time in its history.
The first time was when the GAC opposed .xxx for reasons lost in the mists of time back in 2010. The second was in 2014 when the GAC overstepped its powers and told ICANN to ignore the rest of the community on the issue of Red Cross related domains.
The board resolved at a meeting last Thursday:

the Board has determined that it may take an action that is not consistent or may not be consistent with the GAC’s advice in the San Juan Communiqué concerning the GDPR and ICANN’s proposed Interim GDPR Compliance Model, and hereby initiates the required Board-GAC Bylaws Consultation Process required in such an event. The Board will provide written notice to the GAC to initiate the process as required by the Bylaws Consultation Process.

Chalaby asked Ismail (pdf) for a call this week. I don’t know if that call has yet taken place, but given the short notice I expect it has not.
For the record, here’s the GAC’s GDPR advice from its Puerto Rico communique (pdf).

the GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct the ICANN Organization to:
i. Ensure that the proposed interim model maintains current WHOIS requirements to the fullest extent possible;
ii. Provide a detailed rationale for the choices made in the interim model, explaining their necessity and proportionality in relation to the legitimate purposes identified;
iii. In particular, reconsider the proposal to hide the registrant email address as this may not be proportionate in view of the significant negative impact on law enforcement, cybersecurity and rights protection;
iv. Distinguish between legal and natural persons, allowing for public access to WHOIS data of legal entities, which are not in the remit of the GDPR;
v. Ensure continued access to the WHOIS, including non-public data, for users with a legitimate purpose, until the time when the interim WHOIS model is fully operational, on a mandatory basis for all contracted parties;
vi. Ensure that limitations in terms of query volume envisaged under an accreditation program balance realistic investigatory crossreferencing needs; and
vii. Ensure confidentiality of WHOIS queries by law enforcement agencies.
b. the GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct the ICANN Organization to:
i. Complete the interim model as swiftly as possible, taking into account the advice above. Once the model is finalized, the GAC will complement ICANN’s outreach to the Article 29 Working Party, inviting them to provide their views;
ii. Consider the use of Temporary Policies and/or Special Amendments to ICANN’s standard Registry and Registrar contracts to mandate implementation of an interim model and a temporary access mechanism; and
iii. Assist in informing other national governments not represented in the GAC of the opportunity for individual governments, if they wish to do so, to provide information to ICANN on governmental users to ensure continued access to WHOIS.

Iceland breaks ranks on Whois, will publish emails

Iceland’s ccTLD has become what I believe is the first registry to state that it will continue to publish email addresses in public Whois records after the General Data Protection Regulation comes into effect.
The move seems to put the registry, ISNIC, in direct conflict with the opinions of European data protection authorities.
The company said in a statement last week that after GDPR comes into effect May 25 it will stop publishing almost all personal information about .is registrants in the public Whois.
However, it broke ranks with other European ccTLDs and the likely ruleset for ICANN-regulated gTLDs, by saying it would not expunge email addresses:

ISNIC will however, at least for the time being, continue to publish email addresses, country and techincal information of all NIC-handles associated with .is domains. Those customers (individuals) who have recorded a personally identifiable email address, and do not want it published, will need to change their .is WHOIS email address to something impersonal.

Registrants will be able to opt in to having their full details published.
ISNIC appears to be taking a principled stand against the Draconian regulation. It said in a statement:

Assuming that GDPR directive applies fully to the “WHOIS” service provided for decades by most ccTLD registries, these new restrictions will lead to less transparency in domain registrations and less trust in the domain registration system in general. ISNIC, as many others, strongly disagrees with the view of the European parlament [sic] in this matter and warns that GDPR, as it is being implemented, will neither lead to better privacy nor a safer network environment.

It’s a surprising decision, given that privacy regulators have indicated that they agree that email addresses are personal data that should not be published.
The Article 29 Working Party told ICANN earlier this month that it “welcomed” a proposal to replace email addresses with anonymized emails or web-based contact forms.

Bling-maker kills off fifth dot-brand gTLD

Richemont, the company behind brands such as Cartier jewelry and Mont Blanc pens, has terminated its fifth dot-brand gTLD.
It filed with ICANN to terminate its registry contract for .iwc earlier this month.
IWC is a Swiss brand of expensive watches, but its dot-brand has never been used to any notable extent.
The company had registered the domain watches.iwc, which it apparently planned to use for URL redirection via Rebrandly.
It’s the third gTLD Richemont has voluntarily terminated, after .montblanc and .chloe last year.
The company also withdrew its unopposed applications for .netaporter and .mrporter back in 2014, before it actually signed contracts with ICANN.
Richemont was one of the more prolific dot-brand applicants, applying for 14 gTLDs in total back in 2012.
It also applied for (defensively?) and won the generic .watches and some translations.
While the .watches gTLD has been live in the DNS for two and a half years, Richemont has not yet set a launch date and has not yet said who will even be eligible to buy domains there.

Marby ponders emergency powers to avoid fragmented Whois

ICANN could invoke emergency powers in its contracts to prevent Whois becoming “fragmented” after EU privacy laws kick in next month.
That’s a possibility that emerged during a DI interview with ICANN CEO Goran Marby yesterday.
Marby told us that he’s “cautiously optimistic” that European data protection authorities will soon provide clear guidance that will help the domain industry become compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation, which becomes fully effective May 25.
But he said that a lack of such guidance will lead to a situation where different companies provide different levels of public Whois.
“It’s a a high probability that Whois goes fragmented or that Whois will be in a sort of ‘thin’ model in which very little information is collected and very little information is displayed,” he said. “That’s a sort of worst-case scenario.”
I should note that the interview was conducted yesterday before news broke that Afilias has become the first major gTLD registry to announce its Whois output will be essentially thin — eschewing all registrant contact data — from May 25.
Marby has asked European DPAs for two things.
First, guidance on whether its “Cookbook” proposal for a dramatically scaled-back, GDPR-compliant Whois is in fact GDPR-compliant.
Second, an enforcement moratorium while registries and registrars actually go about implementing the Cookbook.
“If we don’t get guidance that’s clear enough, we will see a fragmented Whois. If we get guidance that is clear enough we can work it out,” Marby said.
A moratorium could enable Whois to carry on in its current state, or something close to it, while ICANN goes about creating a new policy that fits with the DPA’s guidance.
If the DPAs refuse a moratorium, we’re looking at a black hole of indeterminate duration during which nobody — not even law enforcement or self-appointed trademark cops — can easily access full Whois records.
“It’s not something I can do anything about, it’s really in the hands of the DPAs,” Marby said. “Remember that it’s the law.”
While ICANN has expended most of its effort to date on creating a model for the public Whois, there’s a parallel effort to create an accreditation program that would enable organizations with “legitimate purposes” to access full, or at least more complete, Whois records.
It’s the IP lawyers that are driving this effort, primarily, terrified that their ability to hunt down cybersquatters and bootleggers will be diminished come May 25.
ICANN has so far resisted calls to endorse the so-called “Cannoli” draft accreditation model, with Marby publicly saying that it needs cross-community support.
But the organization has committed staff support resources to discussion of Cannoli. There’s a new mailing list and there will be a community conference call this coming Friday at 1400 UTC.
Marby said that he shares the worries of the IP community, adding: “If we get the proper guidance from the DPAs, we will know how to sort out the accreditation model.”
He met with the Article 29 Working Party, comprised of DPAs, last week; the group agreed to put Whois on its agenda for its meeting next week, April 10-11.
The fact that it’s up for discussion is what gives Marby his cautious optimism that he will get the guidance he needs.
Assuming the DPAs deliver, ICANN is then in the predicament of having to figure out a way to enforce, via its contracts, a Whois system that is compliant with the DPAs’ interpretation of GDPR.
Usually, this would require a GNSO Policy Development Process leading to a binding Consensus Policy.
But Marby said ICANN’s board of directors has other options, such as what he called an “emergency policy”.
This is a reference, I believe, to the “Temporary Policies” clauses, which can be found in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Registry Agreement.
Such policies can be mandated by a super-majority vote of the board, would have to be narrowly tailored to solve the specific problem at hand, and could be in effect no longer than one year.
A temporary policy could be replaced by a compatible, community-created Consensus Policy.
It’s possible that a temporary policy could, for example, force Afilias and others to reverse their plans to switch to thin Whois.
But that’s perhaps getting ahead of ourselves.
Fact is, the advice the DPAs provide following their Article 29 meeting next week is what’s going to define Whois for the foreseeable future.
If the guidance is clear, the ICANN organization and community will have their direction of travel mapped out for them.
If it’s vague, wishy-washy, and non-committal, then it’s likely that only the European Court of Justice will be able to provide clarity. And that would take many years.
And whatever the DPAs say, Marby says it is “highly improbable” that Whois will continue to exist in its current form.
“The GDPR will have an effect on the Whois system. Not everybody will get access to the Whois system. Not everybody will have as easy access as before,” he said.
“That’s not a bug, that’s a feature of the legislation,” he said. “That’s not ICANN’s fault, it’s what the legislator thought when it made this legislation. It is the legislators’ intention to make sure people’s data is handled in a different way going forward, so it will have an effect.”
The community awaits the DPAs’ guidance with baited breath.

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.